GRADUAL PRESSURE CHANGES.
Table VI.
83
16 8 T2T 1 T?J
4 T2T
2 T3T
jir,
2T7
TUT
H.B.N.
1.21
+1.22 —1.23
1.23 ! 1.15 +1.23 +1.15 —1.24 —1.15
1.12 +1.11 —1.13
1.08 +1.08 —1.09
H.N.
1.47 +1.49 —1.46
1.35 +1.34 —1.36
1.26 +1.25 —1.27
1.13 +1.12 —1.14
1.1
+1-1 —1.1
1.09 +1.08 —1.09
E.H.B.
1.39 +1.40 —1.38
1.34 +1.34 —1.34
1.25 i 1.13 +1.22 i +1.12 —1.28 1 —1.14
1.08 1.06 +1.07 +1.06 —1.08 —1.06
J. M.
1.4 +1.26 —1.43
1.36 +1.26 —1.46
1.16 +1.18 -1.15
1.09 +1.07 —1.10
1.08 +1.08 —1.09
1.16
+1.17 —1.15
Y.M.
1.44 +1.44 —1.44
1.29 +1.31 —1.28
1.27 +1.31 —1.24
1.18 +1.16 —1.20
1.18 + 1.17 —1.19
1.13 +1.12 —1.15
1.13 +1.13 —1.13
C. H.
1.56 +1.61 —1.51
1.31 1.17 ! 1.09 +1.33 +1.16 +1.1 —1.29 —1.17 —1.09
1.06 +1.06 —1.06
1.03 +1.03 —1.03
The fifth table represents the same relations as the third, except that the calculation is based on the ex- periments of the second table, while the third table is based on the first. The sixth table represents the same relations as the fourth, except that it is based on the fifth as the fourth is based on the third.
These results are presented so clearly in tables IV and VI that graphic representation in terms of ord- nates and abscissas is unnecessary. They are more nearly uniform with Y. M., H. N. and H. B. N., while the other three deviate more from these and from each other. A relation very inaccurately approaching the constancy expressed by Weber's law is obvious, but is not only inexact, but appears only within limits themselves also subject to wide individual varia- tions. C, H. (of Tables I and IV e. g.) recognizes a
