140 
MEW Orcs le ee) eee 
MZ ME NON EE OE 
MZ Peer. Se 
If we now apply the law of mass action to this equation, we get: 
M ln Ss % 
Ves ELAN ie Boone ee 
(My) 
Mi % 
Ae EE CE OAN ee 
j (Mr) 
M Jg. A = ¥g— | 
OK (30) 
(My) 
If by combination of two of these three equations we eliminate 
the electron concentration, we get the relation: 
Mey (MI 
(Mz) 
from which appears, as also follows directly by elimination of the 
electron concentration from the equations (15a) and (16a), that as 
far as the final result is concerned, the equilibrium in the electrolyte, 
and of course also in the metal, can be considered as follows: 
BAO pe pe pe a a Ga ED 
If we now bear in mind that (M/) is a saturation concentration 
in the electrolyte, which is in contact with the metal, we get for 
this case: 
K, (31) 
(Mie 41 
zl 
Eet 50 
4 (Mn) ( ) 
Now that we know that with constant temperature and pressure 
M* )¥ 
(Mx ) 
(ifs), must be a constant quantity, it is easy to examine the in- 
L 
fluence of a change of concentration on the potential difference in 
case of internal equilibrium. 
If e.g. we double the concentration, the ratio (27) would become 
2%” times as great, when no internal transformations took piace. 
As, however, this fraction has to remain constant in case of internal 
equilibrium (Ma) will decrease and (M>) will increase. When we 
only want to determine in this increase of concentration the direction 
of the shifting of the equilibrium, of course equation (32) will be 
sufficient, because, when it is borne in mind that the concentration 
