432 DETERMINATION OF FREEZING-POINT DEPRESSIONS, ETC. 
TABLE II. 
; Equivalent Depression. 
Concentration. 
(gr. eq. /U.) 
Loomis. Jones. Hebb. 
.075 3.470 3.495 3 495 
.05 3.50 3.518 3 528 
.03 3.528 3 553 3.570 
.02 3.550 3 575 3 598 
01 3.60 3.605 3.64 
.005 o190 ¢ 3.665 3.67 
If now we plot ionization coefficients as ordinates, against 
equivalent depressions as abscissae, it is generally assumed that 
at great dilution we shouid get a straight line. My results are 
too erratic to lie on a straight line, but the general course of 
them is no doubt a straight line, and does not tend to either the 
right or left, as do the curves of others—at least up to the con- 
centration .01. Above this it seems to have a slight rightward 
tendency, but not nearly as great as Jones’. Of all the observer's 
results to which I have access, and this includes Loomis, Jones, 
Raoult, Abegg, Ponsot and Wildermann,* there are none which 
give a curve as high or higher than mine. Jones’ curve at the 
lower part seems to coincide with mine, but from the concentra- 
tion of about .08 to .007 it goes to the left of mine, and from 
this on it passes away to the right. Loomis’ curve is to the left 
of both Jones’ and mineand has the leftward tendency, but looks 
as if it would pass off to the right, if dilution were carried far 
enough. Abegg’s curve is to the left of Loomis’. It starts at a 
concentration of .07, runs parallel to mine for a space and then 
passes off to the right. Wildermann’s curve has the leftward 
tendency, while Raoult’s seems to be inclined towards the right. 
In plotting all the above curves I have used Whetham’s 
coefficients. 
Hence it appears to me that my results have bourne out—at 
least toa large degree—what Archibald’s and Barnes’ results 
seem to imply. 
*These data are all taken from MacGregor’s paper cited above. 
