Solution Manual for Discovering the

Universe 10th Edition by Comins ISBN

1464140863 9781464140860
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankpack.com/download/solution-manual-for-discovering-the-universe-10th
-edition-by-comins-isbn-1464140863-9781464140860/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Test Bank for Discovering the Universe 10th Edition by

Comins ISBN 1464140863 9781464140860

https://testbankpack.com/download/test-bank-for-discovering-the-
universe-10th-edition-by-comins-isbn-1464140863-9781464140860/

Solution Manual for Discovering the Essential Universe

6th Edition by Comins ISBN 1464181705 9781464181702

https://testbankpack.com/download/solution-manual-for-
discovering-the-essential-universe-6th-edition-by-comins-
isbn-1464181705-9781464181702/

Test Bank for Discovering the Essential Universe 6th

Edition by Comins ISBN 1464181705 9781464181702

https://testbankpack.com/download/test-bank-for-discovering-the-
essential-universe-6th-edition-by-comins-
isbn-1464181705-9781464181702/

Solution Manual for Discovering the Internet Brief 5th

Edition by Jennifer Campbell ISBN 1285845412
9781285845418

https://testbankpack.com/download/solution-manual-for-
discovering-the-internet-brief-5th-edition-by-jennifer-campbell-
isbn-1285845412-9781285845418/
Solution Manual for Discovering the Life Span 1st
Edition by Feldman and Landry ISBN 0133152693
9780133152692

https://testbankpack.com/download/solution-manual-for-
discovering-the-life-span-1st-edition-by-feldman-and-landry-
isbn-0133152693-9780133152692/

Solution Manual for Discovering the Lifespan Canadian

2nd Edition by Feldman and Landry ISBN 0133902706
9780133902709

https://testbankpack.com/download/solution-manual-for-
discovering-the-lifespan-canadian-2nd-edition-by-feldman-and-
landry-isbn-0133902706-9780133902709/

Solution Manual for Horizons Exploring the Universe

Enhanced 13th Edition Seeds Backman Montgomery
1133610633 9781133610632

https://testbankpack.com/download/solution-manual-for-horizons-
exploring-the-universe-enhanced-13th-edition-
seeds-1133610633-9781133610632/

Test Bank for Discovering the Internet Brief 5th

Edition by Jennifer Campbell ISBN 1285845412
9781285845418

https://testbankpack.com/download/test-bank-for-discovering-the-
internet-brief-5th-edition-by-jennifer-campbell-
isbn-1285845412-9781285845418/

Test Bank for Discovering the Lifespan Canadian 2nd

Edition by Feldman and Landry ISBN 0133902706
9780133902709

https://testbankpack.com/download/test-bank-for-discovering-the-
lifespan-canadian-2nd-edition-by-feldman-and-landry-
isbn-0133902706-9780133902709/
 Solution Manual for Discovering the Universe 10th Edition by Comins
ISBN 1464140863 9781464140860

Full link download

Test Bank: https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-discovering-the-
universe-10th-edition-by-comins-isbn-1464140863-9781464140860/
Solution Manual:
https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-discovering-the-universe-
10th-edition-by-comins-isbn-1464140863-9781464140860/

Gravitation and the

Waltz of the Planets 2
Chapter Outline
2-1 Science is both a body of knowledge and a process of learning about nature
2-2 The belief in a Sun-centered cosmology formed slowly
2-3 Copernicus devised the first comprehensive heliocentric cosmology
2-4 Tycho Brahe made astronomical observations that disproved ancient ideas about the
heavens
2-5 Kepler’s laws describe orbital shapes, changing speeds, and the lengths of planetary
years
2-6 Galileo’s discoveries strongly supported a heliocentric cosmology
2-7 Newton formulated three laws that describe fundamental properties of physical
reality
2-8 Newton’s description of gravity accounts for Kepler’s laws
2-9 Frontiers yet to be discovered
In This Chapter Students Will Discover…
• What makes a theory scientific
• The scientific discoveries that revealed that Earth is not the center of the universe, as
previously believed
• Copernicus’s argument that the planets orbit the Sun
• Why the direction of motion of each planet on the celestial sphere sometimes appears to
change
• That Kepler’s determination of the shapes of planetary orbits depended on the careful
observations of his mentor Tycho Brahe
• How Isaac Newton formulated an equation to describe the force of gravity and how
he thereby explained why the planets and moons remain in orbit

Suggested Learning Objectives

At the end of this chapter, the student should be able to
1. Compare and contrast the Ptolemaic and Copernican cosmologies by explaining a variety
of naked-eye observations, using both models.
2. State Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion; describe the geometric content and
observational consequences of each.
3. List Galileo’s telescopic observations and explain the success or failure of Ptolemaic and
Copernican models in accounting for them.
4. State and identify examples of Newton’s three laws of motion.
5. State Newton’s law of universal gravitation; identify the characteristics of this law that
explain Kepler’s laws in terms of Newton’s laws.
18 18

