Conclusion.
I. The work on the oxalate and sulphide methods described in this paper is of no value for determining the atomic weight of cadmium. It does not even enable us to fix an approximate value.
II. There are a number of errors in the chloride and bromide methods as they were used in this work, but they are not very large and partially compensate each other. Their results, 112.383 and 112.396 respectively, may be regarded as approximations to the true value.
III. The synthesis of cadmium sulphate as carried out is of especial valuein fixing aminimumvalue for the atomic weight of cadmium. The result is 112.35, agreeing closely with that obtained by the bromide and chloride methods.
IV. There is an error in the oxide method due to products of decomposition of the nitrate being retained. Direct experiments gave .39 of a unit for this when platinum crucibles were used and .24 of a unit when porcelain ones were used. The calculated errors for porcelain and platinum crucibles are .30 and .51 of a unit respectively, if 112.38 is assumed as the atomic weight of Cadmium.
V. The average of the chloride, bromide, and sulphate methodsis 112.38. This result is to be regarded astentativeand not as final since the main object of this work has been to find the cause of the discrepancy in some methods employed in determining this constant, rather than to make an atomic weight determination.