444 
No. | Anderson. | Kamtz. Lubbock. 
1 0122 ‘0108 ‘0110 
2 ‘0116 ‘0107 “0109 
34 ‘0118 ‘0107 ‘0110 
4 ‘0115 “0104 ‘0107 
5 5 ‘0108 ‘0104 0107. 
6 0118 0107 ‘0110 
ae ‘0112 ‘0102 “0105 
8 ‘0110 ‘0105 ‘0108 
9 ‘0113 ‘0104 ‘0107 
10 ‘0114 “0104 0107 
11 0113 0104 ‘0107 
12 ‘0112 0103 ‘0107 
ities cOLLT, ‘0107 ‘O111 
14 ‘0113 ‘0104 ‘0107 
15 ‘O117 ‘0108 ‘0110 
16 ‘0117 ‘0107 ‘0110 
17 ‘0117 “0108 ‘O111 
18 ‘0116 -0106 -0109 
19 ‘0116 ‘0107 ‘0109 
Mean = :01150 01055 ‘01084 
It will be remarked at once, on the inspection of these 
numbers, that the differences of the corresponding results 
for the same experiment, as well as those of the means, are 
considerably greater than those of different results, as cal- 
culated by the same table: plainly proving that the error 
due to the imperfection of the tables is greater than the 
error arising from observation. If we now take the diffe- 
rences between the mean values of m according to each 
table, and the final mean already obtained, we find that the 
error in the value of m deduced from the first table is only 
+ .00010. The same error, in the case of the second table, 
is — .00085; and in that of the third, — .00056. The pro- 
bable difference, supposing the partial means to be affected 
only by the errors of observation, is less than .00008. We 
have reason to conclude, therefore, that the second and 
third of these tables are not so correct as the first—at least 
for temperatures corresponding to those of the thermometer 
