•2 . Art. 7.— K. Yamada: 



iron and tungsten, there ma}' be numerous lines showing abnormal 

 Zeeman effect. It was with the object of testing this point that 

 the present investigation was undertaken. 



On the other hand, the results obtained by various experi- 

 menters differ so greatly from one another tliat I attributed these 

 disagreements to the different values of -^ (here JA denotes the 

 separation of two outer components of a triplet and H the magnetic 

 field ap^Dlied) of one and the same line, and the discrepancy of 

 many results is chiefly due to the fact that magnetic separations 

 were studied by applying different magnetic fields. In order to 

 decide this question, magnetic fields of different strengths must be 

 applied to test the magnetic separations. Kent^^ in studying this 

 problem found the drooping of the magnetic separations in fields 

 stronger than 30,000 gauss. In reviewing his result, I found that 

 the separation of zinc line v'^: 4680" 138 is not linearly proportional 

 to the magnetic fields applied, while it was confirmed that this 

 line is separated lineary proportional to the fields by Cotton and 

 Weiss, ^-^ Stettenheimer^' and others. And I concluded that his 

 determination of magnetic fields by the ballistic method bofore and 

 after photographing the spectra may be different. Stettenheimer, 

 •comparing her result upon the separation of X: 4680*138 of zinc with 

 that of Kent, remarked tliat the value of Kent was smaller by 

 13*2 %. Hartmann also remarked that the value given by Kent 

 was smaller by 8% as regards the iron lines. Van Bilderbeek-van 

 Meurs^^ and Arthur King^^ are al>o of the same opinion. For the 

 solution of this problem, we must have recourse to new experi- 

 ments, and determine as accurately as possible the field at which the 

 magnetic separation takes 'place. 



1) Kent., Astropliys. Juurn., 13 (1901), p. 289. 



2) Weiss et Cooton, Journ. d. Phys., (4) 6 (1907), p. 427. 



3) Stettenheimer, Ann. d. Phys., (4) 24 (1907), p. 384. 



4) Van Bilderbeek-van Meurs, loc. cit., p. 391. 



5) Arthur King, Carnegie Institution Papers etc., p. 7. 



