(543) 
Ps Qs H1=0. 
To show the eonneetion which exists between this equation and 
our equation (3) we make the following assumptions: 
a. We neglect the damping. Then the terms with 4A, and B, 
do not occur. 
b. We do not take Herrz’s vibrators, but condensers, the plates 
of which are so near each other, that a, = 42 == 0, even if finite 
quantities of electricity have passed through the wire. Instead of 
7 we write then = as +=/Q, where Q represents the charge 
and / the distance of the plates of the condenser. The wire is to 
be considered as a nearly closed circuit and as long compared with 
|. Assuming this, the terms with A, are suppressed. 
c. As the inductive action of a current does not depend on the 
; ‘ : . di 
intensity ¢, but only on its fluction a We assume, that the terms 
at 
with A; do not occur. 
d. Finally we only try to find a solution for the case, that the 
systems are so near each other, that zj may be considered as very 
small. Even if s is complex (in which case we represent it by 
x 
s_! 
a--/i) e V is approximately equal to unity, if « or /? are not so 
great that a 5 or 3 5 noticeably differs from 0. If we pute 7 = 1 
our equation becomes identical with that of GALITZIN. 
The solution which Gatitzin has found is therefore indeed an 
approximated solution of the problem. But it is an incomplete 
solution. For however small a, may be, we may always take such 
high values for « and /?, that a or pr noticeably differs from 
zero, and then we get solutions, which could not be found by the 
method of GaArirziN. Without making a fuller investigation of the 
interpretation of equation (3), we can say, that only three sets of 
roots may exist, namely. 
1. The roots found by GALITZIN. 
2. Roots for which the supposition that a2 is small is not 
satisfied. Then /? may still have an arbitrary value. The physical 
meaning of these roots is not clear to me, 
