82 0. E. SCHIOTZ. [NORW. POL. EXP. 
vation, made on the 16th January, 1894, gives a noticeably too small value 
for the acceleration, the difference amounting to as much as 64 units in the 
5th decimal place. I assume therefore, that we may certainly take for granted 
that the acceleration at this place of observation is somewhat smaller than 
normal. It is true that only one pendulum was used; but the two observations 
taken accord very well. The Fram was then already out in the Polar Basin, 
as alittle farther south, on the 21st December, 1893, the bottom had not been 
reached at 2100 metres. But the vessel was not far from the coast-margin 
of the continent, for on November 28th, 1893, in 78°39’. 7 N. Lat. and 138° 49’ 
E. Long., and on November 30th, 1893, in 78°41’.9 N. Lat. and 138° 37 
E. Long., the bottom was reached at respectively 143 and 170 metres, while 
it was not reached at 250 m. on December 3rd, 1893, in 78° 47’.3 N. Lat. 
and 138°8’ E. Long. As the place of observation on January 16th, 1894, 
was in latitude 79°15..2 N. and longitude 137° 28’ E., it will be seen that 
it was not farther from the coast of the Asiatic continent than about 60 km., 
the line where the rapid incline towards the ocean depths commences being 
considered as the coast-line. The incline here appears to be particularly steep, 
as the depth shows an increase of at least 2000 m. in a distance of 60 km. 
The incline would thus be 1 in 30 or thereabouts. The smaller value for the 
acceleration observed at the above-mentioned place seems therefore to accord 
well with the result at which we arrived above. It must be remarked that the 
acceleration was found normal on the following 16th March, 1894, in latitude 
79° 38.5 N. and longitude 135° 10’ E. This place of observation, however, 
is fully 60 km, from the former one, and in such a direction that its distance 
from the coast-margin is about double. The difference, therefore, according 
to our explanation, should here be much less than at the first place. At all 
events, the acceleration in this case was found greater than it should have 
been according to the distance of the place from the coast-margin; but this 
cannot be brought forward as any incontestable objection to the correctness 
of the above result, since we cannot, as already stated, draw any certain 
conclusion from the fact that the acceleration has been found too great. I 
believe, therefore, that we may take it for granted that the observations in 
question are not at variance with the theory expounded above, but that this 
theory is directly supported by the observation of the 16th January, 1894. 
