( 76 ) 



essay with all the strength of his great talent the " Quadra t-wurzel- 

 gesetz" found before, applied the calculation also to the irritation 

 by constant currents of very short duration and afterwards (22) 

 likewise to condensator-discharges, collected in 19 Tables all the 

 experiments of v. Kries, Reiss, Weiss, La Picque etc., showed how 

 all these experiments, well arranged, brilliantly confirmed the Quadrat- 

 wurzel-gesetz, and explained how possible deviations from this law 

 could easily be accounted for by a certain "Accommodation" of the 

 organism. 



It seemed as if all difiiculties were solved with one stroke, and 

 that physiologists could do no better than admit Nkrisst's theory 

 in all its consequences. 



The irritation-effect of the condensator-discharges was to become 

 proportional to the root of the electric energy, that of the current 

 of short duration to the root of the time. With alternate currents 

 the optima frequention was to be regarded as a fiction, in short all 

 was to be utterly changed. Of course I could not agree to this 

 situation and therefore I protested in all humility against this supre- 

 macy of theory over facts. 



Soon however also others raised objections against the "Quadrat- 

 wurzel" law and exactly the three physiologists who have worked 

 most in this domain i. e. Hermann, La Picque, and Keith Lucas. 



Hermann (,24) has many objections against Nernst's conclusions 

 and La Picque very soon develops a deviating theory of his own, 

 whilst in his manifold condensator-experiments he constantly makes 

 use of the formulas (2) and (3) which have virtually been deduced 

 from my formula (1). Keith Lucas, though applauding Nernst's 

 principle, could neither assent to the consequences, and therefore 

 instigated his friend Hill, a thorough mathematician, to repeat 

 Nernst's calculations, starting from a more general standpoint. 

 In a detailed essay in the "Journal of Physiology" of J 908 Hill 

 accomplished this task in a most competent way. 



For simplicity's sake Nernst had admitted in his calculations, that the 

 second electrode was removed at iniinite distance from the first and there- 

 fore contemplated only the concentration-changes at the first electrode. 



This is a case that never occurs, and therefore Hill has made a 

 more general hypothesis namely that the electrodes are placed at a 

 distance of a c.M. from each other, and that now the concentration- 

 change is asked in a point at a distance of x c.M. from the first 

 electrode. For the rest the calculation is made entirely according to 

 Nernst's method. It is true that in this rectified hypothesis the calcu- 

 lation becomes more intricate, but the result is startling. For the 