Teaching Hints and Strategies

This chapter deals with the development of concepts of motion. It provides an opportunity to enhance
student understanding of the role of scientific models by comparing Ptolemaic, Copernican,
Keplerian, and Newtonian planetary theory. It is worth emphasizing that this historical sequence
involves much more than a change in the inferred architecture of the planetary system. The gradual
acceptance of the Copernican, and later the Keplerian, system was one of several circumstances that
stimulated intense scientific interest in the problem of motion during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. Not until the publication of Newton’s Principia did dynamical theory regain compatibility
with planetary theory. With the consolidation of the Newtonian system, even the standards for what a
scientific model should do had changed dramatically.
The constant change in human understanding of the universe is very disturbing for students who
just want to know what is “right.” An understanding of this constant change should be a central issue
in any general education science course. Excellent background material can be found in the first 15
chapters of Foundations of Modern Physical Science by G. Holton and D. H. D. Roller (Addison-
Wesley, 1958) and in The Copernican Revolution by Thomas Kuhn (Harvard University Press, 1957).
The introductory section and Astronomer’s Toolbox 2-1 deal with the efforts of ancient astronomers
to observe and describe planetary motions. The geocentric theories, which were origi- nated by the
ancient Greeks, were based on the assumptions that the Earth is stationary and that the motion of
celestial objects is uniform motion on a circular path. A class discussion of the obser- vational basis for
these assumptions can lead students to examine the scientific merit of these early cosmologies. Their
acquaintance with the celestial sphere/ecliptic model in Chapter 1 will help stu- dents to recognize the
viability of a geocentric point of view for explaining diurnal motions and sec- ular solar or lunar
motions. A brief summary of the Aristotelian theory of motion is necessary if students are to appreciate
that the reliance upon deferents, epicycles, and other Ptolemaic structures was neither arbitrary nor
bizarre. By carefully contrasting the Aristotelian and Newtonian perspec- tives, an instructor can
enhance student understanding of both and reveal the extent to which “com- mon sense” is substantially
Aristotelian, whereas Newtonian concepts are nontrivially abstract.
A discussion of archaeoastronomy and such sites as Stonehenge (Great Britain) or Chimney Rock
(Colorado) will develop the students’ appreciation for pre-modern astronomy. Discussion of the need
for accurate calendars in early civilizations will provide an understanding of the applied nature of
ancient astronomy.
Section 2-1 introduces the Copernican heliocentric system in the context of planetary configu-
rations. The description of retrograde motion in the Copernican system is quite different from that in
the geocentric system, and this difference should be emphasized. In addition, the differences between
sidereal and synodic periods should be discussed. Note that, whereas the synodic period is directly
measurable, the sidereal period is not. Indeed, the sidereal period is a Copernican theoretical construct
that plays no role in the Ptolemaic model; if one assumes a heliocentric model, the sidereal period
assumes a counterfeit degree of “obviousness” absent in a geocentric framework. It is worth
emphasizing to students that Copernicus advocated his model primarily on mathematical, aesthetic,
and philosophical grounds. The archive of astronomical observations available to him and his
contemporaries was explained just as successfully by the Ptolemaic model as by his heliocentric
model. Astronomical tables (predictions) based on the Copernican model did provide a better match
to later observations, but it is easy to understand why scientifically conservative contemporaries did not
rush to embrace the new model.

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

19 19

Tycho’s observations mentioned in Section 2-2 were crucial for further progress in understanding
the structure of the solar system because they were the most accurate observations ever performed.

