WATER OF THE DEAD SEA. 5^ 



satlisfactoiy, bad not the common salt been procured unal- 

 tered by some other process. 



1. In order to obtain these points, 150 grains of the water 

 were treated, with regard to the lime and magnesia, exactly 

 as in the former analj'sis ; but in this case, the acid, instead 

 of being actually separated by silver, was only calculated 

 from the former estimation (sect. ly. 5). 



2. The result proved perfectly agreeable to ray expecta- 

 tion. It yielded a little more lime and magnesia than the 

 former analysis, but this excess was scarcely perceptible. 

 With regard to the muriate of soda, I was able actually to 

 prociire by evaporation as much as 13 '1 grains of this salt, 

 the actual quantity of which, inferred as in the preceding 

 analysis, was 15*54 grains, a difference easily accounted for 

 by the necessity of heating the salt to redness for its ulti- 

 mate separation. 



3. On summing up the contents of these 150 grains of 

 the water, they appeared to be as follow : 



Salts. Acid. 



Muriate of lime ^ • • 5*88 grains ^-89 grains. Contents of 



Muriate of magnesia • • • • 15-37 ^ 8-6] \^.^ «^''^'"s, bj 



T./. . r. , this analysis. 



Muriate of soda 15*54 zz 7-15 



Selenite ••? 008 



36-87 18'65 



And consequently the proportions of these salts in 100 Proportions in 

 grains of the water would be : 



Grains. 

 Muriate of lime 3-920 



Muriate of magnesia < . . . . 10-246 



Muriate of soda 10*360 



{Sulphate of hnie • • • • . 0-054 



24-580 



The coincidence of these results with those of the former 

 analysis was such as I could scarcely have expected to in- 

 crease by further trials. The last statement, however, I con- 

 sider as the most accurate of the two. 



It 



