1 lie Theory of Electrolytic Dissociation. 663 



of the results of his molecular weight determinations of the 

 salts just mentioned in acetone solutions. It is clear, there- 

 fore, that he has wrongly applied the passage which he 

 quotes from p. 215 of my paper* to non-aqueous solutions, 

 for it relates to aqueous solutions f, as has been pointed out 

 above, and his " correction " is consequently not pertinent. 



The passage quoted by Jones from p. 215 of my paper 

 does refer to the molecular weight determinations on aqueous 

 solutions made by him and his co-workers. — see the article by 

 Jones and Getman, Amer. Chem. Journ. xxxi. p. 303 (1904) J. 

 In this paper experimental data are presented showing the 

 change of molecular lowering of the freezing-point and also 

 the alteration of the molecular conductivity with change of 

 the concentration of the solutions. A goodly number of the 

 salts which were thus investigated are the same as those I had 

 used, and an examination of the experimental results which 

 Jones obtained with these salts shows that there is no such 

 relation between molecular weight determinations on the one 

 hand and conductivity measurements on the other as the 

 theory of Arrhenius requires. Moreover, the behaviour of 

 the salts which they studied in addition to those which I 

 measured, also substantiates this contention. The deter- 

 minations of Jones and his co-workers therefore constitute, 

 indeed, a corroboration of my work as was stated in this 

 Journal § , 



I would like to emphasize here that in my article [| I have 

 not referred to the interpretations which Jones himself puts upon 

 his experimental data, or the mode of reasoning by which he 

 arrives at his conclusions. A scrutiny of the method of 

 " reasoning " adopted by Jones shows that when summed 

 up it simply consists of assuming for any specific solution 

 just so much polymerization and electrolytic dissociation of 

 the dissolved molecules, together with combination of the 

 latter with the solvent molecules, as may be necessay to make 

 the results of the experimental measurements conform to the 



* Phil. Mag. [6] ix. (1905). 



t Lideed, I do not consider the relations between molecular weight 

 and conductivity in the case of non-aqueous solutions till seven pages 

 later in my paper. See Phil. Mag. [6J ix. p. 222 (1905). 



% The earlier work lw Jones and Chambers, and Chambers and Frazer, 

 Amer. Chem. Journ. xxiii. p. 89 and p. 512 (1900), had previously been 

 considered by me, Journ. Phys. Chem. v. p. 359 (1901). 



§ The measurements of Smits, which were mentioned in the same 

 connexion, also confirm my experimental work, which that author has 

 frankly admitted, Zeit. phys. Chem. xxxix. p. 385 (1902). Smits mentions 

 \\\e work of Jones, Chambers, and Frazer in the same connexion, I. c. 

 bottom of p. 429. 



|| Phil. Mag. [6] ix. p. 214 (1905). 



