Young Writers Society

A Nobel Endeavour

In Copenhagen, April 1940, the Hungarian scientist George de Hevesy performed one of the most interesting chemical experiments of the war. The Bohr Institute had received two contraband items: the Nobel Prizes of two German scientists. At the time it was a greivous crime to send gold out of Germany and the two men had sent their medals to the Bohr Institute to prevent them falling into Nazi hands. But now the German army was at the gate and de Hevesy took charge of concealing the medals.

His first solution was to bury them, but Niels Bohr worried that the medals could be unearthed and so de Heversy suggested something a little more audacious: he decided to dissolve them.

Of course gold is notoriously difficult to dissolve – its inertness makes it, appropriately, a member of the “noble metals”. de Hevesy knew it would take a powerful concoction to coerce the gold into solution, so he prepared a solution of Aqua Regia to do the job.

This “royal water” is a mixture of not one, but two acids – one part nitric acid to three parts hydrochloric acid. The nitric acid is able to prise a few gold atoms from the surface of the metal so the hydrochloric acid can strike and trap them in solution as AuCl4- (chloroauride ions). This gradual trickle of gold atoms into solution is not a rapid process, but for de Hevesy it must have been agonisingly slow.

In fact de Hevesy was still dissolving the medals as the German army marched in the streets of Copenhagen, but his perseverence paid off. He sealed the flask and left the orange solution on a high shelf in the laboratory where he could only hope it would remain. When de Hevesy returned to the lab, after the war, he was amazed to find the flask undisturbed.

Fortunately the medals were not locked in solution forever – de Hevesy was able to precipitate out the gold, by neutralising the acid, and returned the raw material to the Nobel Committee. In1950 the medals were recast using the original gold and returned to their rightful owners, all thanks to the ingenuity of George de Hevesy.

I'll make points as I come to them so this is all in chronological order which should help you find the parts I'm talking about!

Over-state

Articles are always more exciting when the writer exaggerates or over-states a point to show their enthusiasm on the subject. What reader wants to hear about something that was almost more bloody than the second world war when you've just told them that the second world war was bloodier? Instead of saying it was 'one of' the most interesting chemical experiments of the war, say 'This chemical experiment changed the outcome of the war' or something to that affect which still manages to be arguably true. I don't know enough about this to make the statement for you, but you get the idea; no ifs and maybes!

Tips for Saving Words

Where you say 'de Hevesy took charge of concealing the medals' you're being very wordy. You could save words and make it snappier all in one go. How about 'de Hevesy concealed the medals'.

Then the next section you have 'de Heversy suggested something a little more audacious' which could be 'something more audacious' which is again more concise and has a stronger impact. Often when we're forced to stick close to a word count, it's a help and not a hinderance because it makes us transform our usually lazy text into sharp, precise sentences.

Avoid Repeating words or sounds

This is a short article composed of short sentences so those repeated words or sounds really stand out. It's not a problem when done for effect but one instance I noticed was, 'makes it, appropriately, a member of the "noble metals"'. Try saying that really fast ten times over. Or even just at a normal pace in front of a class. Yeah, maybe try: 'makes it, appropriately, a metal of the "noble class".'

Then you have 'gold into solution, so he prepared a solution of Aqua Regia'. So you've already used concoction which I'm sure is why you balked at the idea of changing the second one as well, but you can do it without getting too silly and technical. When exchanging one word for another, only go more complicated occasionally. It is actually much easier and more effective to go less complicated and pick out a simple word. For example, this could become: 'to coerce the gold into liquid'.

Make it Sound Exciting

This “royal water” is a mixture of not one, but two acids – one part nitric acid to three parts hydrochloric acid. The nitric acid is able to prise a few gold atoms from the surface of the metal so the hydrochloric acid can strike and trap them in solution as AuCl4- (chloroauride ions). This gradual trickle of gold atoms into solution is not a rapid process, but for de Hevesy it must have been agonisingly slow.

You have this great, fantastic potential in a paragraph like this but where are the sparks? Where are the fireworks? What you have here is a battle and you're describing it as though it's a day at the park. And the first soldier comes in with a cut to the belly while the second man grabs him from behind. It's a sideways thrust that finishes the job and spills his guts on the ground. No. Pretend you're writing a history paper instead of a chemistry one for just a moment and see where that takes you. Oh and tie in the next paragraph too. Play with the urgency. This is a story and those bad guys are getting closer but our hero can do it, can't he?

