﻿so that 



ill 



638 Mr. Bernard Cavanaoh on 



and 



Jc=oCs 0%s, Jc=oC s dx Sl dCs 



T ~X |-— dx Sx = R0 O V 3/2 (l + JW) "1 



G S =G S "- f ~t^dx s =iRcf> W l i 2 (l+§xcJ) 



g m =g m " =-iR^v 3 «(i+«;). 



. . . . (118) 



As in the previous paper, it is to be remarked that in such 

 a case, if D were the ordinary measurable or " bulk " 

 dielectric constant, the necessary modification of the general 

 terms (if not negligible) might be introduced without know- 

 ledge of the way in which the degree of solvation of the 

 solute was able to affect D. 



In both cases also it may be observed that something 

 might be learned by the introduction of other solutes, since 

 both the constitution of the solvent and degree of solvation 

 depend mainly, if not entirely, on the total concentration 

 C — -not- on the concentration cj of the solute (electrolyte) 

 considered. 



The case of electrolytes provides an interesting and 

 important example of the (probable) fulfilment of the con- 

 dition for the vanishing of (40), though the solution is not 

 perfect. 



It seems quite likely that — at least in the more dilute 

 solutions — the ions will behave essentially and approxi- 

 mately as point-charges, whether solvated or not. 



The general terms for a solution of ions obtained in the 

 last section of the first of these papers would then hold 

 equally for solvated and unsolvated ions. That is, we should 

 have 



and since M s Gm' will be a much smaller quantity in dilute 

 solution, G Xs ", etc., will probably be quite small. 



For G Xg f \ etc., to vanish altogether, we should require 

 that the " bound " or " absorbed " solvent should continue to 

 function in the same way as the free solvent, as separating 

 dielectric between the point-charges. 



