Table 1.
Chemical analysis of the aluminum samples and the estimated depression of the freezing point by the impurities
Batch 1558 | Batch 2571 | Estimated effect from each impurityd | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Element | Supplier ppma | Supplier ppma | NBS ppmb |
mK/ppm |
Ca | 0.2 | 0.2 | −0.6 | |
Fe | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.4 | −0.3 |
Mg | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.6 |
Mn | 0.1 | 0.2 | C⩽0.3 | −0.1 |
Si | 0.3 | 0.3 | −0.7 | |
Cr | 0.2 | ⩽0.04 | + 0.2 | |
Cu | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | −0.3 |
Ni | ⩽0.2 | |||
Ti | ⩽0.05 | |||
V | ⩽0.04 | |||
Na | 0.2 | −0.7 | ||
Ga | ⩽0.06 | |||
Zn | 5 | −0.2 | ||
Estimate of total effect of impurities | −0.57 mK | −0.47 mK | −1.7mK |
Based on spectrochemical analysis.
Mass spectrometric analysis by P. J. Paulsen, Analytical Mass Spectrometry Section, NBS.
The values preceded by the symbol ⩽ indicate the upper limit of the elements not detected. These values were not included in determining the total change in the freezing point from the impurities.
Estimated from phase diagram data [11].