Talk:Fusible alloy

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metalworking Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What are the electrical conductivities of these fluids? Which ones might be suitable for high-conductivity fluids at or near room temperature? Which ones are easily obtainable, and not hazardous? -71.174.182.182 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would one please delete the melting point of Galistan , or either add more components to its mixture?! Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at talk:Galinstan. Wizard191 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a direct contradiction to the data given in the table 2 lines below! *grin* I will look up my 1999 collection of eutectica and add a further line . :)

The article on galinstan claims it melting point to be -19 C! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected some errors. It looks like a condens from commercial start. :-( Probably better to rename the whole crap scientific neutral like "low melting alloy" as "Fusible alloy". I did my best checking the data, but anyway the page need a rewrite to be taken seriously. (also see table in Wood's Metall) Achim1999 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have some scope creep going on here. The article is about alloys and now we have metallic elements in the table. They should not be included, even if the article is renamed low melting point alloys. Wizard191 (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only add Indium, all the other elements were already inside. But I agree, the article needs definitely reedit, better redesign. I wonder whether I should try doing it because I already did a lot in this direction recently. Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blaming you at all; I'm just trying to point out a suggestion. It seems that you know a lot about this topic, so by all means be bold and edit away. Wizard191 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask myself, what the sense of this article/page should be? BTW: there are many low-melting amalgams used in the world. Do these count as "fusible"? Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm definitely no expert on this topic, so I can't help you much. Wizard191 (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

45% Bi, 17% Sn, 30% Pb, 5-10% Hg, Fusible teaspoons, need melting temperature and missing 5-% distribution Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot distinguish a capital I from a lowercase L in the font used in the table. Element names would be nicer than, or in addition to, chemical symbols. Lead is Pb. Having the relevant elements in the table is a useful reference. Notice there are four groups here: 1) Single elements 2) Alloys containing only Sodium, Potassium or Cesium 3) All others. This text editor runs all my lines together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.44.229 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Well known alloys" is just the template "Low melting point alloys"

Galinstan, the trademarked alloy with no definitive published composition can't really be said to be 'well known' and the number of elements in the template is too small to cover most low melting alloys. I'm not sure how to make this better. Reduce table to chemical symbols and extend? Any thoughts? Ambix (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This table of 'other (than the well-known ones!) alloys' seems over-long and under-discriminate. Much of the table isn't even alloys at all: there's 14 elements here too. I realize they're there partly for comparison, but this seems a little excessive. Can the table format maybe be tweaked so that they're single-line entries? Or maybe we should just skip most of these. There seems to be a lot of near-redundancy: three "galinstan alloy" entries, all with only that description, pretty similar compositions, and no sources on their notability at all. Two extreme similar NaK: given that we have an actual article on that combo, why not just the eutectic one, and discuss any nuances and variations over there? Bi 40.63, Pb 22.1, In 18.1, Sn 10.65, Cd 8.2 is... what, exactly? It's not even noted if it's eutectic, any name, application... Two only-very-slightly-different tin-zinc ones, the very specific composition of the ever-so-slightly non-eutectic