1(1(4 



molecules in the metal and llie (lilleieiit kinds of ions in ^he elec- 

 trolyte each in itself, are in internal eqnilihiiiini. 



It is to be expected 'hat at the ordinary temperature the internal 

 metal ion equilibrium sets in rapitiiy, whereas the metal in itself 

 at the ordinary tempei'ature does not pass into the state of internal 

 equilibrium, or only exceedingly slowly. 



When, however, the metal is brou<>ht into contact with an electrolyte 

 which contains the ions of this metal, the surface of the metal, as 

 I have demonstrated, will assume internal equilibrium in consequence 

 of this that more of those ions in which the metal is deficient, 

 deposit as molecule from the electrolyte, or that the metal sends 

 more of those molecules as ion into solution which have too great 

 a concentration in the metal. These two processes, which dependent on 

 the concentration of the metal can also proceed simultaneously, bring 

 about that the concentration of the surface of the metal becomes 

 equal to that which corresponds to the internal metal equilibrium 

 at the given tem|)erature and pi-essure. In the maintaining of this 

 equilibrium between the molecules M and .1/,, as well as in its 

 setting in, the electrolyte as connective link, will play an inq)ortant part. 

 So it appears convincingly tVom what precedes, just as from my 

 previous communication that the quoted passage refers to the trans- 

 formations which take phice when a metal phase which is not in 

 internal equilibrium, passes into the state of (Mpiilibriiim. 



Also where 1 mention the transition point. I have said: "At the 

 point of transition the electrolyte will greatly promote the intei-nal 

 equilibrium both in the metal e, and in the metal phase d for the 

 just-mentioned reasons." 



The case referred to by Mr. Cohkn, the intliience of an electrolyte 

 on the conversion of one moditication to another, 1 have theiefore 

 left entirely out of consUkratlon, and as it is not exactly practical 

 to mention the names of those who ha\e occupied themselves with 

 other phenomena, there was no occasion for me lo mention Mr. Cohkn 

 in my ))receding paper. 



This iüill, however, be the case when I shall discuss also the 

 influence which Mr. Cohen has in view, when u will appear that 

 a deeper insight is attained just by means of the considerations given 

 in my preceding communication. 



In conclusion in reference to the moti\e of Mr. Cohen's attack, 

 which according to him is to be found in the fact that more and 

 more both Dutch and foreign colleagues should have objected to the 

 line of conduct followed by me, I will only remark that different 

 Dutch colleagues have expressed their synqiathy with my work to 



