NO. 6.| INTRODUCTION. CHRONOMETERS. LI 
The increasing value of « for Hw with increasing temperature seems to 
indicate that the temperature coefficient had a smaller numerical value on 
board than ashore. It was next tried to form some means of the satellite 
points, by which the number of intervals was increased from 3 to 7; and by 
putting y = —0.510 it was found that « could be made approximately con- 
stant for all the intervals except one (1894 November—1895 March) where it 
was sensibly (about 0.84) smaller. No pendulum observations were made 
during this period. The means of the satellite points being, however, rather 
uncertain, these numbers are not reproduced here. 
As it was apparent from these trials that the second solar eclipse, whose 
conditions were much less favorable than those of the first, introduced some 
constraint if the satellite points of the preceding winter were not to be enti- 
rely neglected, it was lastly tried to leave it out and to use the two remai- 
ning equations for a direct determination of # and y, viz: 
1893 July 18—1894 April 5, w + 8.822 y = —0.5253 
1894 April 5—1896 Aug. 22, «+ 11.202 y = —0. 4265 
which give « = 0.5390 and y = —0.5073 and would imply a correction of 
+ 128 to the result of the second solar eclipse, corresponding to a somewhat 
early observation of the second contact as compared with the first, parti- 
cularly for Sverdrup’s observation with the smaller instrument. 
By putting in round numbers 
y = —0.8080 
and determining « from the mean temperature of the whole time (10.°656 C) 
and the mean rate (—0.53864) viz: 
we = +0.5466, 
only 3 seconds were sacrificed from the first solar eclipse, which brings the 
result nearer to the mean of 15* and 2°4 contact, estimated as corresponding. 
As these values seemed to be slightly more concordant with the satellite 
points, the formula 
Daily rate = 0.5466 — 0.5080 ¢ 
was finally adopted. On this basis the first table of the “Results”, containing 
the error of chronometer Hohwii for every 10* day, bas been calculated. 
It may be noticed that the rate of Hw during the 11 series of pendulum 
observations, with temperatures between +5° and +15° C, as calculated by 
this formula, nowhere differs more than +0.81 from the values obtained in 
