424 DE. C. CIIREE: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FROM THE KEW MAGNETOGRAPHS 
the ranges in tlie mean diurnal inequalities for the individual years of the period 
1889 to 1899. For sun-spot maximum at Parc St. Maur I took the years 1892 to 
1895, and for sun-spot minimum 1889, 1890 and 1899. The value assigned to a 
group of years was in this case the arithmetic mean of the values for its individual 
years. 
In the case of Kew, the results for I and V were obtained exactly like those for 
Parc St. Maur, except that 1900 took the place of 1889 and 1890 ; hut in D, H, N 
and W, I took the values given l)y the inequalities for the group of years combined, 
as given in Taldes XL, XllL, XV., XVI. The reason for doing this was that 
individual vears’ results for N and W did not exist, and it was desirable that these 
two elements and D and II should he treated exactly alike. The difference in tlie 
]nethod of treatment would tend slightly to reduce the values of the ranges in D, II, 
N and W at Kew as compared to Parc St. Maur. 
For facility of comparison, the residts for the ranges at tlie two ]daces are 
juxtaposed. The angular and force units are respectively 1' and 1 y. 
Table XLIIL—Values of Constants in Sun-Spot Formida, from mean Diurnal 
Inequalities for Individual Years or for Combinations of Years (Years Giouped). 
1 
Kew. 
Rare St. Maur. | 
24 difterences. 
Ranges. 
Ranges. j 
a. 
X 
1—1 
{hjo) X lot 
X 
1— * 
o 
4- 
(///«) X lO-*. 
a. 
h X lot 
i 
X lO"^. 
1) . . . 
30 • .5 
261 
86 
1 
6 - 20 ! 407 
66 
7-27 
429 
59 
tv . . . 
150-1 
1 1234 
82 
32-4 1850 
57 
38 - 3 
2358 
62 
H . . . 
99-2 
1304 
131 
18-3 1 1896 
104 
20-4 
2170 
106 1 
N . . . 
117-9 
1491 
' 126 
19-4 1942 
100 
22 * 2 
2257 
102 
I . . . 
4-91 
75 
153 
0 - 89 i 120 
135 
1-14 
132 
116 ! 
iv . . . 
1 
77-8 
422 
54 
14-5 1 779 
54 
16-7 
1C03 
60 
§ 57. Comparing the Kew results in Table XLIIL with the corresponding re.sults 
in Table XLI., we find an excellent agreement, especially in the case of D. 
Conq:)aring the Kew data for the ranges in Table XLIIL with the corresponding 
data in Table XL., we see that the values found for “a” in Table XLIIL are always 
slightly the smaller. This is also true of the values of “ h ” except in the case of ^ . 
On the other hand, the values found for 5/b in Table XLIIL are larger than those 
given in Table XL. The differences between the Iavo tables are bv no means large, 
O v O 
but they emphasise the necessity of bearing in mind the principle explained in § 21. 
Still confining our attention to the Kew data, we see that, as in the case of in 
Table XLII., the values of hla for D and AV come close together, the former being 