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

20 20

Remind students that the telescope had not yet been invented. Despite being a great observer, Tycho
was not a great human being. Students are often fascinated with Tycho’s lifestyle and therefore a
short discussion of it sparks their interest.
Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are presented in Section 2-3. The following classroom demon-
stration can be helpful in showing the properties of ellipses but also in developing a feeling for this
difficult concept, which Kepler had solved. Use a 9″ by 15″ Styrofoam block and map tacks as an ellipse
maker. Make a loop of string to generate a circle with a radius equal to 4 inches. Mark foci at half -inch
intervals along a horizontal line to generate ellipses, using several pens of different colors. The circle
and ellipses have eccentricities equal to 0, 0.14, 0.33, and 0.6 for the first four figures. Generate these
in front of the class and compute the eccentricities. Most students find it peculiar that the first two
ellipses look like circles. Mark one of the foci for each ellipse with the appropriate colored pen.
Have the students compare the eccentricities of planetary orbits given in Table A-1 (Appendix at the
end of the book) with those of the ellipses generated. The result is that all planetary orbits correspond
to low-eccentricity ellipses that are almost indistinguishable from eccentric circles, that is, circles with
the Sun located at a position offset from the center by an amount proportional to the eccentricity. Note
that the use of eccentric rather than concentric circles allowed Hipparchus and Ptolemy to explain, for
instance, the variation in apparent solar orbital speed (indicated by the unequal subdivision of the
solar year by equinoxes and solstices) without abandoning the dynamical principal of uniform circular
motion. It is instructive to point out that Kepler’s laws constitute an empirical description of planetary
motion but provide no physical explanation. Their descriptive success, however, stimulated Newton’s
search for an adequate dynamical theory. For Kepler and many of his contemporaries, that search
was for a plausible tangential force that weakened with distance from the Sun. Newton was the first to
recognize that a radial force was required to account for planetary orbits.
Galileo’s telescopic observations (Section 2-4) provide an excellent example of the use of obser-
vations to test a scientific theory. The discovery of Jupiter’s Galilean satellites removed the unique-
ness of the Earth as a second center of motion in the Copernican system. The sequence of phases and
apparent sizes of Venus were shown by Galileo to be consistent with a heliocentric but not with a
geocentric cosmology. This critical test should be carefully demonstrated with a light source and sphere.
Be careful to investigate an adequate sample of Venus’s orbital positions in each system, identifying the
configuration, apparent size, and phase of the planet at each position.
Newton’s laws of motion (Section 2-5) require careful attention because most students cling to a
quasi-Aristotelian conceptual picture even after lengthy (and, from the instructor’s perspective, lucid)
discussion. Recent research in physics education has provided pedagogically useful insights into the
nature and persistence of the conceptual difficulties experienced by most students when they first
encounter Newtonian kinematics and dynamics. Instructors who hope to convey substantial
understanding of these topics will find an invaluable commentary on this research in Guide to
Introductory Physics Teaching by Arnold Arons (Wiley, 1990). Lecture demonstrations with rolling
balls, moving carts, and so on are helpful in assuring that the students appreciate the difference between
velocity and acceleration. The concept of a force is relatively easy for students to grasp; however, the
idea of forces acting without contact is somewhat foreign at first. They will accept this idea because of
their previous exposure to gravity as the explanation for falling bodies.
In one respect, the law of inertia is easily demonstrated by using a feather and a coin in a tube,
which can be evacuated by means of a vacuum pump. (This experiment was performed by Apollo
astronauts on the Moon, using a feather and a hammer, and is available on film loops or videodiscs.)
Yet, the idea that external forces are always required for the persistence of motion is very difficult to
overcome. The robustness of this Aristotelian preconception illustrates how difficult it is for most
students to acquire the full Newtonian perspective. It is important in lectures to examine
“commonsense” experience, for instance, by identifying the “hidden” forces due to wind resistance

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

21 21

and friction that explain the need for constant force to achieve uniform linear motion. But hands-on
experience with low-friction demonstration apparatus is the most effective teaching tool. Instructors
whose resources include such laboratory equipment would be wise to consider incorporating it in
their astronomy syllabi.
Two subtle aspects of Newton’s second law are the vector nature of forces and the concept of a
net force. All forces do not produce accelerations; only net forces do. Accelerations always occur in
the direction of the net force. This fact is an essential element in the recognition of the third law of
motion. Newton’s third law is very difficult for students to accept. They frequently become confused
when applying the second and third laws together. If all forces are equal and opposite, how can nonzero
net force ever arise? Remind the students that the equal and opposite forces in an action- reaction pair
are always applied to different objects. It is helpful to discuss two general problems in relation to this
law. The first has to do with hidden forces. Frequently, the presence of the reaction force is masked by
friction. The second has to do with mass differences. The third law says that the forces are equal in
magnitude. Two objects having very different masses undergo (by the second law) very different
accelerations. Remember to point out that acceptance of this law requires that “no” celestial object is
fixed and at the center of the universe. This conclusion is the first implication that the concept of the
“center” of the universe may not be as straightforward as it once appeared. Universal gravitation
can be presented as a logical extension of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and Galileo’s experimental
results with falling bodies—the Moon and the apple! The concepts of induction and deduction
are neatly presented in Newton’s development of the laws of motion and gravitation and his subsequent
derivation of Kepler’s laws. The inverse square nature of gravitational forces should be emphasized
because it appears later in other contexts. The derivation of Kepler’s laws is an excellent example of
the predictive nature of a successful scientific theory. The derived forms of Kepler’s law are much more
general and are shown to be just special cases that result from the three basic laws of motion and
universal gravitation.
It is also interesting to note here that the Newtonian synthesis, the use of the same laws to explain
celestial and terrestrial motion, is a turning point in the development of astronomy. The ancient
(Aristotelian) view held that the Earth and the heavens were governed by different rules and made of
different materials. If this were the case, then our terrestrial experiences could not be used to understand
celestial objects. Newton explained the motion of apples and moons using the same rules. The
assumption that celestial bodies are subject to the same laws of nature as is the Earth is an essential
ingredient in modern astronomy and removes the Earth forever from the unique position it held in
ancient science.

Class Discussion and Projects

1. Using Starry Night™ to plot the retrograde motion of Mars and the other superior planets is a
rewarding and worthwhile class assignment. If your classroom has a video projection system, project
the image and discuss what is happening at each stage of the motion.
2. Compare the Ptolemaic and Copernican explanations for the observed path of a given planet on the
sky (perhaps determined as in number 1, above). In the Ptolemaic case, the students can determine the
periods, rotational directions, and ratio of deferent and epicycle radii that will yield the observed motion.
Note that the relative radii are not uniquely determined by the motion; hence, the Ptolemaic model lacks
a natural scale. In the Copernican case, the required parameters are the ratio of orbital radii and the
ratio of sidereal periods. Note that one of the Ptolemaic solutions is numerically identical to the
Copernican solution, thereby demonstrating that the deferential and epicyclic motions are images
of the two Copernican orbital motions.

