993 
by Smiru; it differs somewhat and ought to lie somewhat higher ©. 
Now, Krurr allows the sulphur to become monoclinic and then again 
determines the initial melting point, but according to his figure, this 
is totally impossible, when we notice that AE’ is situated nearly 
totally between AD’G and AD, so that, starting from points of 
LE we arrive into the region monoclinic sulphur-liquid, owing to 
which the substanee must be partly melted and eonsequently no 
initial melting point can be observed. 
This is the result of the incorrect assumption that CG rises, owing 
to which AG nearly always gets situated quite to the left of BA. 
If CG is drawn falling (lowering of the transition point) in which 
case we again obtain Fig. 5 this difficulty does not arise. 
Summarising, I arrive at the following conclusions which differs 
case we from that of Krurr: 
dst The modifications introduced by Krvuyr in the previous Fig. 
of Prof. Smits (Proc, XIV, 264) are incorrect. 
2d By addition of S, the transition temperature S, <S Spi is 
lowered. 
3'¢ Fig. 3 (from Krvyr) is not in harmony with the phenomena 
observed (also see ad 7). Even Krvyt’s own experiments are in 
disaccordance with it. 
4h Kruyr has determined not the line BE from Fig. 3, but the 
line BL’. 
5th The system sulphur is not pseudobinary, but at least pseudo- 
ternary. 
6 In consequence of this, the true direction of the lines from 
figs. 3, 4, and 5 is another one than that assumed by Kruyt. The 
significance of the intersecting points of the lines drawn by Krurr 
also differs from that attributed to them by that investigator. 
7) There exist no grounds for the assumption of a region of 
demiscibility. 
Inorg. Chem. Lab. University. 
Amsterdam, September 1912. 
1) The difference has to be explained by the different method of working. 
Freezing points are easily found too low, melting points too high especially in the 
case of mixed crystals. 
59 
Proceedings Royal Acad. Amsterdam. Vol. XV, 