Overall

It's good! I've learned something new today and it's a very interesting discovery. It's also great how you tied in the heroicness of the act and the statement at the end about them getting the medals back to the original owners? Perfect. This has every element of being a great story already here, it just needs tightening up in a few places. Good luck with that!

Heather xxx

Hey, Charlie!

First Impressions

You've delivered to us a brilliant and somewhat amusing tale about an enterprising mind. I'm quite fond of such landmark situations in history which anecdote the lesser known events that have impacted the future for the better. It's a an endearing piece of sorts and I greatly enjoyed the read.

A Few things to Note

As Heather above me has already mentioned, there was potential for down-sizing. And In the case of your regulations for the maximum number of words, less certainly is more. But I found a few instances where it felt like you were caught up and too worried about the word limit -

At the time it was a greivous crime to send gold out of Germany and the two men had sent their medals to the Bohr Institute to prevent them falling into Nazi hands.

In my opinion, this sentence could have been better-worded. In my head, it sounded a bit rushed since there was no indication within the sentence of slowing down. Commas would have come in handy here and their application would allow for the reader to catch some breath. You've omitted the word 'from' which could have come after 'them'. That gives away the secret and I get the suspicion that you're writing under pressure because of the limit restraints.

But afterwards, as the article progresses, you seem to calm down and then take it a bit too easy -

This gradual trickle of gold atoms into solution is not a rapid process, but for de Hevesy it must have been agonisingly slow.

'it must have been' is a term that signifies doubt and it acts like a filler in this sentence. All this while, you were perfectly sure of the situation that had been taking place and you confidently stated out the premise as it unfolded. But when it came to this sentence, you made the narrator show some sort of speculation over whether the process was agonizing or not. It's odd, because it's not very convincing when the narrator says 'this might have happened, I believe' about something factual and historic. Also, this line could have been omitted entirely, since in the opening of the next paragraph, you say -

In fact de Hevesy was still dissolving the medals as the German army marched in the streets of Copenhagen....

This line makes it more than obvious that there was tension boiling up but in the end, Hevesy pulled it off. So had you not written the line before this one, it would have been understood anyway. Thus, you could have saved a lot of words in your article.

and so de Heversy suggested something a little more audacious:

I found here that your spelling of 'Hevesy' wasn't correct.

I know that this entire article is about Hevesy, but I also would have preferred it if you had given Hevesy a little more spot-light. After reading this, I wiki'd this person and I was pleasantly surprised to see that even he was a Nobel prize winner. You didn't seem to mention that during any part of the article and it feels like you've kept something from the reader and that Hevesy's due hasn't been fully paid yet.

But despite these short-comings, I wasn't deterred from my interest in the subject which you brought to life with your writing so seamlessly. I was reading with immense attention and was glad that at the way you ended it. Pleasing and very informative.

Verdict

I feel like I just stepped out of a History-cum-Chemistry class. It was fun to read and gave me something new to learn. I'm glad I read this and I hope the readers of your magazine enjoyed piece every bit as I did. Keep the ink flowing, Charlie. I'd love to read more.

Murtuza

This was an educational and rather interesting piece to read. It was like reading a rather interesting section out of a textbook. In the case of this being a magazine article, particularly for a science magazine, a text-book-like approach isn't a positive thing. Precise and pointed sentences using fewer words and being more to the point, as well as putting more emotion (your emotion) such as enthusiasm for the subject would make it more suitable for a magazine.

I couldn't find any grammatical or spelling errors on the article, which is certainly not surprising. The only thing that would need tweaking would be the wording which has already been pointed out in previous reviews.

Though, I would like to note that a few details would be good to improve. Such as saying that Copenhagen was in Germany and that the war was WWII where those two things are first introduced, rather than placing them further into the article. This makes it easier for those not so well versed in those two details to distinguish those facts, rather than going to Google and searching those things just to find the information placed further down the page.

In summary, even though it was written like a text book article, it was still interesting. My interest in chemistry and physics probably plays a role in my liking as well. You have all required facts (as far as I know) included. You just need to move a couple of the facts to avoid any distractions from the article, and tighten up word usage.