White Gold Alloy Proportions: Is this Wikipedia Diagram Accurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phrak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gold
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of a Wikipedia diagram illustrating the proportions of metals in white gold alloy, specifically questioning whether the proportions of copper (Cu), gold (Au), and silver (Ag) add up to 150%. Participants clarify that the diagram is not incorrect but rather requires a specific reading method. By drawing lines parallel to the triangle's sides from a chosen point, the proportions can be accurately determined, totaling 100%. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the diagram's presentation, which is a common method for representing three-component mixtures. While acknowledging the potential for clearer presentation, participants emphasize that the criticism of Wikipedia contributors should be tempered, recognizing the complexities of conveying such information.
Phrak
Messages
4,266
Reaction score
7
Is this Wikipedia diagram of white gold alloy wrong? The contributing proportions of Cu, Au and Ag seem to add up to 150% for equal portions of each metal.

350px-Ag-Au-Cu-colours-english.svg.png


This is from the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_gold#White_gold"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
It is not wrong, it's just harder to read.

Any alloy is a point on the diagram, which is then transformed into 3 proportions of each totaling 100%.

The way to read. Set a random point or what alloy you want. from that point draw 3 lines parallel to the sides of the triangle. The %'s will be clearly visible and totaling 100%.
 
OK. Now I see it, now that you've stated it that way. The equipotential lines pinwheel counterclockwise and it seems to work out correctly.

For 33.3% of each it works out and the axes intersect in the center of the triange. Pinwheel to the right, instead, and you get 66,7% of each. I think the wikipedia contributors need to work a little harder in their presentation!
 
Phrak said:
I think the wikipedia contributors need to work a little harder in their presentation!

Wikipedia has its quirks, but don't blame it for your own lack of knowledge :wink: This method of presenting properties of three component mixtures predates wikipedia, see for example http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/experimental/ternary2.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phrak said:
OK. Now I see it, now that you've stated it that way. The equipotential lines pinwheel counterclockwise and it seems to work out correctly.

The rotaion can be clockwise too it all depends on the way you set the 0 to 100 % on each side. I'm sure there is a convention about this but, it's just the same and can appear sometimes.
 
Borek said:
Wikipedia has its quirks, but don't blame it for your own lack of knowledge :wink: This method of presenting properties of three component mixtures predates wikipedia, see for example...

Yeah, that was a bit harsh of me. The criticism of experts working for free should be gentle.

So I went to your quoted website and it said this,

"Reading the compositions of iron, chromium and nickel at any point on the stainless steel ternary phase diagram in Fig. 2 is simple. Instead of drawing one tie-line, as in a binary phase diagram , three lines are drawn, each parallel to a side of the triangle and going through the point in question. Extend the lines so they pass through an axes. To find the iron composition, the line drawn parallel to the axis opposite the Fe vertex is the one needed. The percent iron is then read off the axis."

OK. So we keep the vertex at x=0 in mind and draw the equipotentials of x so they are parallel to the axis opposite x=0. That helps.

And thanks Lok. That makes sense.
 
Last edited:
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top