Part 1

THE MOLECULAR TACTICS OF A CRYSTAL

LORD KELVIN

London HENRY FROWDE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE AMEN CORNER, E.C.

New York MACMILLAN & CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE

THE MOLECULAR TACTICS OF A CRYSTAL

LORD KELVIN, P.R.S.

PROFESSOR OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW AND FELLOW OF PETERHOUSE, CAMBRIDGE

Being the Second ROBERT BOYLE LECTURE, delivered before the Oxford University Junior Scientific Club on Tuesday, May 16, 1893

WITH TWENTY ILLUSTRATIONS

Oxford AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1894

Oxford PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

ON THE MOLECULAR TACTICS OF A CRYSTAL

By LORD KELVIN, P.R.S.

§ 1. My subject this evening is not the physical properties of crystals, not even their dynamics; it is merely the geometry of the structure--the arrangement of the molecules in the constitution of a crystal. Every crystal is a homogeneous assemblage of small bodies or molecules. The converse proposition is scarcely true, unless in a very extended sense of the term crystal (§ 20 below). I can best explain a homogeneous assemblage of molecules by asking you to think of a homogeneous assemblage of people. To be homogeneous every person of the assemblage must be equal and similar to every other: they must be seated in rows or standing in rows in a perfectly similar manner. Each person, except those on the borders of the assemblage, must have a neighbour on one side and an equi-distant neighbour on the other: a neighbour on the left front and an equi-distant neighbour behind on the right, a neighbour on the right front and an equi-distant neighbour behind on the left. His two neighbours in front and his two neighbours behind are members of two rows equal and similar to the rows consisting of himself and his right-hand and left-hand neighbours, and their neighbours’ neighbours indefinitely to right and left. In particular cases the nearest of the front and rear neighbours may be right in front and right in rear; but we must not confine our attention to the rectangularly grouped assemblages thus constituted. Now let there be equal and similar assemblages on floors above and below that which we have been considering, and let there be any indefinitely great number of floors at equal distances from one another above and below. Think of any one person on any intermediate floor and of his nearest neighbours on the floors above and below. These three persons must be exactly in one line; this, in virtue of the homogeneousness of the assemblages on the three floors, will secure that every person on the intermediate floor is exactly in line with his nearest neighbours above and below. The same condition of alignment must be fulfilled by every three consecutive floors, and we thus have a homogeneous assemblage of people in three dimensions of space. In particular cases every person’s nearest neighbour in the floor above may be vertically over him, but we must not confine our attention to assemblages thus rectangularly grouped in vertical lines.

§ 2. Consider now any particular person C (Fig. 1) on any intermediate floor, D and D′ his nearest neighbours, E and E′ his next nearest neighbours all on his own floor. His next next nearest neighbours on that floor will be in the positions F and F′ in the diagram. Thus we see that each person C is surrounded by six persons, DD′, EE′ and FF′, being his nearest, his next nearest, and his next next nearest neighbours on his own floor. Excluding for simplicity the special cases of rectangular grouping, we see that the angles of the six equal and similar triangles CDE, CEF, &c., are all acute: and because the six triangles are equal and similar we see that the three pairs of mutually remote sides of the hexagon DEFD′E′F′ are equal and parallel.

§ 3. Let now A, A′, A″, &c., denote places of persons of the homogeneous assemblage on the floor immediately above, and B, B′, B″, &c. on the floor immediately below, the floor of C. In the diagram let a, a′, a″ be points in which the floor of CDE is cut by perpendiculars to it through A, A′, A″ of the floor above, and b, b′, b″ by perpendiculars from B, B′, B″ of the floor below. Of all the perpendiculars from the floors immediately above and below, just two, one from each, cut the area of the parallelogram CDEF: and they cut it in points similarly situated in respect to the oppositely oriented triangles into which it is divided by either of its diagonals. Hence if a lies in the triangle CDE, the other five triangles of the hexagon must be cut in the corresponding points, as shown in the diagram. Thus, if we think only of the floor of C and of the floor immediately above it, we have points A, A′, A″ vertically above a, a′, a″. Imagine now a triangular pyramid, or tetrahedron, standing on the base CDE and having A for vertex: we see that each of its sides ACD, ADE, AEC, is an acute angled triangle, because, as we have already seen, CDE is an acute angled triangle, and because the shortest of the three distances, CA, DA, EA, is (§ 2) greater than CE (though it may be either greater than or less than DE). Hence the tetrahedron CDEA has all its angles acute; not only the angles of its triangular faces, but the six angles between the planes of its four faces. This important theorem regarding homogeneous assemblages was given by Bravais, to whom we owe the whole doctrine of homogeneous assemblages in its most perfect simplicity and complete generality. Similarly we see that we have equal and similar tetrahedrons on the bases D′CF, E′F′C; and three other tetrahedrons below the floor of C, having the oppositely oriented triangles CD′E′, &c. for their bases and B, B′, B″ for their vertices. These three tetrahedrons are equal and heterochirally similar to the first three. The consideration of these acute angled tetrahedrons, is of fundamental importance in respect to the engineering of an elastic solid, or crystal, according to Boscovich. So also is the consideration of the cluster of thirteen points C and the six neighbours DEFD′E′F′ in the plane of the diagram, and the three neighbours AA′A″ on the floor above, and BB′B″ on the floor below.

