127 
two electrons might be regarded as that of a sphere over the whole 
surface of which the electrons circulate uniformly. The formula for 
270 
i 
a < 5 
the diminishing-factor then becomes PE , where vis the radius 
mo 
a 
of the spherical surface in question and a the edge of the elemen- 
tary cube, so that we must put for A: 
2n 
sin ae 
A — 2 e—4,5. 10-3 H? i ‘ 
a 
For the electrons of the binding rings we have only to attend to 
the heat motion. Thus I replaced B by e-”, 
When we compare the righthand sides of the equations, that of the 
first, viz. that for (111), is exceedingly large. When however 
we compare the left hand sides, the terms containing B show that 
in the equation for (111) this left hand side will become smaller 
than the left hand sides of the other equations. This difficulty will 
however not be met with, when a’ is chosen so great, that the 
terms with B may be neglected. This comes about to the same as 
the ascribing of the decreasing of the line intensity with H*, observed 
by DerBijr and SCarrreR, only to the circulation of the two remain- 
ing electrons about the nucleus. I calculated that for the radius 
of the spherical surface over which as a mean these electrons may 
be regarded to move, the value 0.075a had then to be chosen. This 
is about thrice the radius of the Bonr-ring (one-quantum for each 
electron) about the nucleus. This would not be an improbable value 
of the radius of that sphere. Then however we must take a’ at 
least equal to 0,6 in order to find somewhat fitting solutions of the 
2 nr? 
a? 
equations. When we put a? = (r = mean deviation by the 
„heat motion) r should thus become somewhat smaller than 0,2 a 
and such a great deviation seems to-be in contradiction with recent 
conceptions on the specific heat of solid bodies, to which the elec- 
trons contribute to a small degree only. We may lower the a-value 
wanted by taking for the radius of the electronic sphere about the 
nucleus 4 or 5 times instead of 3 times the radius of a ring of 
one quantum; then however this radius becomes improbably large 
and «’ remains still too large. *) 
y In my opinion Coster |.c. would also have met with these difficulties when 
