The Results.

			At. Wt. Cd.	At. Wt. Cd.	At. Wt. Cd.	At. Wt. Cd.
			(O=16)	(O=16)	(O=15.96)	(O=15.96)
			(C=12.001)	(C=12.003)	(C=11.971)	(C=11.973)
	CdC₂O₄	CdO
I	1.53937	.98526	112.026	112.033	111.746	111.753
II	1.77483	1.13582	111.981	111.988	111.701	111.708
III	1.70211	1.08949	112.049	112.056	111.769	111.776
IV	1.70238	1.08967	112.051	112.058	111.771	111.778
V	1.74447	1.11651	112.019	112.026	111.739	111.746
Mean,			112.025	112.032	111.745	111.752
Maximum,			112.051	112.058	111.771	111.778
Minimum,			111.981	111.988	111.701	111.708
Difference,			.070	.070	.070	.070

The values assigned to carbon in the last two columns were found thus—

When	O = 16,	C = 12.001,	when	O = 15.96,	C = 11.971.
”	O = 16,	C = 12.003,	”	O = 15.96,	C = 11.973.

Calculating the atomic weight directly from all the oxalate used and oxide found it would give:

At. Wt. Cd.	At. Wt. Cd.	At. Wt. Cd.	At. Wt. Cd.
(O=16)	(O=16)	(O=15.96)	(O=15.96)
(C=12.001)	(C=12.003)	(C=11.971)	(C=11.973)
112.025.	112.032.	111.745.	111.752.

There seems about equal evidence for the two values assigned to carbon when oxygen = 16. The value of cadmium as given by this method is therefore 112.025 or 112.032.

As will be seen at a glance this figure agrees much more closely with that of Lenssen than with that of Partridge.

Lenssen	Partridge	My work
112.043.	111.816.	112.025 or
		112.032.

It also agrees fairly well with the figure 112.0706 which I obtained by the first method described.