KAHLENBERG — THEORY OF ELECTROLYTIC DISSOCIATION. 339 



ciation theory, the theory could not be based on this alone, since 

 additive properties are well known to exist in the case of true 

 chemical compounds, where, since there are no solutions under 

 consideration and since there is no electrical conductivity ob- 

 servable, the possibility of electrolytic dissociation is entirely 

 out of the question. In the realm of physiology, where it at 

 first seemed that the theory of electrolytic dissociation would be 

 particularly helpful, it has after all appeared that it can not 

 cope with the facts 1 . 



The heats of neutralization of acids and bases in dilute solu- 

 tions have been heralded as an argument in favor of the disso- 

 ciation theory; but C romp ton 2 has shown that the dissociation 

 hypothesis is not only unnecessary to explain the heats of neu- 

 tralization, but that it is really inadequate, for it does not 

 bring the behavior of electrolytes, as far as heat changes that 

 accompany the formation of salts in aqueous solution are con- 

 cerned, into line with the behavior of non-electrolytes. It is 

 unnecessary to dwell further upon the insurmountable difficul- 

 ties which the dissociation theory meets in general in the realm 

 of thermal chemistry. These difficulties have been sufficiently 



1 In this connection the reader is referred in particular to the following ar- 

 ticles and to the additional references that they in turn contain: L. Kahlen- 

 berg, The Taste of Acid Salts and Their Degree of Dissociation, Jour. Phys. 

 Chem. 4, 33 (1900). T. W. Richards, The Relation Between the Taste of Acids 

 and Their Degree of Dissociation, Ibid. 4, 207 (1900). L. Kahlenberg, The Taste 

 of Acid Salts and Their Degree of Dissociation II, Ibid. 4, 533 (1900). J. F. Clark, 

 Electrolytic Dissociation and Toxic Action, Ibid. 3, 263 (1899). L. Kahlenberg 

 and R. M. Austin, Toxic Action' of Acid Sodium Salts on Lupinus Albus, Ibid. 4, 

 553 (1900). 



In reviewing the above articles for the Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc. and the Zeit. 

 phys. Chem., Arthur A. Noyes has made the attempt to bring the facts into 

 harmony with the dissociation theory. I will simply state here that I have no 

 desire whatever to enter upon a discussion of these "explanations" of Mr. 

 Noyes, the weakness of which is sufficiently apparent upon the face of them. 

 The facts are before the reader and he can safely be left to judge for himself. 

 I must request the reader, however, to refer to the original of the third article 

 in the above list, or at any rate to use the review of it given in the Chemisches 

 Centralblatt or the Jour. Chem. Soc. (London), since Noyes has omitted to men- 

 tion an essential part of the very simple experiment upon which the argument 

 is based, and has then claimed that the experiment is irrelevant. Evidently Mr. 

 Noyes in his ardor to uphold the dissociation theory did not see the full import 

 of the experiment in question. 



*Jour. Chem. Soc. (London) 71, 951 (1S97). See also Crompton's interesting ar- 

 ticle on Rotations of Optically Active Salts, Ibid. p. 946. 



