depend on the temperature, and will therefore be a constant at 

 constant temperature. 



From equation (3), (4) follows 



RT K 

 ve C 



Mr. VAN Laar already pointed out that this equation, already 



derived by him in the same way is identical with that derived by 



K T P r 



Nernst a = In — , in which therefore — stands instead of 



Ï' 8 p p 



K 



— . P represents the "elektrolytische Lösungstension" of the metal, 



and p the "osmotic pressure" of the metal-ions in the solution. 



Rejecting the osmotic phenomenon as basis for the derivation of 

 the dilferent physico-chemical laws, we must, as an inevitable conse- 

 quence of this, also abandon the osmotic idea "elektrolytische Lösungs- 

 tension" introduced by Nernst. 



The principal purpose of this paper is to prove that there is 

 not any reason to look upon this as a disadvantage, for, whe]i we 

 seek the physical meaning of the quantity K in equation (5), it can 

 be so simply and sharply detined, that when we take the theory of 

 the thermodynamic potential as foundation, we do not lose anything, 

 but gain in every respect. 



In order to arrive at the physical meaning of the quantity K, we 

 put for a moment 



C = K 

 from which follows 



A=:0. 



From this follows that there is a theoretical possibility to give 

 such a concentration to the metal-ions in a solution that when we 

 innnerge the corresponding metal in it, neither the rnetahior the solution 

 yets elec.tncally chanjed. 



How we must imagine this condition is sliowji by equation (2). 

 Let us put there A = 0, then follows from this for an arbitrary metal 



_ + 



l^m ~-~ f*m 



or in words the molecular potential of the metal in the bar is equal 

 to that of the metal-ions in the solution. 



So it appears that we have here to do with an equilibrium 

 which is perfectly comparable with that between the Na CI in the 

 bar Na 01, and the salt in the solution. 



