a8o THOMPSON YATES LABORATORIES REPORT 
In this experiment the resistance of the nerves is increased from 82,200 ohms 
to 110,300 ohms by the immersion in water, an increase which can immediately be 
assigned to the removal of electrolytes from the nerve. There is also an indication 
in the data that the superficial resistance is more affected than the ' longitudinal 
resistance,' and, therefore, some confirmation of the otherwise amply justified belief 
that the electrolytes removed from the nerve come largely from the surface 
solutions. 
Support for this last statement is found in the measured resistance of points 
{9) and (10). In the measurements of the resistance after immersion the paradoxical 
result is obtained that the resistance of 10 centimetres of nerve is 110,300 ohms, 
whereas the resistance of 9 centimetres of nerve is 120,000 ohms. 
The resistance of the 10 centimetres is, on consideration, obviously less, because 
taken from cross section to cross section and not through the transverse resistance, 
whereas the 9 centimetre resistance includes some of this transverse resistance. In 
this case, also, the transverse resistance must be relatively much greater than before ; 
since in the resistance measurement taken before immersion the influence of the same 
factor can be detected, but not present in sufficient force to produce the same 
paradoxical result. 
Attending this loss of electrolytes, inferred to be mainly from the ' outer 
solution,' there is a great increase in the potential difference between longitudinal 
surface and cross section. 
(Before, 35*6. After, 160*0) 
an increase of more than four times the original value. 
The curves of distribution of potential taken are of interest, in so for as they are typically 
asymmetrical. The curve taken after immersion in water is very obviously so, and the repetition of the 
curve taken from the second cross section, which was undertaken to prove that the asymmetry was not 
the artificial product of the order in which the observations were taken, is an ample confirmation of 
this. 
If the curve taken before immersion is examined it will be seen that the asymmetry was already 
present before the immersion in tap water, that the maximum of the curve in fact remains in a position 
unaltered by the modification. 
It is worthy also of incidental notice that at the time when the asymmetry was most marked, after 
the immersion, there was no potential difference between the two cross sections to account for it ; that 
also the repetition of the same curve by a subsequent examination taken from the second cross section as 
reference point leaves no possibility of considering the asymmetrical form of the curve as the outcome of 
the mode of observation ; that the measurements of resistance do not reveal any variation in the calibre 
or in the specific resistance of the nerve in different portions of its length which could make 3 centimetres of 
the nerve on one side of the maximum point equivalent to 7 centimetres upon the other ; and finally that a 
consideration of the form of the curve leaves little room for the suggestion that its irregular form is due 
to the presence of accessory local injuries. 
1 
