Electroanalytical Obscurity: An Alternative View

Comments to "Electroanalytical Obscurity: An Alternative View" by Robert de Levie

“…The English version was published next year [3]. The expression in the third line of Introduction in [1], " [2] on my review [3]" (" [2]" and " [3]" in the quotation in the present communication are [3] and [4], respectively), is hence inappropriate: my reflection [2,3] is not aimed to make all-out criticism of the view of Prof. de Levie detailed in [4]. I rather tried to reveal obscurity frequently seen in contemporary textbooks of electroanalytical chemistry, as well as relevant chapters of analytical chemistry textbooks, in introducing "Nernst equation".…”

“…The first paragraph starts with "Below I will take a different view, viz. that a major goal of science in general, and of science education in particular, is to eliminate obscurity rather than to accept it" [1]. This sentence depicts my view as if I tried to plump up, or at least retain, the obscurity in science and science education.…”

“…The title of my reflection "Electroanalytical obscurity" implies both of these. What I presented in [3] is, opposite to what the loaded sentence above by Prof. de Levie [1] connotes, to clearly address the obscurity of galvanic cell because of the presence of the liquid junction. Furthermore, in [3] I showed by use of an ionic liquid salt bridge that it is possible to minimize the obscurity with the uncertainty on the order of submillivolt.…”

“…This exemplifies the case why Gibbs mentioned, "cases of true equilibrium (even for open circuit) are quite exceptional." [1,9] Although I have no means to check if Gibbs examined the cases of the above and/or other similar cells, it seems reasonable to suppose that he knew some galvanic cells with no apparent liquid junction, like Planté cell and Weston cell, at the time when both had been proposed and the former was employed for electric vehicles.…”

“…In that sense, the article, "Electroanalytical obscurity: an alternative view," by Prof. de Levie [1] which is written in response to my reflection, or essay or note, entitled" Obscurity in Electroanalytical Chemistry " [2,3], is highly welcome. Unfortunately, however, his comments in [1] miss the main points I raised in my reflection [2,3].…”