| (9) 
$= MRT (lay) log 1—a—y) + w log a + y log y + yi. 
From this follows 
a“ lu 
log ‘El 
lay dee }»,T,y 
1 
Ke = MRT 
da: 
8 y du 
= MRT } log —— a d 
“ l—a—y dy Jp, Ter 
1— Pu 
nnie ets ag a, 
xv(1—w—y) dec? ps Ty 
of dp 
dedy ),, 
43 
i = MRT | eel ") 
dy’ pl Ht y(1—a— dy? P, 1 
: du 
For brevity’s sake I shall represent (9 by ws. With analogous 
de) 
p Ty 
signification the symbols wy, we, ws, and uw’, will be used. 
We deduce from the conditions of coexistence (see p. 551, 553 
and 554 Vol. IV) the. following relations. 
: a dEN. v dt © u 
From | — | =| — | follows : Ji = Gina thane We) (ld) 
Cr da}. le, —y, l1—w,—y, 
d i 1 vl u! 
From 3 = 2 follows Pid Ages SA Piet se (2) 
dy), dy), l—a,—y, 1—x,—y, 
1G i 1S 1 
And from F =e pe cat pec En aen y a follows: 
da Sdu. lav i 
Ween 
Al As 
8 art 
wee, 
= 
8 
= 
log (1-2,- Y‚) a Ut, We, ms Wy} ne t log (1-#,-¥,) + Uyt; Wes Ys yn} (3). 
From these equations (1), (2) and (3) again follows, that we can 
express the relation between the composition of the coexisting phases 
only then, if we know what variation in the equation of state is 
caused by the substitution of one of the components by another. So 
we find e. g. for the determination of the limiting value of the 
ratio of 2, and w, in the case that xz, and y, are infinitely small the 
equation : 
2 
if ®, Agel) ! 
0g Swale? Us, Se U za | 
a, 
If we exclude the knowledge of the equation of state, we can in 
nowise account for the considerable differences which this ratio shows 