§ 4. The case in which each of the four faces of each of the tetrahedrons of § 3 is an equilateral triangle is particularly interesting. An assemblage fulfilling this condition may conveniently be called an ‘equilateral homogeneous assemblage,’ or, for brevity, an ‘equilateral assemblage.’ In an equilateral assemblage C’s twelve neighbours are all equi-distant from it. I hold in my hand a cluster of thirteen little black balls, made up by taking one of them and placing the twelve others in contact with it (and therefore packed in the closest possible order), and fixing them all together by fish-glue. You see it looks, in size, colour, and shape, quite like a mulberry. The accompanying diagram shows a stereoscopic view of a similar cluster of balls painted white for the photograph.

§ 5. By adding ball after ball to such a cluster of thirteen, and always taking care to place each additional ball in some position in which it is properly in line with others, so as to make the whole assemblage homogeneous, we can exercise ourselves in a very interesting manner in the building up of any possible form of crystal of the class called ‘cubic’ by some writers and ‘octahedral’ by others. You see before you several examples. I advise any of you who wish to study crystallography to contract with a wood-turner, or a maker of beads for furniture tassels or for rosaries, for a thousand wooden balls of about half an inch diameter each. Holes through them will do no harm and may even be useful; but make sure that the balls are as nearly equal to one another, and each as nearly spherical, as possible.

§ 6. You see here before you a large model which I have made to illustrate a homogeneous assemblage of points, on a plan first given, I believe, by Mr. William Barlow (Nature, December 20 and 27, 1883). The roof of the model is a lattice-frame (Fig. 3) consisting of two sets of eight parallel wooden bars crossing one another, and kept together by pins through the middles of the crossings. As you see, I can alter it to make parallelograms of all degrees of obliquity till the bars touch, and again you see I can make them all squares.

§ 7. The joint pivots are (for cheapness of construction) of copper wire, each bent to make a hook below the lattice frame. On these sixty-four hooks are hung sixty-four fine cords, firmly stretched by little lead weights. Each of these cords (Fig. 4) bears eight short perforated wooden cylinders, which may be slipped up and down to any desired position. They are at present actually placed at distances consecutively each equal to the distance from joint to joint of the lattice frame.

§ 8. The roof of the model is hung by four cords, nearly vertical, of independently variable lengths, passing over hooks from fixed points above, and kept stretched by weights, each equal to one quarter of the weight of roof and pendants. You see now by altering the angles of the lattice work and placing it horizontal or in any inclined plane, as I am allowed to do readily by the manner in which it is hung, I have three independent variables, by varying which I can show you all varieties of homogeneous assemblages, in which three of the neighbours of every point are at equal distances from it. You see here, for example, we have the equilateral assemblage. I have adjusted the lattice roof to the proper angle, and its plane to the proper inclination to the vertical, to make a wholly equilateral assemblage of the little cylinders of wood on the vertical cords, a case, as we have seen, of special importance. If I vary also the distances between the little pieces of wood on the cords; and the distances between the joints of the lattice work (variations easily understood, though not conveniently producible in one model without more of mechanical construction than would be worth making), I have three other independent variables. By properly varying these six independent variables, three angles and three lengths, we may give any assigned value to each edge of one of the fundamental tetrahedrons of § 3.

§ 9. Our assemblage of people would not be homogeneous unless its members were all equal and similar and in precisely similar attitudes, and were all looking the same way. You understand what a number of people seated or standing on a floor or plain and looking the same way means. But the expression ‘looking’ is not conveniently applicable to things that have no eyes, and we want a more comprehensive mode of expression. We have it in the words ‘orientation,’ ‘oriented,’ and (verb) ‘to orient,’ suggested by an extension of the idea involved in the word ‘orientation,’ first used to signify positions relatively to east and west of ancient Greek and Egyptian temples and Christian churches. But for the orientation of a house or temple we have only one angle, and that angle is called ‘azimuth’ (the name given to an angle in a horizontal plane). For orientation in three dimensions of space we must extend our ideas and consider position with reference to east and west and up and down. A man lying on his side with his head to the north and looking east, would not be similarly oriented to a man standing upright and looking east. To provide for the complete specification of how a body is oriented in space we must have in the body a plane of reference, and a line of reference in this plane, belonging to the body and moving with it. We must also have a fixed plane and a fixed line of reference in it, relatively to which the orientation of the moveable body is to be specified; as, for example, a horizontal plane and the east and west horizontal line in it. The position of a body is completely specified when the angle between the plane of reference belonging to it, and the fixed plane is given; and when the angles between the line of intersection of the two planes and the lines of reference in them are also given. Thus we see that three angles are necessary and sufficient to specify the orientation of a moveable body, and we see how the specification is conveniently given in terms of three angles.

