Discussions - Institute of Metals Division

David J. Mack (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wise.)—Have the authors considered that the effects reported in their paper are readily explainable on the basis of equilibrium grain boundary segregation rather than ordering? It seems to the writer that all of their experiments and observations correlate well with known behavior associated with equilibrium grain boundary segregation. Although at first glance one would tend to dismiss such a possibility because of the similarity of the gold and copper atoms, their sizes differ by 12.8 pct which is in the range where segregation at grain boundaries would be expected. Then, too, the electrochemical differences between the copper, the Cu3Au, and the gold strongly suggest that a segregation mechanism is involved in the corrosion of the Cu-Au alloys. R. Bakish and W. D. Robertson (authors' reply)—The authors would like to thank Dr. Mack for his consideration of the problem of grain boundary segregation as an explanation of the observed phenomena. We had considered the problem in the following terms: Assuming a pure binary Cu-Au alloy and an ideal solid solution, the surface excess, T2= N25 — N2, of the second component (gold) may be expressed in the following way20 1 —exp (—da/kT) where 8 is the difference in surface tension of copper and gold, and a is the surface area per atom. In the present case, 6 is positive which implies that the component in excess at the boundary is gold. Since the only chemically active component in ferric chloride is copper, it does not appear that the segregation of gold is likely to increase the boundary activity. A small concentration of a third component could profoundly affect the situation. Analysis indicated only spectrographic traces of impurities, all of which are soluble in both copper and gold. Quenching experiments, reported in the paper, also tended to eliminate significant effects attributable to a third component.