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

22 22

3. Discuss the role of verification in modern scientific theories in the context of Newton’s derivation
of Kepler’s laws, and the experimental verification of the theory of relativity.
Review Questions
1. Newton proposed and developed the law of gravitation.
2. (b) The Earth orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit.
3. (b) Uranus takes the longest because it is the farthest from the Sun.
4. A Sun-centered model is a heliocentric model.
5. A sidereal period is measured with respect to the distant stars. The sidereal period of the Earth is
365.26 days.
6. By placing the Sun at the center of the solar system, the retrograde motion of the superior planets
can be explained by visualizing the Earth on an inside track overtaking and passing the superior
planet on the outer track. The same applies for Mercury and Venus as they pass the Earth in their
orbits around the Sun.
7. Inferior planets, Mercury and Venus, can never go through opposition, which is when planets are
on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun. Superior planets can never be seen at inferior
conjunction, which is when the planet is between the Earth and the Sun.
8. In either case, the best time to observe a planet is when it appears farthest in angle from the Sun.
Mercury or Venus can therefore be seen best at greatest eastern or western elongation. Mars, Jupiter,
and Saturn are best seen at opposition.
9. The sidereal periods are the true orbital periods. They are measured with reference to the position
of a planet or other body compared to the background stars. The synodic periods express the time
taken to cycle through the configurations, such as superior conjunction to superior conjunction.
10. Kepler deduced three laws of planetary motion from Tycho Brahe’s observational data. The first
law states that the planets orbit around the Sun in elliptical paths with the Sun at one focus. His
second law says that a line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times. The
consequence of this second law is that planets move faster the closer they are to the Sun, while
slowing down the farther they are away from it. The third law states that the square of a planet’s sidereal
period around the Sun is directly proportional to the cube of the length of the semimajor axis of its
orbit. This law implies that for any pair of planets, the one that has the greater average distance from
the Sun has the longer year. The three laws are important because they summarize how planets orbit
the Sun and how moons orbit planets.
11. The phases of Venus and the brightness of Venus at its various phases are only possible if Venus
orbits the Sun. The motion of Jupiter’s satellites provided evidence for objects orbiting an object
other than the Earth.
12. Whereas his predecessors, like Kepler, approached planetary motion from astronomical
observations, Newton approached it from a theoretical, mathematical description of gravity. His
equations described the orbits of the planets, as well as the motion of other objects, but he derived
them first from principles using gravitational theory. Comparison of the predictions of Newton’s
equations with the predictions of Kepler’s laws (deduced from observed motion), served to test the
validity of the equations.
13. Weight is the force of attraction on a mass due to the gravity of the Earth or any other body. Mass
is a measure of the number of particles an object has, regardless of its location.

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

23 23

14. The existence and location of Neptune were correctly predicted from Newton’s law of universal
gravitation in advance of Neptune’s discovery. Its presence was inferred by its gravitational effect on
the orbit of Uranus.
15. An astronaut has to exert a force on a weightless object to move it because the object has inertia.
Inertia is the resistance any object has to changing its direction of motion or speed.
Advanced Questions
16. Use the definitions of kinetic energy and momentum:
1
KE = 2 mv 2 and p = mv

p 2 = m 2 v2
p2 = 1 mv2
2m 2
p2 = KE
2m

17. Use the conversion factors from Astronomer’s Toolbox 2-1:

(a) 1 pc = 3.26 ly. So, 8.3 pc × 3.26 ly/pc = 27.058 ly = 27.1 ly.
(b) 6.52 ly × (1 pc/3.26 ly) = 2.00 pc.
(c) 1 AU = 1.5 × 108 km. 8450 AU × 1.5 × 108 km/AU = 1.27 × 1012 km ≅ 1.3 × 1012 km.
(d) 1 kpc = 103 pc and 1 Mpc = 106 pc. 2.7 × 103 Mpc × 103 kpc/Mpc = 2.7 × 106 kpc.
18. No, it is not possible for any object other than Earth in the solar system to have a synodic period
of exactly one year. Kepler’s laws show that all objects at different distances from the Sun have different
orbital periods. If an object were farther from the Sun than Earth, that object would have to move faster
than its normal orbital speed for it to have a synodic period of one year and thus be aligned with
the Earth at the same time each year. One that was closer would have to move more slowly than normal
to have the same synodic period as Earth. There is no mechanism for speeding up or slowing down a
body in space. If the object were in the same orbit as the Earth, it would never change position with
respect to us and so it would not have a synodic period.
19. The time from one opposition to the next is a superior planet’s synodic period. The farther a
planet is from the Sun, the slower that planet orbits the Sun. Therefore, the farther the planet is from
the Sun, the more quickly the Earth can return to being directly between it and the Sun that is, the
shorter the time from opposition to opposition compared to the same intervals for superior planets closer
to the Earth.
20. According to Kepler’s law of equal areas, if an area of 5.2 AU2 is swept out in one particular
year, then an area of 5.2 AU2 is swept out every year. So, if 5.2 AU2 is swept out in 2007 then
5 × 5.2 AU2 = 26.0 AU2 is swept out in 5 years.
21. Use Kepler’s third law (P2 = a3) with P = 1000 yr. P2 = 10002 = 106 = a3. So,

