1 8 4 D O C . 2 2 6 O P I N I O N N A U T I S C H E V S . A N S C H Ü T Z Through a higher saturation of iron I recently improved the blow ring-magnet by 20% the differential curve got steeper as well. Now I am trying to reduce the dis- tance between the poles I hope further improvement will come out of that. I man- aged to make a very nice relay via electro-inductive repulsion, too. And otherwise: materials testing, you know, and the usual struggles attached to technological developments but I am content and definitely count on good success. We repeated the heat-rotation experiment without copper, with negative result I next want to repeat it with a new coil that fits better, i.e., smaller diameter with ref- erence to the distance between the poles and a higher winding, and oil at 250° as the heat source.[3] My wife and I are still hoping that it will be very hot in Berlin in July, provided you will be there around that time then the temperature will perhaps remind you that it is always somewhat cooler and breezier over here than elsewhere and that your little room up there on the IInd story is waiting for you. I hope your wife is better again both of us are feeling extremely well since the removal of the appendix.[4] Many warm wishes between households, yours ever truly, Anschütz. 226. “Second Supplementary Expert Opinion in the Matter of the Gesellschaft für nautische Instrumente vs. Anschütz & Co.” [Berlin, between 9 June and 10 July 1922][1] In addendum to my opinion of 16 Dec. 1918[2] alongside the first addendum of 12 Apr. 1922, I state below my opinion on the new material presented to the Appeals Court for the Kiel Region as follows: I. G[erman] R[eich] P[atent] 211 634, supplement to G. R. P. 174 111[3] as extensively discussed in the appeal grounds of 9 Jun., does not come into consid- eration for a decision on the present question because it does not exhibit any effec- tive installations to eliminate or reduce the rolling error as, in all the installations described in the patent, horizontal accelerations affect unimpeded oscillations of the direction-finding system around the axis of its gyroscope, which oscillations are known to cause the rolling error. The contrary assertions of the appeal bases of June 9th are incorrect.