Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!srhqla!quad1!ttidca!sorgatz
From: sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Mercury vs. Aluminum
Message-ID: <10391@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 1 Mar 90 21:55:37 GMT
References: <25E934B0.37FC@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> <89936@psuecl.bitnet> <1990Feb27.055111.18154@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: sorgatz@ttidcb.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica
Lines: 18

In article <1990Feb27.055111.18154@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> forbes@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Jeff Forbes) writes:
+In article <89936@psuecl.bitnet> peg@psuecl.bitnet (PAUL E. GANTER) writes:
+>own probe.  We went with aluminum as it appeared unaffected by mercury.
+>
+The mercury cannot amalgamate the aluminum though the oxide coat. Aluminium
+can be amalgamated with certain mercury salts which is useful if you want to
+react the aluminum with something that cannot break through the oxide layer.
+

 Seems to me that if you *scratch* the surface of aluminum, put some of the
liquid mercury onto the freshly opened surface, then add some water; the
aluminum is somehow corroded or eaten-up. Anyone else tried this?  I read
about the reaction somewhere...what was that class...zzzzz! ;-)
-- 
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA  90405     +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **