Intelligence and Miscellaneous Articles. 163 



changes of curvature at certain points. Mr. Jones subsequently 

 published (Ber. xxvi.p. 5ol)some still more accurate determinations, 

 which he considered entirely disproved the existence of these breaks. 

 I proved, however (Ber. xxvi. p. 1221), that, so far from this being 

 the case, Mr. Jones's results showed the very same breaks as mine 

 did, but in a still more satisfactory manner. I proved that 

 parabolas deduced mathematically from his values so as to allow the 

 existence of these breaks agreed most perfectly with the known 

 experimental error as determined by two independent methods, 

 whereas, when represented by a single parabola without breaks, the 

 error was 10,000 times too large. Mr. Jones found it convenient 

 to ignore the results of this investigation in his answer (Ber. xxvi. 

 p. 1635), which may be summarized in his own words in the Phil. 

 Mag. " I have carefully examined his [Pickering's] results . . . and 

 have shown that the ' breaks' are caused only by the experimental 

 errors in his results. Mr. Pickering has applied his method of 

 curve-drawing to my results from sodium chloride, which differ 

 from his to the extent of more than 50 per cent., and with it 

 claims to have found the same ' breaks ' as in his own results. 

 He has thus shown the true value of his method, which seems to 

 be largely independent of the experimental data. I have since 

 shown that his curve contains the following fundamental errors : — 

 I. At least some of the points in his curve are wrong. II. The 

 choice of points through which he has drawn the curve is purely 

 arbitrary." 



It is true that I did examine Mr. Jones's results by drawing curves 

 through them, but, as I never published the results, I fail to see how 

 he can pretend to know anything about them, unless it is from a 

 rough woodcut on p. 1222 of the Berichte. His answer, which 

 does not, and evidently could not, apply to the mathematical 

 investigation, appears to me to be calculated simply to shirk the 

 results of this investigation, which are too conclusive to be with- 

 stood. His statement that my results differ from his by at least 

 50 per cent, may be characterized by your readers as they think 

 fit. The sole foundation for it is that in the one extreme experi- 

 ment, and in that only, there is such a difference, and that there it 

 amounts to but 0*002° C, an error of which many of Mr. Jones's 

 duplicate results are by no means innocent. 



Mr. Jones's " careful examination " of my results consisted of 

 displaying some of them in a woodcut in a manner which would 

 inevitably fail to reveal anything as to their true nature, and his 

 " proof " of the regularity of his own results consists of a similar 

 plotting. I can only repeat in English what I have already told 

 him in German (Ber. xxvi. p. 1979), that so long as he offers no 

 evidence to invalidate that which I have brought forward in favour 

 of the irregularity of these results, and so long as he declines to 

 give the smallest proof whatever to support his statement that they 

 form a regular curve, I must decline to discuss the matter any 

 further. 



I am tempted, however, to say a word as to Mr. Jones's recent 

 results, although it is impossible to attempt a criticism of them till the 



