The electron, its isolation and measurement and the determination of some of its properties
John Stuart Mill · en
The apparent contradiction between these results and mine was explained
when Mr. Fletcher and myself showed[110] experimentally that Brownian
movements produced just such apparent fluctuations as Ehrenhaft
observed when the is computed, as had been done in his work, from
one single observation of a speed under gravity and a corresponding
one in an electric field. We further showed that the fact that his
values fluctuated about too low an average value meant simply that
his particles of gold, silver, and mercury were less dense because
of surface impurities, oxides or the like, than he had assumed. The
correctness of this explanation would be well-nigh demonstrated if the
values of computed by equations (28) or (29) in chap. VII from a
large number of observations on Brownian movements always came out as
in electrolysis, for in these equations no assumption has to be made as
to the density of the particles. As a matter of fact, all of the nine
particles studied by us and computed by Mr. Fletcher[111] showed the
correct value of , while only six of them as computed by me fell
on, or close to, the line which pictures the law of fall of an oil drop
through air (Fig. 5, p. 106). This last fact was not published in 1911
because it took me until 1913 to determine with sufficient certainty a
second approximation to the complete law of fall of a droplet through
air; in other words, to extend curves of the sort given in Fig. 5 to
as large values of as correspond to particles small
enough to show large Brownian movements. As soon as I had done this I
computed all the nine drops which gave correct values of and
[Pg 165]
found that two of them fell way below the line, one more fell somewhat
below, while one fell considerably above it. This meant obviously that
these four particles were not spheres of oil alone, two of them falling
much too slowly to be so constituted and one considerably too rapidly.
There was nothing at all surprising about this result, since I had
explained fully in my first paper on oil drops[112] that until I had
taken great precaution to obtain dust-free air “the values of
came out differently, even for drops showing the same velocity under
gravity.” In the Brownian-movement work no such precautions to obtain
dust-free air had been taken because we wished to test the general
validity of equations (28) and (29). That we actually used in this test
two particles which had a mean density very much smaller than that of
oil and one which was considerably too heavy, was fortunate since it
indicated that our result was indeed independent of the material used.