Talk:Galvanic series

Mercury

I came here curious as to how noble Mercury is, but found it missing from the list. I've googled a bit, but I have found no good answer.

One site, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/ctus/8_e.html, has it between Silver and Gold in the series, but can it be trusted? And is this in conditions of seawater or fresh water? It does not state, though from context it may seem fresh water would be most relevant ...

Other sites listing Mercury seem to base their lists on the electrochemical series instead. Most sites don't list Mercury at all. Hmph.

I'm still curious, so if anyone could add Mercury to this table, I'd be grateful. :)

the Sidhekin (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's two different, but related series. See below. 178.38.100.65 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium

Hello,

I always learned that chromium is more noble than iron, as it is presented in the article. However, the Standard electrode potential (data page) article shows that the ORP for oxidation of chromium (-0.74 V) is lower than for iron (-0.44 V).

Any explanation for this?

cdang|write me 10:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the electrochemical series (aka standard electrode potential) and the electropotential series (aka galvanic series) are different beasts, nope. Sorry. None exists. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) None that I've been able to find, at least.[reply]

Well, thanks for the answer. I'll try to search elsewhere, and maybe I'll remember to write the answer, if any, here.

cdang|write me 12:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galvanic series, electrochemical series, electromotive series, electropotential series : needs attention

Aren't these just synonyms for the list of standard electrode potentials. Some corrosion specialists seem to favour the galvanic series for a list of potentials derived under sea water conditions, but there are references to galvanic series being used to describe standard electrode potentials. I don't think it is as cut and dried as it is made to sound in this article--Axiosaurus (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and dried? I would say that the current article contradicts itself.

I put in a bunch of remarks in the lede clarifying the relation to various sign conventions under the assumption that these all the same, as vaguely suggested by the previous lede. The biggest hurdle a newcomer has is the direction of signs (polarity versus current flow).

However, my amplifications may be partly mistaken for the following reason.

Following your hint, if one compares the series in the current article to the table of standard electrode potentials that is cited at the bottom of the article, or to shorter such tables on the net (often entitled "electrochemical series") one finds two very significant differences.

(1) The order of the metals is quite different -- for example, copper is very low in the series in the current article, etc. Since the current article references seawater, I guess it must be the seawater that is making this BIG difference.

(2) In the series in the current article, construction metals and commercial alloys are listed, whereas "electrochemical series" lists also include nonconstruction metals such as sodium, lithium, calcium, as well as hydrogen, complex ions and some nonmetals.

These strongly suggest to me that the current list is a practical guide for corrosion in seawater and not a list of fundamental electrochemical potentials.

One possibility is that "galvanic series" is actually synonymous with "electrochemical series" (if somewhat dated in its connotations), whereas the seawater list in the current article actually has a different name in the literature. Another, perhaps more likely, possibility is that "galvanic series" is used in two senses within two different professional communities.

Incidentally, there is no article specifically on "electrochemical series" in Wikipedia, just a redirect to a long and detailed data table. Perhaps there should be, especially to contrast it with the series in the current article.

Upshot: needs attention from an expert who can replace my mindless amplification of the claims made in the lede with a correct naming and comparison of the two different "metal series".

178.38.100.65 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the electrochemical series (aka standard electrode potential) and the electropotential series (aka galvanic series) are different beasts, nope. Sorry. None exists. Okay, so there's someone out there that knows the answer, or at leasts knows that they are different. The distinction between the two definitions should be mentioned in the article, though. I suppose it's a specificity to seawater, or to corrosion in engineering environments? 178.38.100.65 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this interesting web article, which continues to interchange the terms, and possibly still confuse them, but contains useful information about the dependence on acidity (again in practical settings). 178.38.100.65 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone plz translate the table from the german wiki

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektrochemische_Spannungsreihe#Elektrochemische_Spannungsreihe Nithin🚀 ^talk 00:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]