126 
a — } A? + 0,62 AB + 1,62 B 
Sool” gs 4 2,41 AB + 6,99 B? 
En ’ “10; 
[Sissi 2 2 
21 = 4 At + 0,98 AB + 1,69 B 
[Ssst , 
ie 0,16 B 
The rather small intensity found in this way for the line refer- 
ring to the plane (222) seemed not irreconcilable with the obser- 
vations. 
$ 5. Before the calculation and the observation can be compared 
we must multiply the expressions found in $ 4 by the polarisation- 
factor, the plane number-factor, and the modified summation-factor. 
Just as well we can equalize the above expressions with the inten- 
sities obtained by Derpijr and ScHerRER corrected for the absorption 
in the rod and after division by the product of the three factors. 
In this way we obtain the following equations where k is a 
proportionality factor 
A? — 2,32 AB + 1,34 B? = 2391 k for (111) 
A? — 1,84 AB + 6,18 B? = 913k » (022) 
A? + 1,24 AB 4 3,24 BX= 610k he 
A? + 2,41 AB + 6,99 Bt= 483% » (004) 
A’? + 1,96 AB + 3,38 B? —= 446& *) waa (ite) 
A must decrease here: firstly exponentially with H?—=h,?+-h,*?+A,? 
by the heat motion. As coefficient of H? in the exponent of e we 
chose one of the values given by Desir and ScHeRRER le, viz. the 
largest one, that which is derived on the assumption of the exist- 
ence of a zero energy and which appeared to have the greatest 
advantage for the assumption of binding rings. Secondly A must 
decrease with H? because of the two remaining electrons acting as 
“sphere of electrons”. 
For the sake of simplicity I supposed that the action of these 
') In the table on p. 481 of the cited paper of D. and Sch. there evidently 
occur some typographical errors. In column 6 2,04 must be about 4.02, 11.56 
about 6 and in column 7 13 must be about 22. 