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

24 24

a = (106)1/3 = 102 = 100 AU. The average distance from the Sun is 100 AU. The average equals ½ of
the length of the major axis. For a very elliptical orbit, the maximum distance to the focus where the
Sun resides will be approximately the same as the length of the major axis. Thus, the maximum

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

25 25

distance is 200 AU, which corresponds to the limiting case of a long, skinny elliptical orbit that
grazes the Sun.
22. The average distance from the Sun is 1/2(0.5 AU + 3.5 AU) = 2 AU. Using Kepler’s third law
with a = 2 AU, we find P = (2 AU)3/2 = 2.8 yr.
23. Jupiter is almost full all the time as seen from Earth. From Saturn, Jupiter’s phases would
resemble those of Venus or Mercury as seen from Earth. See Figure 2-10.
24. The planets would seem to move eastward normally but westward during retrograde as seen from
Australia, just as in the northern hemisphere.
25. Astrology is not a science. If you were to objectively test the predictions of astrology, you would
find them either to be invalid or so general that they can neither be proved nor disproved. Astrology
fails the scientific method.
Discussion Questions
26. Mars shows a great variation in brightness due to the difference between its closest distance
(~ .5 AU) and greatest distance (~ 2.5 AU) . Venus has a larger change in distance but its brightness
is low at inferior conjunction as it is around new phase.
27. See Figure 2-8.

What If …
28. At 2 AU, our period would be 2.83 years, and the seasons would be 2.83 times as long. Solar
radiation would be about one-fourth of what it is at 1 AU, and the Earth would be much colder.
29 At .5 AU, between Venus and Mercury, our period would be .35 years, seasons would be much
shorter, and the solar radiation would be four times greater, so although summer vacation would be very
short, you would get sunburned very quickly!
30. Because the force of gravity varies as the square of the distance, the gravitational force between
the Earth and the Sun would decrease by a factor of 100 if the distance is increased by a factor of 10.
Gm Sun mEarth
31. Remember that = m Eartha . The mass of the Earth cancels and the acceleration does d
2

not depend on the mass of the Earth! However, if the mass of the Sun changed appreciably, we would
be in for a big change!
32. The Earth would fly away in a straight line. It would take some time for the Earth to cool down due
to heat energy stored in the atmosphere, so humans would have time to contemplate freezing to death
while they dealt with the ultimate energy crisis.
33. If skies were perpetually cloudy, we would know nothing about the cosmos. Humans could learn
only by voyaging above the clouds in balloons or rockets or by using radio waves, which pass
through the cloud layers.
34. If scientists remained believers in the first theory, then new data would have to be ignored if it
contradicted the theory. Since this is contrary to the scientific method, science as we know it would
not exist.

Web Questions

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

26 26

Answers will vary.

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

 27 27

Got It? Questions

Answers provided in the back of the book.

Observing Projects
42. This is a simple observing project with no specific questions.

43.

(a) To the left (eastward); January 23, 2012; April 14, 2012.
(b) To the left (eastward); January 23, 2012; April 14, 2012; Yes, these dates are the
same as in part (a).
(c) March 3, 2012; the date is midway between the two dates when Mars appears to be
stationary. At this time, the faster-orbiting Earth is overtaking the slower-orbiting
Mars and Mars will appear to be moving backward, that is, in a retrograde way,
when observed from the moving Earth. As can be seen from this space view of the
solar system, Mars is at opposition as seen from Earth at this midway point on the
retrograde motion.

44.
(a) The phase of Venus will depend upon the date but can be seen to go through the
full cycle of phases from new through crescent to gibbous and on to full phase, and
then following this sequence in reverse.
(b) Venus is closer to the Earth than is the Sun when in its crescent phase and farther
from the Earth than the Sun when in its gibbous phase. (You will see that there is a
relationship between the angular size of Venus and its phase, the crescent Venus
appearing much bigger than the gibbous and full phase Venus.)
(c) Venus will be coming toward us when its angular size is increasing.
(d) Venus shows the observed sequence of phases because its smaller orbit around the
Sun allows Venus to pass between the Earth and the Sun.
(e) The cycles of phases are different for Mars and Venus because Venus is an inferior
planet, having a smaller orbital radius than Earth, whereas Mars is a superior planet,
its orbit being bigger than that of the Earth. Thus, Mars will never pass between Earth
and the Sun and will never show a crescent phase.
45.
(a) Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars
(b) Mercury, Venus Earth, Mars
(c) These lists are the same.
(d) This agreement means that the farther the planet is from the Sun, the longer it takes
to move around a complete orbit.
(e) This behavior is consistent with Kepler’s third law.

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

28 28

The History of Astronomy Web site can provide information on all aspects of the subject:
www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pbrosche/astoria.html. Web searches using “History of Astronomy” as the
search term will yield millions of results. Being specific will help narrow the search.

In 1980 the Historical Astronomy Division (HAD) was established as a special subject division of the
American Astronomical Society. Its purpose is to advance interest in topics relating to the historical
nature of astronomy. History is broadly interpreted to include traditional history of astronomy,
archaeoastronomy, and the application of historical records to modern astrophysical problems. Members
of HAD include historians and astronomers with an interest in the history of their profession.
had.aas.org/index.html

Find information on the tides of history that brought Tycho and Kepler together. It is a fascinating
story! When visiting Denmark, visit Tycho’s observatory and the IMAX Tycho Brahe Planetarium:
www.tycho.dk/in_english/.

