+ si 4738) ; 
appears when we do not wait till (13) to introduce the simplification 
a 
that po may be neglected by the side of —, but introduce it imme- 
v 
diately in (11). If we write this equation in the form : 
yp nl ryy oT 
ENT Be 
we find as condition for the stationary state : 
| pi 
ge O Pict 
RI 7 dil fi R1 
LZ 
AT DT OM nae 
Now on the mentioned supposition, and neglecting again the terms 
En aL TA ae 
PME bt el 
with «, we have: 
a 
je we Lb) 4 EL) EEN Ee 
Ee — L(v—b) + —w) = — — — l(v—b L(1--—w 
Jan Nae oe v—b 
and so: 
u de 
‘ ) ide 
& er} da ( iF ) Bond 
EE LOL <a == | 
dx Med lr 07 x,p=0 (v— by? 07 p=0 
dv : 
- |) we find from the equation : 
OT p=0 
a RE 
v3 v—b 
by differentiation: the result becomes after some reduction : 
À ’ lj) 
A) HEEL KAF, a LN Ce AE 
OT ),=0 T (2b—v) 
If we substitute this result and that of (16) into (15), we get 
again (14). So we see now that (14) does not give an independent 
determination of : , but that we can just as well determine this 
(Pm ÍÀ 
quantity from (17). And as the quantities occurring in (17) can 
undoubtedly be determined experimentally with much greater accu- 
racy than the “osmotic temperature”, there is no reason to expect 
that equation (14) will be able to give us any new information 
about the 4 in the liquid state. And in my opinion this obviates 
every reason, at least for the present, to try and conquer the 
undoubtedly very considerable difficulties which will confront us in 
an experimental investigation of “osmotic temperatures”. 
