Zirconium Versus Zirconium Carbide For Use With Galinstan

  • Thread starter Thread starter evansste
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conductor
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around selecting a suitable conductor for immersion in galinstan, a low-melting-point alloy. Zirconium carbide is noted for its excellent chemical resistance to galinstan, but it is difficult to source in wire form. The conversation explores whether zirconium itself shares similar resistance properties, with no definitive answer provided. Graphite is suggested as a potential alternative, although concerns about its fragility are raised. Ultimately, 316 stainless steel is chosen due to its availability and favorable physical properties, particularly for use at room temperature. However, there are warnings about the potential for electrolysis to compromise stainless steel's integrity. Further research indicates that stainless steel may not corrode or react adversely with galinstan, alleviating some concerns. The discussion also highlights the viability of graphite and carbon fiber as options, supported by various research links shared throughout the conversation.
evansste
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
I'm planning on working with galinstan, for one of my projects. I need a conductor that can be immersed in the galinstan, indefinitely, without being corroded.

I've learned that zirconium carbide has excellent chemical resistance, when it comes to galinstan. However, no one seems to sell it in the form of a wire. On the contrary, it is possible to buy zirconium wire.

Does anyone know whether or not zirconium has the same, or similar, chemical resistance traits as zirconium carbide? If not, is anyone aware of any other metals, that can be bought in sheets or wires, that don't react with galinstan?

Thanks for your time. I look forward to any advice, or guidance, that anyone is willing to provide.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
How about graphite? You can use the mine of a pencil.
 
Thanks, DrDu.

Graphite may be an alternative. However, it seems a bit fragile. As of now, I've decided to go with 316 stainless steel.

When I first started researching galinstan, it seemed as if it reacted with nearly all metals. I stumbled accross the following document, which shows that it doesn't react with zirconium carbide:

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:728422/FULLTEXT01.pdf

After having trouble finding zirconium carbide wire, I continued to do more digging. Ultimately, I found the following link, which showcases research that suggests that galinstan is non-reactive with stainless steel, as long as you stick with temperatures below 200C:

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/102601/1/cjc-2020-0227.pdf

Because I intend to use my galinstan at room temperature, and because stainless steel is readily available, and has excellent physical properties, I've chosen to use it.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. I greatly appreciate your willingness to help.
 
Um, 'stainless' steel may not remain so due to electrolysis...

However, IIRC, there is 'graphite' and graphite: The higher density stuff, perhaps carbon fibre in web or tube form, may suit. Also, be readily sourced, reproducible and predictable. FWIW, a tubular strut, either for eg R/C modelling or a fishing rod would likely have the strength to hold its shape while pushing into the dense metal fluid...
 
Thanks for your input, Nik_2213.

I appreciate you mentioning the side effect of electrolysis. However, it still makes me wonder why stainless steel wouldn't continue to be suitable.

I've watched a few YouTube videos of experimenters choosing to use stainless steel for electrodes, when building their electrolysis machines. It tends to be their material of choice. Here's one, that I've watched:



The above is just one video. Perhaps it's the material of choice, in many YouTube videos, due to it's easy availability.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these YouTube videos aren't performed by actual chemists. However, I'm also intrigued by their level of experience. They're actually building these things, and are showing the results, online.

On the other hand, your comment caused me to dig a little deeper, which resulted in me finding the following; which warns against using stainless steel:

https://antique-engines.com/stainless-steel-electrodes.htm

And then I found this; which, also, talks about graphite, and makes me wonder about titanium:

https://www.quora.com/Are-graphite-electrodes-the-best-to-use-in-electrolysis

Finally, the following link gives great support for graphite/graphene:

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:736871/FULLTEXT01.pdf

So, based on all of this, your suggestion of graphite, in proper form, should be good.
 
After giving this further thought, I began to wonder if electrolysis will even take place, between galinstan and another metal; such as stainless steel. After all, I'm dealing with metal in galinstan, not water.

As it turns out, someone has already performed research, on this issue, and the result is that, with stainless steel, I need not worry about corrosion, or electrolysis.

Here's a link, for anyone who's interested:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsaelm.0c00551
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Tom.G and Nik_2213

Thread 'Solubility of MgSO47H2O in water'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Why does having 8 valence electrons make an element inert?'

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!!
View full post »

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top