102
DOC.
87 MAY 1915
extremely complicated,
because
the
electrical
pressure
forces
acting
on
the
surface
depend
indirectly
on
the
shape
of
the
surface; physically
the
approach
is
correct,
of
course.
Your observation
on
the
potential jump
between
electrode and
electrolyte
is
not
new
to
me,
because
I
also have
already
toiled
along
these
lines.[5]
But
you
must not
forget
the
following.
In the
electrode-electrolyte
ar-
rangement,
three
potential
jumps
occur on
the
observed line
L,
namely,
at
P1, P2,
and
P3.
From
the
field,
which
is
produced
in
the
headspace, only
the
sum
of
these
three
potential jumps
can
be
asses-
sed,
but
never anything
about the
potential jump
at
P3
alone.
That
is
why
the
experiment
also
can
yield
nothing
of
interest
resulting
from
the
measurement of
just
such
an
air-filled
field.
In the
simpler
case
of
the Volta
effect,
in which
two
potential
jumps
are
at
play, you
have
recognized
this
correctly yourself.
The
only possibility
known to
me
of
measuring
one
boundary-layer potential
difference would be
the
“evaporation”
or
“condensation”
heat
of
the
electrons,
i.e.,
the
amount of
heat that
an
electron
develops
in
a
metal
upon entering
the
metal
from
a vacuum.
But
an
unproven assumption
forms
the
basis here
as well,
namely,
that
only
electrical forces
are
at work
on
this electron in
the
boundary
layer.
Thus
you see
that the
whole
undertaking
is
quite precarious.
Scientific
endeavors
are
quite
extraordinary;
often
nothing
is
of
more
importance
than
seeing
where
it
is not
advisable to
expend
time and effort. On
the other
hand,
one
should not
pursue goals
that
are
too
easily
reached either. An instinct must
be
developed
for
what
is just
barely
attainable
upon
exertion of the utmost effort.
Previous Page Next Page