ii8 Mr. cavendish’s Account of 
the diminution of nitrous air was .235 by the firfl water, and 
.089 by the latter. 
It fhould feem from hence, as if the obferved teft ought to 
be corrected by fubtra&ing _ + c tbs of the diminution which ni- 
trous air buffers by being fhaken in the water, and adding .002 
for every 3 0 of heat above o, as the foregoing trials will agree 
very well together, if they are corrected by this rule, and bet- 
ter than if corrected by any different rule, as will appear by 
the following table. 
Heat. 
Diminution 
of nitrous 
air. 
Obferved 
teft. 
Correft 
Diminu- 
tion. 
ion for 
Heat. 
Correfled 
teft. 
Former water 
.285 
I - I 39 
.114 
.030 
i-o 55 
L 67 
•235 
1.100 
.094 
045 
1-051 
Latter water 
.OgO 
1.054 
•° 3 6 
.030 
1.048 
1 67 
.089 
1.044 
.036 
•045 
i -°53 
Though in all probability this correction will diminifh the 
error proceeding from a difference in the nature of the diftilled 
water employed, yet I have reafon to think, that it will by no 
means entirely take it away ; for which reafon I do not in ge- 
neral make ufe of it. In almoff all the trials, indeed, in 
which I have applied the correction, it has come out very nearly 
the fame ; which feems to fhew, that there was no other dif- 
ference in the abforbing power of the diftilled water I em- 
ployed, than what proceeded from its difference of heat. The 
above experiment, however, Ihews plainly, that diftilled water 
is capable of a very great difference in this relpeCt independent 
of its heat. 
In the fecond method of proceeding, or that in which the 
nitrous air is added to the refpirable, I found nearly the fame 
difference 
