FOOTNOTES:[476]Russell, Science, 39, 791, 1914.[477]R. H. Fowler and Milne, M. N. R. A. S., 83, 403, 1923.[478]Harrison, unpub.[479]H. C. 258, 1924.[480]Payne, Proc. N. Ac. Sci., 11, 192, 1925.[481]Clarke and Washington, Proc. N. Ac. Aci., 8, 108, 1922.[482]Russell, Science, 39, 791, 1914.[483]Pub. Dom. Ap. Obs., 1, 325, 1922.[484]Jeffreys, The Earth, 1924.[485]Shapley.[486]Nature, 115, 419, 1925.[487]M. N. R. A. S., 84, 665, 1924.[488]Clarke and Washington, Proc. N. Ac. Sci., 8, 108, 1922.[489]H. C. 256, 1924.[490]Fowler, Report on Series in Line Spectra, 170, 1922.[491]Hopfield, Nature, 112, 437, 1923.[492]H. C. 256, 1924.[493]Clarke, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 132, 1924.[494]G. P. Merrill, quoted by Clarke, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bul. 491.[495]Professor Russell believes that iron is much more abundant, at least in the sun, than calculated above. He writes: “More than half of all the strong winged solar lines are iron lines, and the strength and evident saturation of even the faint satellites in the iron multiplets is remarkable.... There are a great many multiplets of nearly equal strength arising from the low tripletlevel in iron.... Nothing like this happens for thelines, or forand,although it may hold true for the Mg triplets. I should consequently favor multiplying the percentage for iron by a factor of at least 3 and probably 5—which would put it where it obviously belongs.”[496]Chapter V,p. 56.
[476]Russell, Science, 39, 791, 1914.
[476]Russell, Science, 39, 791, 1914.
[477]R. H. Fowler and Milne, M. N. R. A. S., 83, 403, 1923.
[477]R. H. Fowler and Milne, M. N. R. A. S., 83, 403, 1923.
[478]Harrison, unpub.
[478]Harrison, unpub.
[479]H. C. 258, 1924.
[479]H. C. 258, 1924.
[480]Payne, Proc. N. Ac. Sci., 11, 192, 1925.
[480]Payne, Proc. N. Ac. Sci., 11, 192, 1925.
[481]Clarke and Washington, Proc. N. Ac. Aci., 8, 108, 1922.
[481]Clarke and Washington, Proc. N. Ac. Aci., 8, 108, 1922.
[482]Russell, Science, 39, 791, 1914.
[482]Russell, Science, 39, 791, 1914.
[483]Pub. Dom. Ap. Obs., 1, 325, 1922.
[483]Pub. Dom. Ap. Obs., 1, 325, 1922.
[484]Jeffreys, The Earth, 1924.
[484]Jeffreys, The Earth, 1924.
[485]Shapley.
[485]Shapley.
[486]Nature, 115, 419, 1925.
[486]Nature, 115, 419, 1925.
[487]M. N. R. A. S., 84, 665, 1924.
[487]M. N. R. A. S., 84, 665, 1924.
[488]Clarke and Washington, Proc. N. Ac. Sci., 8, 108, 1922.
[488]Clarke and Washington, Proc. N. Ac. Sci., 8, 108, 1922.
[489]H. C. 256, 1924.
[489]H. C. 256, 1924.
[490]Fowler, Report on Series in Line Spectra, 170, 1922.
[490]Fowler, Report on Series in Line Spectra, 170, 1922.
[491]Hopfield, Nature, 112, 437, 1923.
[491]Hopfield, Nature, 112, 437, 1923.
[492]H. C. 256, 1924.
[492]H. C. 256, 1924.
[493]Clarke, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 132, 1924.
[493]Clarke, U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 132, 1924.
[494]G. P. Merrill, quoted by Clarke, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bul. 491.
[494]G. P. Merrill, quoted by Clarke, U. S. Geol. Surv. Bul. 491.
[495]Professor Russell believes that iron is much more abundant, at least in the sun, than calculated above. He writes: “More than half of all the strong winged solar lines are iron lines, and the strength and evident saturation of even the faint satellites in the iron multiplets is remarkable.... There are a great many multiplets of nearly equal strength arising from the low tripletlevel in iron.... Nothing like this happens for thelines, or forand,although it may hold true for the Mg triplets. I should consequently favor multiplying the percentage for iron by a factor of at least 3 and probably 5—which would put it where it obviously belongs.”
[495]Professor Russell believes that iron is much more abundant, at least in the sun, than calculated above. He writes: “More than half of all the strong winged solar lines are iron lines, and the strength and evident saturation of even the faint satellites in the iron multiplets is remarkable.... There are a great many multiplets of nearly equal strength arising from the low tripletlevel in iron.... Nothing like this happens for thelines, or forand,although it may hold true for the Mg triplets. I should consequently favor multiplying the percentage for iron by a factor of at least 3 and probably 5—which would put it where it obviously belongs.”
[496]Chapter V,p. 56.
[496]Chapter V,p. 56.