Starry Night™ can be very helpful when visualizing retrograde motion. See Favourites-Observing
Projects-Planetary Motion.

Consult Sky & Telescope or an almanac to determine if an eclipse by a Jovian moon is visible. Even a
small telescope can reveal a black dot on the surface of Jupiter that is the eclipse shadow.
www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/planets. You can see what Galileo saw!

Center for Archaeoastronomy: www.wam.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/index.html

Gravitation and the Waltz of the Planets

Chapter 2: Stars and Constellations.

1. Crux, Sagitta, Circinus, (Equuleus)

2. Hydra, Ursa Major, Hercules, (Centaurus)
3. Hydra stretches almost 100° across the sky.
4. Bootes, Virgo, Leo and Canes Venatici.
5. Coma Berenices.
6. Spica, Arcturus, Cor Caroli, Denebola.
7. The Little Dipper, The W, Kids.
8. Big Dipper Stars: Alkaid, Mizar, Alioth, Megrez, Phecda, Merak, Dubhe.
9. Alkaid = HIP 67301 = Zeta Ursa Majoris = 85 Ursa Majoris.
10. (a) Upper-left corner, (b) Lower-right corner.
11. Merak and Dubhe.
12. 34º 04'.
13. Kochab, Pherkad
14. Caph, Schedar, Gamma Cassiopeiae, Ruchbah, Segin.
15. (a) Elnath (b) Taurus.
16. Delta Bootes, Nekkar, Seginus, Rho Bootes, Izar
17. Cor Caroli, Chara.
18. Coma Berenices and Canes Venatici
19. Leo Minor.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Chemical
warfare
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Chemical warfare

Author: Amos A. Fries

Clarence J. West

Release date: October 22, 2023 [eBook #71931]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: McGraw Hill, 1921

Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHEMICAL

WARFARE ***
CHEMICAL WARFARE

McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.

PUBLISHERS OF BOOKS FOR
Coal Age ▼ Electric Railway Journal
Electrical World ▼ Engineering News-Record
American Machinist ▼ Ingeniería Internacional
Engineering & Mining Journal ▼ Power
Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering
Electrical Merchandising
CHEMICAL WARFARE
BY
AMOS A. FRIES
Brigadier General, C. W. S., U. S. A.
Chief, Chemical Warfare Service

AND
CLARENCE J. WEST
Major, C. W. S. Reserve Corps, U. S. A.
National Research Council

First Edition

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, Inc.

NEW YORK: 370 SEVENTH AVENUE
LONDON: 6 & 8 BOUVERIE ST., E. C. 4
1921

Copyright, 1921, by the

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
 PREFACE
Shortly after the signing of the Armistice, it was realized that the
story of Chemical Warfare should be written, partly because of its
historical value, and partly because of the future needs of a textbook
covering the fundamental facts of the Service for the Army, the
Reserve Officer, the National Guard, and even the Civilian Chemist.
The present work was undertaken by both authors as a labor of
patriotism and because of their interest in the Service.
The two years which have elapsed since the initial discussion of
the outlines of the book have thoroughly convinced us of the need of
such a work. The Engineers, the Medical Department, and most of
the other branches of the Army have their recognized textbooks and
manuals. There has been no way, however, by which the uninformed
can check the accuracy of statements regarding Chemical Warfare.
The present volume will serve, in a measure, to fill this gap. That it
does not do so more completely is due in part to the fact that secrecy
must still be maintained about some of the facts and some of the
new discoveries which are the property of the Service. Those familiar
with the work of the Chemical Warfare Service will discover, though,
that the following pages contain many statements which were
zealously guarded secrets two years ago. This enlarged program of
publicity on the part of the Chief of the Service is being justified
every day by the ever increasing interest in this branch of warfare.
Where five men were discussing Chemical Warfare two years ago,
fifty men are talking about the work and the possibilities of the
Service today. It is hoped that the facts here presented may further
increase the interest in Chemical Warfare, for there is no question
but that it must be recognized as a permanent and a very vital
branch of the Army of every country. Reasons for this will be found
scattered through the pages of this book.
It should be explained that this is in no sense a complete
historical sketch of the development and personnel of the Chemical
Warfare Service. At least two more volumes are needed,—one on
the Manufacture of Poisonous Gases and one on the Tactics of
Chemical Warfare. We have purposely refrained from an attempt to
give credit to individuals for the accomplishments of the various
Divisions of the Service, because such an attempt would have made
the book too voluminous, and would have defeated the primary
purpose, namely, that it should present the information in as concise
manner as possible. The published and unpublished materials of the
files of all the Divisions have been freely drawn upon in writing the
various chapters, and many old C. W. S. men will undoubtedly
recognize whole sentences which they wrote under the stress of the
laboratory or plant “battle front.” May these few lines be an
acknowledgment of their contributions. Those who desire to consult
the literature of Chemical Warfare will find a fairly complete
bibliography (to about the middle of 1919) in “Special Libraries” for
November, 1919.
Special acknowledgment is made to Dr. G. J. Esselen, Jr., for
having read the manuscript and for helpful and constructive
criticisms. Many of the figures are reproduced by permission of the
Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry; those showing the
Nelson cell were furnished by the Samuel M. Green Company.

