( 46 ) 



3+2 j/x 



being my above formula (c). And concerning this we have just 

 proved that it is identical with my relation and that of Verschaffelt 

 (Jan. and April 1906), viz. 



e- 4jtV/jT 



~ (3l/jr-l) Q ' 



which is of general application, irrespective whether the branch of 

 the plaitpoint line starts from C\ towards C x or towards C'„. As we 

 already observed, this expression holds on the side of the component I, 

 when 8 = t ^It x and rr = P*/ Vl , so for the branch starting from what 

 is point C, with me. For C 3 (Kkesom's A") 6 and .t must simply 

 be replaced by '/« and '/„ (see above in § 3). 



So in my opinion the footnote on p. 7115 in the paper by K. 0. 

 and K. of April 25, 1907 is not accurate, for according to the above 

 the conclusion of Verschaffelt (and mine) does not require any 

 qualification, because the formula l ) given by us holds for any 

 course of the plaitpoint line, irrespective of the fact whether the 

 considered branch runs from C, to C\ or to C„. For the transition of 

 the two types takes place gradually through the double point of the 

 plaitpoint line, and hence the two types are analytically included 



</'/', 



in the same formula, so that only one expression exists tor , 



d.v 



which holds equally for the two cases. And if any doubt should 

 remain, this must be removed, when from the above the identity is 

 seen between the relation derived last by K. 0. and K., and the 

 general one of Verschaffelt and me. 



It will be superfluous to observe that the so-called (homogeneous) 

 "double plaitpoint" in the branch of the plaitpoint line C B C t , of 

 which K. 0. and K. speak, is identical with the fully discussed 

 minimum and with the double point in the spinodal line, and should 

 not be confounded with the "double point", found by me in the 

 (whole) plaitpoint line, where the two branches of this line intersect, 

 and which separates the two types I and II (or III), the data for 

 which double point can be calculated for the general case only with 

 great difficulty, (see Teyler I). 



J ) In the footnote on p. 795 it says maximum temperature; this must of course 

 be minimum temperature. 



