Diffusion, Mobility And Their Interrelation Through Free Energy In Binary Metallic Systems

IT has been known for sometime that in an ionic lattice, such as that of Ag2S or FeO, the migration velocity of the anion may differ markedly from that of the cation, the cation being usually the more mobile. It has been shown, for example, that during the formation of silver sulfide tarnish on silver, the tarnish layer grows principally by the motion of silver cations through an essentially stationary silver sulfide lattice. Similarly, the growth of wüstite scale on iron proceeds principally by motion of iron ions, this being accomplished with the aid of vacant iron lattice sites into which the iron may readily move. Likewise investigations of solid solutions of various salts show that there is usually considerable difference in the mobility of the different cations. Measurements of the mobility of various metals in liquid mercury indicate that the various metals move at different rates relative to the mercury. In view of the foregoing it seems reasonable to suppose that when any single phase solution is acted upon by a field, the atoms of different elements respond in different ways; in particular, that the force arising from a particular concentration gradient in a binary alloy would cause the atoms of one component to move with a drift velocity which is in general different from that of the atoms of the other component. The recent experiments of Smigelskas and Kirkendall1 support this viewpoint, since they found, in essence, that during diffusion in alpha brass zinc moves appreciably faster than copper. This was evidenced by the relative motion of inert molybdenum wires. Such a phenomenon is incompatible with the place interchange theory of diffusion proposed by several authors, most recently by Birchenall and Mehl.2 This theory has, however, also been questioned3.4 for other reasons, principally because of the high energy required for direct atomic interchange. The rather large difference between self-diffusivity, as determined by tracer technique, and mutual diffusivity, as determined with the aid of another element at low concentration, might also be interpreted as favoring the above idea; however, Birchenall and Mehl have pointed out that there is another possible interpretation of this difference; this is discussed later. A rather interesting and pertinent observation was made by Schwartz,5 who noticed that tungsten lamp filaments, heated by direct current, commonly fail by necking down in the region at the temperature gradient near the positive end, with a concomitant swelling at the corresponding position near the negative end. He introduces considerable auxiliary evidence to show that this phenomenon is occasioned by the motion of tungsten cations which migrate in the high temperature region from the positive end toward the negative end. The mechanism of this migration is not clearly understood. If, however, this experimental evidence be accepted, we are forced to conclude that alloying elements in the tungsten may migrate by the same or a similar mechanism, whatever it may be, at a greater or lesser rate, thus giving rise