(123) 
| 
Date, Time. | Tube | Density. PON Deviation. 
13 July 1900 | 4.34 | IV AT.218 | 1.10684 | + 0 
> mo» | 59 | > 165 Bias athene 
: . 
On an average. | 41.192 1.1064 | +0.0001s 
y 
| 
14 July 1900 | 3.01 IV | 94.127 1.44179 | + 1° 
nek vet (23.96 > 069 6%) sh) He 
he We do 123-56 » | 3.987 a a 
» » » 4. 22 » 23 48 a 08 
ae » 4.55 » 836 1 | — 15 
On an average. | 53.988 1.41115° | +0.00005 
The agreement is satisfactory; it 
following table: 
may be: judged from the 
Number of!Number of Number of Sum of thelSum of the! Mean error 
obser- positive negative positive | negative in 1 
vations. | deviations. | deviations. | deviations. | deviations. | measurement. 
Tube II A 39 22 17 0.00342 0.00328 0.00024 
JUL 34 12 2 0.00368 0.00534 0.0003? 
ny IN 34 20 14 0.00309 0.00288 0.0002° 
| | | 
Total 107 54 53 0.01042 0.01159 | 0.00025 
The fourth tube gives the best agreement. With the value found 
for the mean error in one measurement, to which I had given the 
weight 1, I have also calculated the mean errors in the table for 
the values of a, /} and y. 
S 5. We might calculate values of VAN DER WAALS’ a and 5 
from the values of @, /? and y, supposing that his original equation 
of state would hold for the same temperature within the limits of 
pressure mentioned. It is obvious that then the values of a and 5 
must be corrected, because the terms with higher powers than the 
second power of density were neglected. If we want to calculate 
these corrections of a and b by means of the method of least squares, 
