. Their third claim is that the value of
, determined as just explained from the Brownian movements, is in general higher than the value computed from the law of fall, and that the departures become greater and greater the smaller the particle. These observers conclude therefore that we oil-drop observers failed to detect sub-electrons because our droplets were too big to be able to reveal their existence. The minuter particles which they study, however, seem to them to bring these sub-electrons to light. In other words, they think the value of the smallest charge which can be caught from the air actually is a function of the radius of the drop on which it is caught, being smaller for small drops than for large ones.
Ehrenhaft and Zerner even analyze our report on oil droplets and find that these also show in certain instances indications of sub-electrons, for they yield in these observers’ hands too low values of
, whether computed from the Brownian movements or from the law of fall. When the computations are made in the latter way
is found, according to them, to decrease with decreasing radius, as is the case in their experiments on particles of mercury and gold.
III. CAUSES OF THE DISCREPANCIES
Now, the single low value of