Hello!
I’ve been using BDF in our lab for a while now, and it’s been great so far. The biggest thing missing that stops me from moving all of my data over is not being to represent the three electrode data we have, i.e. keeping track of reference, working, and counter electrode potential. I’ve looked around a bit but haven’t found any discussions about it. Is this something that might be interesting in the future, or is it a bit outside the scope?
Hi Lukas, thanks for the feedback. Glad to hear that BDF is working well for you. Yes, I think we should support three-electrode setup. I suppose the simplest solution would be to introduce three quantities:
reference_electrode_potential_volt, Reference Electrode Potential / V
working_electrode_potential_volt, Working Electrode Potential / V
counter_electrode_potential_volt, Counter Electrode Potential / V
Would that be sufficient? Any other considerations you think would be needed?
Thanks for the consideration! This would be very useful for us.
One thing to consider is that the reference electrode potential is not really a measurable quantity in the usual sense and that we don’t really have an absolute value for it. Usually one gets the working and counter electrode potentials relative to the reference. I think quantities like:
working_electrode_potential_vs_reference_volt
counter_electrode_potential_vs_reference_volt
would be what one would expect.
The type of reference electrode is also very important (Ag/AgCl, Li/Li+), but that is more of a metadata question I suppose.