Amos A. Fries,
Clarence J. West.
Aug. 1, 1921.
 FOREWORD
After all peaceful means of settling disputes between nations
have been resorted to and have failed, war is often declared by one
of the disputants for the purpose of imposing its will upon the other
by force. In order to accomplish this, a superiority must be
established over the adversary in trained men and in implements of
war.
Men are nothing in modern war unless they are equipped with the
most effective devices for killing and maiming the enemy’s soldiers
and thoroughly trained in the use of such implements.
History proves that an effective implement of war has never been
discarded until it becomes obsolete.
It is impossible to humanize the act of killing and maiming the
enemy’s soldiers, and there is no logical grounds on which to
condemn an appliance so long as its application can be so confined.
Experiments in this and other countries during the World War
completely established the fact that gas can be so confined. The
range of gas clouds is no greater than that of artillery and the
population in the area behind the front line must, if they remain in
such range, take their chance. The danger area in the future will be
known to all.
As the first Director of the Chemical Warfare Service, U. S. Army,
I speak with some experience when I say that there is no field in
which the future possibilities are greater than in chemical warfare,
and no field in which neglect to keep abreast of the times in research
and training would be more disastrous.
Notwithstanding the fact that gas was used in the World War two
years before the United States entered the fray, practically nothing
was done in this country before April, 1917, towards the
development of any chemical warfare appliances, offensive or
defensive, and had it not been for the ability of an ally to supply our
troops with such appliances, they would have been as defenseless
as the Canadians were at Ypres when the Germans sent over their
first gas cloud.
This book recites the troubles and successes of this new service
under the stress of war for which it was unprepared and I trust that
its perusal will create a public opinion that will insist upon chemical
preparation for war.
I feel that this book will show that the genius and patriotism
displayed by the chemists and chemical engineers of the country
were not surpassed in any other branch of war work and that to fail
to utilize in peace times this talent would be a crime.

William L. Sibert,
Major General, United States Army,
Retired.
 CONTENTS
page
Preface vii
Foreword ix
chapter
I. The History of Poison Gases 1
Modern Development of Gas
II. 10
Warfare
III. Development of the
Chemical Warfare Service 31
The Chemical Warfare Service in
IV. 72
France
V. Chlorine 116
VI. Phosgene 126
VII. Lachrymators 137
VIII. Chloropicrin 144
IX. Dichloroethylsulfide (Mustard Gas) 150
X. Arsenic Derivatives 180
XI. Carbon Monoxide 190
XII. Development of the Gas Mask 195
XIII. Absorbents 237
XIV. Testing Absorbents and Gas Masks 259
XV. Other Defensive Measures 272
XVI. Screening Smokes 285
XVII. Toxic Smokes 313
XVIII. Smoke Filters 322
XIX. Signal Smokes 330
XX. Incendiary Materials 336
XXI. The Pharmacology of War Gases 353
XXII. Chemical Warfare in Relation to
Strategy and Tactics 363
XXIII. The Offensive Use of Gas 385
XXIV. Defense against Gas 405
XXV. Peace Time Uses of Gas 427
XXVI. The Future of Chemical Warfare 435
Index 440
CHEMICAL WARFARE
 CHAPTER I
THE HISTORY OF POISON GASES [1]

The introduction of poison gases by the Germans at Ypres in

April, 1915, marked a new era in modern warfare. The popular
opinion is that this form of warfare was original with the Germans.
Such, however, is not the case. Quoting from an article in the Candid
Quarterly Review, 4, 561, “All they can claim is the inhuman
adoption of devices invented in England, and by England rejected as
too horrible to be entertained even for use against an enemy.” But
the use of poison gases is even of an earlier origin than this article
claims.
The first recorded effort to overcome an enemy by the generation
of poisonous and suffocating gases seems to have been in the wars
of the Athenians and Spartans (431-404 b.c.) when, besieging the
cities of Platea and Belium, the Spartans saturated wood with pitch
and sulfur and burned it under the walls of these cities in the hope of
choking the defenders and rendering the assault less difficult. Similar
uses of poisonous gases are recorded during the Middle Ages. In
effect they were like our modern stink balls, but were projected by
squirts or in bottles after the manner of a hand grenade. The legend
is told of Prester John (about the eleventh century), that he stuffed
copper figures with explosives and combustible materials which,
emitted from the mouths and nostrils of the effigies, played great
havoc.
The idea referred to by the writer in the Candid Quarterly Review,
is from the pen of the English Lord Dundonald, which appeared in
the publication entitled “The Panmure Papers.” This is an extremely
dull record of an extremely dull person, only rendered interesting by
the one portion, concerned with the use of poison gases, which, it is
said, “should never have been published at all.”
That portion of the article from the Candid Quarterly Review
dealing with the introduction of poisonous gas by the Germans, and
referred to in the first paragraph above, is quoted in full as follows:

