Next consider the apparent variation in when it is computed from the law of fall. Zerner computes from my law of fall in the case of the nine drops published by Fletcher, in which came out as in electrolysis, and finds that one of them yields , one , one , one , while the other five yield about the right value, namely, . In other words (as stated on p. 165 above), five of these drops fall exactly on my curve (Fig. 5), one falls somewhat above it, one somewhat below, while two are entirely off and very much too low. These two, therefore, I concluded were not oil at all, but dust particles. Since Zerner computes the radius from the rate of fall, these two dust particles which fall much too slowly, and therefore yield too low values of , must, of course, yield correspondingly low values of . Since they are found to do so, Zerner concludes that our oil drops, as well as Ehrenhaft’s mercury particles, yield decreasing values of with decreasing radius. His own tabulation does not show this. It merely shows three erratic values of , two of which are very low and one rather high. But a glance at all the other data which I have published on oil drops shows the complete falsity of this position,[119] for these data show that after I had eliminated dust all of my particles yielded exactly the same value of “” whatever their size[120]. The only possible interpretation [Pg 170] then which could be put on these two particles which yielded correct values of , but too slow rates of fall, was that which I put upon them, namely, that they were not spheres of oil.