124 
case the value of that factor remains small also for other phases, 
especially when the radius has been chosen a little greater. This 
would meet the chief objection of D. and Scu. to the binding rings 
as has also been shown by Coster with a somewhat different way 
of representation. 
§ 4. For the calculation of the intensities of the other reflected 
beams I proceeded in the following way : 
As a consequence of the smallness of the remaining inner ring of 
two electrons (of one quantum probably for each electron) compared 
with the binding rings (that are perhaps of two quanta for each 
electron) I assumed in the calculation of the intensities of the 
other lines the radius of the first ring to be zero and that 
ring to give then a “diminishing-factor”, analogous to that of D. 
and Sca. *), while also for nucleus + ring a temperature-factor had 
to be assumed. All this was comprised into the ‘“diffraction-factor” 
A(< 2) for nucleus + ring. In the same way the factor B (on) 
referring to each of the binding electrons comprised also the tem- 
perature factor of these electrons. 
; 8 
Replacing 76 by v we find then at the moment ¢ for */, of 
the structure-factor for unmixed triplets 
A A Zr 
stg == 
5 (blebs) HE ús 
+ Be | cos 4 "|i cos wt +h,cos (wr a. =) +h, c(t + 5) | == 
5 (hatha) OE An 
+e cos Zul h, cos wt—h, cos | wt + — | — h, cos | wt + — | | + 
1 2 ate 3 
(ith) In An 
+e cos $ | - h,cos wt Hoof of 4- =) h, cos (w + =) + 
> (hh) on Ar 
+e cos } v - h,cos wt—h,cos (wr == =)+ h, cos (ot Er |. 
In this expression we may substitute the unmixed indices-triplets 
of the lines that were to be seen on a photo of D. and Scn., take 
the modulus-square, multiply this by dt, integrate this over a period 
1) P. DeBise and P. ScHERRER, l.c. 