“The great Admiral Lord Dundonald—perhaps

the ablest sea captain ever known, not even
excluding Lord Nelson—was also a man of wide
observation, and no mean chemist. He had been
struck in 1811 by the deadly character of the fumes
of sulphur in Sicily; and, when the Crimean War was
being waged, he communicated to the English
government, then presided over by Lord
Palmerston, a plan for the reduction of Sebastopol
by sulphur fumes. The plan was imparted to Lord
Panmure and Lord Palmerston, and the way in
which it was received is so illustrative of the trickery
and treachery of the politician that it is worth while to
quote Lord Palmerston’s private communication
upon it to Lord Panmure:

“Lord Palmerston to Lord Panmure

“‘House of Commons, 7th August, 1855 “‘I
agree with you that if Dundonald will go out himself
to superintend and direct the execution of his
scheme, we ought to accept his offer and try his
plan. If it succeeds, it will, as you say, save a great
number of English and French lives; if it fails in his
hands, we shall be exempt from blame, and if we
come in for a small share of the ridicule, we can
bear it, and the greater part will fall on him. You had
best, therefore, make arrangement with him without
delay, and with as much secrecy as the nature of
things will admit of.’

“Inasmuch as Lord Dundonald’s plans have

already been deliberately published by the two
persons above named, there can be no harm in now
republishing them. They will be found in the first
volume of ‘The Panmure Papers’ (pp. 340-342) and
are as follows:

“‘(Enclosure)
“‘Brief Preliminary Observations
“‘It was observed when viewing the Sulphur
Kilns, in July, 1811, that the fumes which escaped in
the rude process of extracting the material, though
first elevated by heat, soon fell to the ground,
destroying all vegetation, and endangering animal
life to a great distance, and it was asserted that an
ordinance existed prohibiting persons from sleeping
within the distance of three miles during the melting
season.
“‘An application of these facts was immediately
made to Military and Naval purposes, and after
mature consideration, a Memorial was presented on
the subject to His Royal Highness the Prince
Regent on the 12th of April, 1812, who was
graciously pleased to lay it before a Commission,
consisting of Lord Keith, Lord Exmouth and General
and Colonel Congreve (afterwards Sir William), by
whom a favorable report having been given, His
Royal Highness was pleased to order that secrecy
should be maintained by all parties.

“‘(Signed) Dundonald
“‘7th August, 1855’

“‘Memorandum
“‘Materials required for the expulsion of the
Russians from Sebastopol: Experimental trials have
shown that about five parts of coke effectually
vaporize one part of sulphur. Mixtures for land
service, where weight is of importance, may,
however, probably be suggested by Professor
Faraday, as to operations on shore I have paid little
attention. Four or five hundred tons of sulphur and
two thousand tons of coke would be sufficient.
“‘Besides these materials, it would be necessary
to have, say, as much bituminous coal, and a couple
of thousand barrels of gas or other tar, for the
purpose of masking fortifications to be attacked, or
others that flank the assailing positions.
“‘A quantity of dry firewood, chips, shavings,
straw, hay or other such combustible materials,
would also be requisite quickly to kindle the fires,
which ought to be kept in readiness for the first
favourable and steady breeze.

“‘Dundonald
“‘7th August, 1855’

“‘Note.—The objects to be accomplished being

specially stated the responsibility of their
accomplishment ought to rest on those who direct
their execution.
“‘Suppose that the Malakoff and Redan are the
objects to be assailed it might be judicious merely to
obscure the Redan (by the smoke of coal and tar
kindled in ‘The Quarries’), so that it could not annoy
the Mamelon, where the sulphur fire would be
placed to expel the garrison from the Malakoff,
which ought to have all the cannon that can be
turned towards its ramparts employed in
overthrowing its undefended ramparts.
 “‘There is no doubt but that the fumes will
envelop all the defenses from the Malakoff to the
Barracks, and even to the line of battleship, the
Twelve Apostles, at anchor in the harbour.
“‘The two outer batteries, on each side of the
Port, ought to be smoked, sulphured, and blown
down by explosion vessels, and their destruction
completed by a few ships of war anchored under
cover of the smoke.’
“That was Lord Dundonald’s plan in 1855,
improperly published in 1908, and by the Germans,
who thus learnt it, ruthlessly put into practise in
1915.
“Lord Dundonald’s memoranda, together with
further elucidatory notes, were submitted by the
English government of that day to a committee and
subsequently to another committee in which Lord
Playfair took leading part. These committees, with
Lord Dundonald’s plans fully and in detail before
them, both reported that the plans were perfectly
feasible; that the effects expected from them would
undoubtedly be produced; but that those effects
were so horrible that no honorable combatant could
use the means required to produce them. The
committee therefore recommended that the scheme
should not be adopted; that Lord Dundonald’s
account of it should be destroyed. How the records
were obtained and preserved by those who so
improperly published them in 1908 we do not know.
Presumably they were found among Lord
Panmure’s papers. Admiral Lord Dundonald himself
was certainly no party to their publication.”
One of the early, if not the earliest suggestion as to the use of
poison gas in shell is found in an article on “Greek Fire,” by B. W.
Richardson.[2] He says: