82 0. E. SCHI0TZ. [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 a little 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. 



