Abstract
PROF. A. N. CAMPBELL, of the University of Manitoba, has suggested1 that this type of diagram should no longer be mentioned in treatises dealing with the phase rule. A similar opinion is also held by Prof. Jaenecke. I find this conclusion inadmissible for the following reasons.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nature, 154, 530 (1944).
Lombaera, Bull. Soc. Chem. Belg., 33, 232 (1924).
Padoa and Rotondi, Gaz. Chem. Ital., 45, I, 51 (1915).
Jaeger, Z. Kryst., 38, 583 (1904).
Mascarelli and Pestalozza, Gaz. Chem. Ital., 39, 218 (1909).
Kurnakow, Z. anorg. Chem., 88, 109 (1914).
Guertler and Schulze, Z. phys. Chem., 104, 269 (1923).
J. Chem. Soc., 119, 1329 (1921).
See Ostwald, Trans. Chem. Soc., 84, 106 (1904).
Bull. Soc. Chem. Belg., 44, 44 (1935).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
TIMMERMANS, J. Roozeboom's Solid Solution Diagram, Type II. Nature 154, 23–24 (1944). https://doi.org/10.1038/154023a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/154023a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
