General Discussion of Results. 
433 
Rudolphi's formula, which differs from Ostwald’s in having 
^V for V, has been shown to hold no better than Ostwald’s. 
The values of the constant as calculated by these two formulae 
from the conductivity determination of potassium acetate, are 
given in the following table for comparison. K with the sub¬ 
script r indicates that those values were obtained by using 
Rudolphi’s formula, while K with the subscript o indicates that 
Ostwald’s formula was employed. 
Table XXXIV. 
v 
/: 
100 Kr 
100 Ko 
11.4 
8.28 
0.82 
0.242 
113 
17.18 
0.59 
0.055 
1,120 
27.0 
0.49 
0.014 
3,520 
29.2 
0.36 
0.006 
It will be observed that Rudolphi’s formula does not yield a 
constant. 
From the preceding it therefore appears that neither the di¬ 
lution law of Ostwald nor that of Rudolphi holds for alcoholic 
solutions. 
It has been shown fromSchlamp’s work that the assumption of 
values for fx-jo is not justified; therefore, since these values are 
wanting, the validity of the law of Ostwald and of that of Ru¬ 
dolphi cannot be tested in regard to this solvent. The data avail¬ 
able are not sufficient to draw any conclusions concerning the 
applicability of these laws of dilution to other alcoholic solu¬ 
tions. 
Nernst 1 has called attention to the fact that solvents which 
have a high dielectric constant yield solutions that conduct elec¬ 
tricity. This is true in the case of alcoholic solutions, but those 
solvents that have the highest dielectric constant do not always 
yield solutions that conduct the best; but in general this is the 
case. Propyl alcohol, the dielectric constant of which is only 
about four-fifths that of ethyl alcohol, generally yields solutions 
that conduct better; the reverse is the case, however, when 
hydrochloric acid is the dissolved substance. Further, methyl 
1 Zeit.phys. Chem ., 14 , 622; 1894. 
