( 5 ) 



342 

 proportion of -— . It iiow llie absorj)(ioii |)()\vcr of a nioleciilc ot 



gliiccse skiiids to that of a iiiolecule of caiiesugar in tiie proportion 

 of 180 : 342 and if we consider that glncose ti-ansniits witiioul 

 hindrance SC/o of the total invertin radiation, tiie proportion between 

 tlie absorption power of one part of glncose and that of one part 

 of canesugar becomes: 



342 180 1 _ 1 

 Ï8Ö * 342 * 2 " 2 ■ 



After inversion, one part of canesugar yields — parts of invert 



sugar. Therefore n, the relative absor})tion power of the products 



360 1 

 ot inversion oi one part ot canesugar, becomes — . — = 0,525. 

 ^ ° 842 2 



The formula for the inversion velocity thus becomes 



1 m 



log h 0,398 y — 0,827 - t. 



l—y a 



Brown's experiments conform still better to this formula than to 



1 14-.V 

 Henri's empirical formula 2l\ = - log . 



The correctness of our deduction may further be proved experiment- 

 ally in the following way. 



If in addition to the a grams of canesugar b grams of glucose, 

 or laevulose are dissolved per 100 cc, the inversion velocity will be 

 represented by : 



w 



— ax = ■ dt. 



iV -{- n{a — w) -\- lb 



By again substituting '=y ^^'^ obtain, when using ordinary 



ni 

 logarithms and calling — 0,484 = k : 



% 1 + 0,893 \ 1/ = -kt 



l — y b 



•^ IH IH 



2na 2na 



A same enzyme quantity acting under the same conditions in a 

 solution containing canesugar only and in one containing canesugar 

 plus glucose or laevulose gave the following figures: 



