134 
and 
mie rd elen AEEA MARE AREN etd) 
we get in perfect agreement with our foregoing communication : 
RT Ky (Ms) 
2 e 
AN 5 (6) 
mee) 
and 
RT» KAO 
A= — ln i(s) Mees ES ze ere |!) 
as (07) | 
The last electron-equation is of course the same as for a univalent 
metal. 
If we now combine these two equations, we get: 
RT K', (6 K' yy (Ms 
A= —— je 9 (2s) —In- aw (fs) . (8) 
a ee (Mz) 
or 
RT |, K5(4s) 07)’ 
A= ET In : ( ue —lIn On) | ge arti! Ne eee 
oF Ke (MS Li) 
If we now again write K's (6s) = Ks = solubility electrons 
and K'y(Ms)= Ay’ = ne metal ions, 
we get instead of (8) and (9): 
RT Ky Km” 
A= vinne nw a (10) 
nF (Or) (M7) 
or 
x ye eee ©) 07) 
Ne = lat | ye hereon ee 
Ar Ky Mr) 
The solubility product is in this case: 
Ty Gi Noten en a = eat, A 
from which therefore follows that when (M7) is doubled, the concen- 
1/, 
tration of the electrons becomes smaller by 2” 
If we take this into account in the discussion of equation (11), 
we see that this change of concentration causes an increase of the 
positive, or a decrease of the negative potential difference. 
3. Potential difference of the metal with respect to the pure solvent. 
From equation (11) the relation for the potential difference for 
