5! Hi, Haug on the Electro-motive Force : 
report about those yng rein Besides this, the figures given 
‘doubt 
y ann were then (1857) not free from as to their 
being increased on Seal of a possible neglect of a part of the 
polarization. 
Apart from all these doubts, I have to confess it, the indis- 
criminate use of the formula H=IR was the chief reason of my 
neglecting the resistance to pass “ Uebergangswiderstand, ty 
since the electro-motive force of cha battery seemed to increase 
in the same ratio as the internal resistance, and did so indeed if 
calculated from coluinn (a), after the common method. Later, 
guided by the fact of the resistance of the copper wire, if calcu- 
jated from low intensities, following its own course, and by the 
evident inconsistency of combining intensities widely didfering 
from each other, I proposed to caleulate the electro-motive force 
not with the direct intensity, but with those intensities every 
me re 
umns, the following values for the electro-motive force : 
(a) 
437 
431 3°86 ; 
460 566 
9°92 
9-69 
8:77 8°95 9°16 9°29 9°34 9-41 9-48 9°48 9-53 9°56 9°58 9°63 9-67 9°62 
The mean of the first three values of column (a) is 4°42; the 
mean of = last six values is 9°67, the ratio of i increase therefore 
e218 
pene to occur at high intensities, But I expect that a rapes 
investigation of the matter will support - views about t 
With the foregoing examination of the cic denies force, I 
hope again to have thrown some new light upon the reason of 
different methods. The variations are here not so 8 as in 
se of the specific resistances; the electro-motive force of the 
Grove bate for instance, varying from 167 ePogaetidertf ’s low- 
