Current theory is that ozone is tri-atomic; that is, it is made up by three oxygen atoms. I have been toying with the idea that ozone is a bi-atomic structure after being influenced by the Fujiwhara effect (no, that's not one too many bar-slammers!) It's named after Fujiwhara's observations of vortices in water and the interaction of two cyclones.
3 volumes of oxygen condense to produce 2 volumes of ozone. The molecular weight of ozone is given as 48, BUT the atomic weight of ozone is 24. So rather than three oxygen atoms, each with the molecular weight of 16, we are now looking for two cyclonic vortices, and each vortex with the atomic weight of 12.
I think oxygen could be a hydrocarbonic compound, that is, in weight, two parts hydrogen to six parts carbon. As a formula, oxygen can be written as H2C (C=6). It's true, the atomic weight of oxygen is given as 16, but the weight ratio of oxygen to hydrogen in composing water is 8:1, so I think it suggests that the density of oxygen is made up by two halves, each half with the value of 8.
The next step which is going to help us generate a possible bi-atomic formula, is one of reducing the value of carbon from 6 to 3 (don't worry, it's quite possible that the value of carbon can be an integral multiple of 12). The formula for oxygen is now thus, H2C2 (C=3), which adds up to the atomic weight of 8. Three half volumes of oxygen thus appears as 3(H2C2).
It takes 3 volumes of oxygen to produce 2 volumes of ozone, but we're doing this in halves, so it's actually one and a half volumes of oxygen to produce one volume of ozone. One way we could solve the bi-atomic problem is by suggesting that the one volume of ozone is also made up in two parts. With the atomic weight of ozone being 24, ozone could therefore be made up by two halves, each with the density of 12.
In the reaction, imagine we have three half volumes of oxygen before us, but let us remove one of the half volumes of oxygen away from the other two. With the oxygen we have removed, we are now going to split this down the middle, giving us two distinct halves, and each half with the formula HC (HC + HC =H2C2). Thus, one half volume of oxygen is split, and is then divided equally amongst the other two half volumes of oxygen present. The formula so far can be written as HC + 2(H2C2). Okay, if we take it from the top, the entire formula should look something like this:
3(H2C2) = HC + 2(H2C2) = 2(H3C3) = 2 (12) = 24
Therefore, one volume of ozone emerges as a possible bi-atomic structure with the formula 2(H3C3), or it could be written as H6C6. Or if we change the value of C to 6, the formula for the atomic weight of ozone could be written as H6C3.
The formula for a half volume of decomposed water, atomic weight 9, can be written as H + H2C2, or H3C2 (C=3). For composed, liquid water, atomic weight 11, the formula is H2C3. Thus, in the reaction to compose water, it appears as though one part hydrogen has been converted into one part carbon. In order for this to happen, the hydrogen - being nothing but an empty bag - would have to gain the carbon from its surroundings. I think this indicates that hydrogen can be pumped-up with carbon (phlogiston).
The difference beteen the atomic weights of composed and decomposed water is 2. This could suggest that the one part hydrogen, having gained the extra atomic weight, has been converted from having atomic weight 1, and pumped to atomic weight 3. In doing so, it is no longer hydrogen, but becomes carbon, or at least something very near to it.
The reason why I mention all this now is because I wonder if this can be applied in any way to ozone? The thing is, if ozone is a bi-atomic structure, made up by two cyclonic systems, then it appears there is no anticyclonic component in place. Dipolar vortices are constructed from a cyclone and anticyclone to generate a vortex ring. For the uninitiated, a vortex ring looks like your everyday ring donut.
In the decomposition of water under electrolysis, hydrogen gas collects at the cathode and oxygen gas at the anode. I think that phlogiston can be traced moving up the anode, where it basically follows the cable route all the way round to the cathode, then passes back through the water to the anode. If we were to trace over the route again and again it would become a continous loop.
To generate the loop, the electrodes would have to be acting as dipolar vortices. I think that the anode is cyclonic and sucking up the phlogiston from the water, and that the cathode is anticyclonic and taking the phlogiston, through conductors, from the anode. In sucking up the phlogiston from the water, the anode rejects the hydrogen, which is taken up by the cathode.
Dipolar vortices are describing a perpetual motor. The problem I have with ozone is that it's bi-atomic structure does not describe a perpetual motor. If ozone does describe a pair of cyclones, they are both sucking aether from the system. There's no obvious anticyclonic component feeding energy back into the surrounding system.
The formula for ozone is 2(H3C3)=24.
The formula for water is 2(H2C3)=22.
A very quick comparison of these two formulas might suggest that ozone is water but with extra hydrogen. Extra hydrogen? But how could ozone gain hydrogen? I think the only way a substance can gain hydrogen is by first losing carbon (phlogiston).
In the decomposition of water we see how the anode actively repels singular hydrogen. We could say that ozone has lost hydrogen to become water, but I'm not so sure that ozone contains hydrogen per se. I think carbon loses phlogiston and becomes hydrogen.
Therefore, I think a hydrogen "bag" which is full of phlogiston shall then become carbon. I think it unlikely that ozone has lost hydrogen to become water. It's more likely that ozone has lost some of its phlogiston to become water. What I've been trying to say, in my own convoluted way, is that I think ozone might be a structure which is made of pure phlogiston. I think that the formula for ozone could be written as:
ozone = 2(H3C3) = 2(C1C3) = 2(C4)=24
This of course is all supposition, but I think it's fun to explore ideas and see what emerges. The thing to do next, is to investigate how ozone is made. What exactly is ozone doing up there?
Popular Science Jun 1978