can be represented by correction-terms depending on the apparatus dimensions, so that even considerable errors in the determination of the latter ones, are of little influence on the results.[1]
Table I | ||||||
z cm | y cm | β | ψ(β) | k2 | δ perc. | |
0,348 0,461 0,576 0,688 |
0,0839 0,1175 0,1565 0,198 |
0,957 0,907 0,847 0,799 |
3,08 2,49 2,13 1,96 |
2,16 2,165 2,20 2,165 Mean: 2,173 |
-0,6 -0,4 +1,2 -0,4 |
k1=0,532 perc. |
Table II | ||||||
z cm | y cm | β | ψ(β) | k2 | δ perc. | |
0,200 0,250 0,300 0,350 0,400 0,450 0,525 |
0,0241 0,0305 0,0382 0,0469 0,0574 0,0688 0,0856 |
0,930 0,917 0,875 0,831 0,777 0,730 0,684 |
2,69 2,56 2,26 2,065 1,89 1,78 1,695 |
[2,19][2] 1,87 1,855 1,845 1,895 1,864 1,850 Mean: 1,863 |
[+17,5] +0,4 -0,4 -1,0 +1,7 0,05 -0,7 |
k1=0,260 ε = 1,0 perc. |
Table III | ||||||
z cm | y cm | β | ψ(β) | k2 | δ perc. | |
0,35 0,45 0,50 0,60 0,70 |
0,0455 0,0651 0,0760 0,1000 0,1230 |
0,851 0,766 0,727 0,6615 0,6075 |
2,147 1,86 1,78 1,66 1,595 |
1,721 1,736 1,725 1,727 1,655[3] Mean: 1,723 |
-0,1 +0,7 +0,1 +0,2 -3,9[3] |
k1=0,258 ε = 1,2 perc. |
Table IV | ||||||
z cm | y cm | β | ψ(β) | k2 | δ perc. | |
0,150 0,175 0,200 0,225 0,250 0,275 0,300 0,325 0,350 0,375 |
0,0607 0,0720 0,0835 0,0991 0,1132 0,1290 0,1455 0,1630 0,1813 0,1988 |
0,963 0,949 0,933 0,883 0,860 0,830 0,801 0,777 0,752 0,732 |
3,23 2,86 2,73 2,31 2,195 2,06 1,96 1,89 1,83 1,785 |
8,12 7,99 (?) 7,46 8,32 8,09 8,13 8,13 8,04 8,02 7,97 Mean: 8,09 |
+0,4 -1,2 [-7,8] +2,8 +0 +0,5 +0,5 -0,6 -0,9 -1,5 |
k1=0,905 ε = 1,4 perc. |
Le be the intensity of the electric field, ½ the intensity of the magnetic field, and two constants; then:
4) |
5) |
6) |
so that under consideration of 1):
7) |
or
8) |
Equation 8) thus represents the equation of the -curve,
- ↑ For details of the calculation, see W. Kaufmann, Gött. Nachr. 1902. H. 5. (Although the calculation is carried out in a somewhat different way.)
- ↑ Not used for the determination of the average, since it was obviously distorted by plate errors or other disturbances.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Due to the larger inccuracy of the individual adjustment, it was introduced with ¼ weight when calculating the average; the point lies at the outermost viewable end of the curve.