§ 10. To illustrate this take a book lying on the table before you with its side next the title-page up, and its back to the north. I now lift the east edge (the top of the book), keeping the bottom edge north and south on the table till the book is inclined, let us say, 20° to the table. Next, without altering this angle of 20°, between the side of the book and the table, I turn the book round a vertical axis, through 45° till the bottom edge lies north-east and south-west. Lastly, keeping the book in the plane to which it has been thus brought, I turn it round in this plane through 35°. These three angles of 20°, 45°, and 35°, specify, with reference to the horizontal plane of the table and the east and west line in it, the orientation of the book in the position to which you have seen me bring it, and in which I hold it before you.

§ 11. In Figs. 5 and 6 you see two assemblages, each of twelve equal and similar molecules in a plane. Fig. 5, in which the molecules are all same-ways oriented, is one homogeneous assemblage of twenty-four molecules. Fig. 6, in which in one set of rows the molecules are alternately oriented two different ways, may either be regarded as two homogeneous assemblages, each of twelve single molecules; or one homogeneous assemblage of twelve pairs of those single molecules.

§ 12. I must now call your attention to a purely geometrical question of vital interest with respect to homogeneous assemblages in general, and particularly the homogeneous assemblage of molecules constituting a crystal:--what can we take as ‘the’ boundary or ‘a’ boundary enclosing each molecule with whatever portion of space around it we are at liberty to choose for it, and separating it from neighbours and their portions of space given to them in homogeneous fairness?

§ 13. If we had only mathematical points to consider we should be at liberty to choose the simple obvious partitioning by three sets of parallel planes. Even this may be done in an infinite number of ways, thus:--Beginning with any point P of the assemblage, choose any other three points A, B, C, far or near, provided only that they are not in one plane with P, and that there is no other point of the assemblage in the lines PA, PB, PC, or within the volume of the parallelepiped of which these lines are conterminous edges, or within the areas of any of the faces of this parallelepiped. There will be points of the assemblage at each of the corners of this parallelepiped and at all the corners of the parallelepipeds equal and similar to it which we find by drawing sets of equi-distant planes parallel to its three pairs of faces. (A diagram is unnecessary.) Every point of the assemblage is thus at the intersection of three planes, which is also the point of meeting of eight neighbouring parallelepipeds. Shift now any one of the points of the assemblage to a position within the volume of any one of the eight parallelepipeds, and give equal parallel motions to all the other points of the assemblage. Thus we have every point in a parallelepipedal cell of its own, and all the points of the assemblage are similarly placed in their cells, which are themselves equal and similar.

§ 14. But now if, instead of a single point for each member of the assemblage, we have a group of points, or a globe or cube or other geometrical figure, or an individual of a homogeneous assemblage of equal, similar, similarly dressed, and similarly oriented ladies, sitting in rows, or a homogeneous assemblage of trees closely planted in regular geometrical order on a plane with equal and similar distributions of molecules, and parallel planes above and below, we may find that the best conditioned plane-faced parallelepipedal partitioning which we can choose would cut off portions properly belonging to one molecule of the assemblage and give them to the cells of neighbours. To find a cell enclosing all that belongs to each individual, for example, every part of each lady’s dress, however complexly it may be folded among portions of the equal and similar dresses of neighbours; or, every twig, leaf, and rootlet of each one of the homogeneous assemblage of trees; we must alter the boundary by give-and-take across the plane faces of the primitive parallelepipedal cells, so that each cell shall enclose all that belongs to one molecule, and therefore (because of the homogeneousness of the partitioning) nothing belonging to any other molecule. The geometrical problem thus presented, wonderfully complex as it may be in cases such as some of those which I have suggested, is easily performed for any possible case if we begin with any particular parallelepipedal partitioning determined for corresponding points of the assemblage as explained in § 13, for any homogeneous assemblage of single points. We may prescribe to ourselves that the corners are to remain unchanged, but if so they must to begin with either in interfaces of contact between the individual molecules, or in vacant space among the molecules. If this condition is fulfilled for one corner it is fulfilled for all, as the corners are essentially corresponding points relatively to the assemblage.

§ 15. Begin now with any one of the twelve straight lines between corners which constitute the twelve edges of the parallelepiped, and alter it arbitrarily to any curved or crooked line between the same pair of corners, subject only to the conditions (1) that it does not penetrate the substance of any member of the assemblage, and (2) that it is not cut by equal and similar parallel curves between other pairs of corners.