Conclusion . 
451 
gram of hydrogen ions; while in methyl alcohol Carrara 1 found 
one gram-molecule of methyl alcohol dissociated in about iive 
and a half million liters. If water and methyl alcohol manifest, 
such great dissociative power upon salts dissolved in them,, 
why is it that they do not dissociate their own molecules to a, 
greater extent? 
CONCLUSION. 
From the foregoing the following general statements may be 
made: 
1. In methyl and ethyl alcoholic solutions limiting values for 
fi can usually be obtained. The salts of the heavy metals are 
apparently exceptions. In other solvents a limiting value is 
very seldom obtained. 
2. Neither the dilution law of Ostwald nor that of Rudolph! 
holds in the case of alcoholic solutions. In other solvents 
(since the conductivity remains virtually constant in some 
cases with tlm increased dilution, w T hile in other cases it de¬ 
creases), it is very apparent that the above named laws do not 
hold. Then, too, since the value of ^ cannot be obtained in 
the case of so many solvents, the validity of the dilution laws, 
could' not be tested. 
3. The degrees of dissociation of the dissolved substances in 
non-aqueous solutions, as calculated from the boiling point or 
cryscopic determinations and from the conductivity measure¬ 
ments, show very great disagreement. No such agreement ie 
manifest as is observed in the case of aqueous solutions. 
4. Solvents that have a high dielectric constant, yield solu¬ 
tions that conduct the best. Some solvents, the dielectric con¬ 
stants of which are very low, give poorly conducting solutions. 
The molecular conductivity is not, however, proportional to' 
the dielectric constant of the solvent. 
5. Some associated solvents yield solutions that conduct 
electricity, whereas others do not. Some solvents whose mole¬ 
cules are not polymerized yield conducting solutions. The 
1 Gazz, Ohem. Ital., 27,1, 422; 1897; (Ref.) Jour. Chem. Soe ., 72. ii„ 
473; 1897. 
