140
DOCS.
186,
187
NOVEMBER
1909
Two
additional short remarks:
1.
It
is
not
clear
to
me
what
you mean
in
the
middle
of
page
26
of
your
paper.
As
far
as
I
know,
osmotic
pressure
cannot be
explained directly by
collisions.
An
argument
of
a more
general
character
is
needed
here.[11]
2.
At the time
I
chose to
use
the
viscosity
of the solution
to
determine the
volume
of
the
sugar
dissolved in
water
because
I
hoped
that
in this
way
I
will also
take into
account
the volume
of
any
attached
water molecules.[12]
3.
It
might
be
quite interesting
to
apply
to
your
suspension
the method
for
the
determination of the
volume
of
the
suspended
substance from
the
viscosity
coefficient
and
compare
it with the
results of
your
method.[13]
Please
also
give my
best
regards
to
your
friend
Prof.
Langevin.
187.
To
Michele
Besso
[Zurich,
17
November
1909]
Dear
Michele,
Thank
you
for
your
postcard.
I
had
already
read
the article in
the
Umschau.[1]
It
seems
that
the inverse
of the
photochemical process proceeds
spontaneously,
especially
in
the
case
of
processes
that
correspond
to
weak
illumination.
Thence
a
kind
of
dynamical
equilibrium,
and
so no
progression
of
the reaction
with
increasing
time.
Excitation threshold
probably apparent.
Photochemical
processes
therefore
seem
unsuited
for
the
testing
of the
quantum
hypothesis.[2]
My
lectures
keep
me very
busy so
that
my
actual free
time
is
less
than
in
Bern.[3]
But
one
learns
a
great
deal
in the
process.
Brooded
only
a
little and
unsuccesfully
about
light
quanta.[4]
Talked
once
with Stodola.
He
is
a
wonderful
person;
sends
you
his
regards.[5]
Mental
balance
lost
because of
M.[6]
not regained.
Habicht
was
here
with
Maschinchen.[7]
---
volt attainable.[8]
Contacts
not
yet
in order. Kl
.....
odd
but
10,000
bearable.[9]
Next time
I'll
write
more.
For
today,
cordial
greetings
to
you
and
yours.
Your
Albert
Moussonstr.
12