89 

 So the total number of associated molecules is 



6.— 8, 



,i^X>ir= n,' e ^ {2jiOyU 



or 



f\/7n vh 



1 ~^ 



h 



I / ^ __J^ (20) 



y 8:i'm' vh 



1 



6 



So we have found a genei-al formula for the dissociation of 

 di-atoniic molecules. I hope to discuss this formula later more fully. 

 At present I will ojilj- observe, that it shovv« a certain analogy 

 with the results of Nernst's "Warme-theorem". This analogy consists 

 in the circumstance, that the equilibrium-constant is determined by 

 8o — e^ (i. e. tiie heat developed by the reaction at the absolute 

 zero of temperature) and by v, which quantity is closely connected 

 with the store of energy and the specific heat. Besides the mole- 

 cular weight occurs in the formula. The chemical volumes (i. e. 

 Boi.tzmann's "kritische Rilume") to which we should be inclined 

 to ascribe an influence on the equilibrium-constant do not occur in 

 the formula. The cause of this is that in equation (16) we have 

 extended the integrations with respect to ?' between and oo instead 

 of between and K. If the conditions on which we thought we 

 were justitied in doing so are not satisfied, then the formula would of 

 course have to be modified in such a way that the chemical volumes 

 would occur in it. In this case, however, the number of molecules 

 dissociating in one second would be so large, that we should be 

 in circumstances in which we consider the substance to be totally 

 dissociated. We should no longer have occasion to speak of chemical 

 combination, but only of grouping or quasi-association. 



A difference with the considej-ations of Nernst constitutes the 

 circumstance that we started in the usual way from gasreactions, 

 whereas Nernst takes reactions in solid condition as starting-point. 

 Whether this is only a dilTerence of method, or whether it leads to 

 different results is a question which I hope to investigate on a later occasion. 



I will still make one single remark in connection with equation 

 (20), namely that it agrees with the law of the equilibrium change. 



If namely we put -^- = K, then we get : 



