Chapter VII

., Note 27 bis). And as these conclusions are also applicable in the case of osmotic pressure (Note 19), and a variation in the magnitude of _i_, in passing from solutions which do not conduct an electric current to those which do conduct electricity is everywhere remarked, so it was natural to here seek that causal connection which Arrhenius (1888), Ostwald, and others expected to find in the supposition that a portion of the substance of the electrolyte is already decomposed in the very act of solution, into its ions (for example, NaCl into Na and Cl), or into the atoms of those individual substances which make their appearance in electrolysis, and in this way to explain the fact that _i_ is greater for those bodies which conduct an electric current. We will not consider here this supposition, known as the hypothesis of 'electrolytic dissociation,' not only because it wholly belongs to that special branch--physical chemistry, and gives scarcely any help towards explaining the chemical relations of solutions (particularly their passage into definite compounds, their reactions, and their very formation), but also because--(1) all the above data (for constant depression, osmotic pressure, &c.) only refer to dilute solutions, and are not applicable to strong solutions; whilst the chemical interest in strong solutions is not less than in dilute solutions, and the transition from the former into the latter is consecutive and inevitable; (2) because in all homogeneous bodies (although it may be insoluble and not an electrolyte) a portion of the atoms may he supposed (Clausius) to be passing from one particle to another (