Properties of "coin silver"?
 

Hello,

does anybody know what, exactly, "coin silver" is (I found something
like 90% silver 10% copper, but are there other standards), and what its
mechanical properties are?

I'm looking for a replacement/alternative alloy for CuSn6 for
low-temperature, non-magnetic applications.

Thanks,
robert

In article , Robert Latest says...

Hello,

does anybody know what, exactly, "coin silver" is (I found something
like 90% silver 10% copper, but are there other standards), and what its
mechanical properties are?

I'm looking for a replacement/alternative alloy for CuSn6 for
low-temperature, non-magnetic applications.

I thought 'coin silver' had a lot of nickel in it.

You might want to talk to a low-temperature engineer who's had
experiences with non-magnetic materials. If you need something
structural a common alloy is cupronickel, the nickel does not
form a local moment below about 20 percent or so.

What's your specific application, and how low do you need the
moment to be?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Jul 2005 07:10:01 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Robert Latest says...

Hello,

does anybody know what, exactly, "coin silver" is (I found something
like 90% silver 10% copper, but are there other standards), and what its
mechanical properties are?

I thought 'coin silver' had a lot of nickel in it.

The country of the coins will be central to getting a good answer. If
it's USA'n, then I'm sure there are FAQs out there which google could
scare up for him. Other large countries as well, I would think.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Latest says...

Hello,

does anybody know what, exactly, "coin silver" is (I found something
like 90% silver 10% copper, but are there other standards), and what its
mechanical properties are?

I'm looking for a replacement/alternative alloy for CuSn6 for
low-temperature, non-magnetic applications.

I thought 'coin silver' had a lot of nickel in it.

Nope------it's 10% copper, 90% silver, at least here in the US. It was the
standard for striking silver coins, likely the reason it's called *coin
silver*. Canada uses a lower silver content, I think 80%. Other
countries use varying percentages.

There is no nickel in coin silver, never has been, although nickels, during
the war years, were made from silver and manganese, with no nickel content.
It's easy to distinguish the war years nickels (aside from looking at the
dates) because the mint marks are very large. Likely none left in
circulation now, though. They were probably all taken out of circulation
when the silver content exceeded their face value, in the same manner the
rest of our silver coinage experienced.

Harold

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:52:08 -0700, Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

There is no nickel in coin silver, never has been, although nickels, during
the war years, were made from silver and manganese, with no nickel content.
It's easy to distinguish the war years nickels (aside from looking at the
dates) because the mint marks are very large. Likely none left in
circulation now, though.

I find one every 5 years or so in circulation. Instantly recognizable
due to the green-ish coloration.

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

I thought 'coin silver' had a lot of nickel in it.

Nope------it's 10% copper, 90% silver, at least here in the US. It was the
standard for striking silver coins, likely the reason it's called *coin
silver*. Canada uses a lower silver content, I think 80%. Other
countries use varying percentages.

There is no nickel in coin silver, never has been, although nickels, during
the war years, were made from silver and manganese, with no nickel content.
It's easy to distinguish the war years nickels (aside from looking at the
dates) because the mint marks are very large. Likely none left in
circulation now, though. They were probably all taken out of circulation
when the silver content exceeded their face value, in the same manner the
rest of our silver coinage experienced.

The term "coin silver" has a specific meaning when used in the electrical
contact industry - and that is quite different than the term when used
in numismatic terms.

I seem to recall that somebody on RCM a long time ago researched this,
and found there was an appreciable amount of Ni in electrical contacts
that were called 'coin silver' and the term had its roots in germany
from long ago.

I suspect the original poster was not refering to silver gotten from
coins for his apparatus. The term seems to be a bit vague, but the
90/10 cu/ag number you cite seems pretty much the standard. If
that meets his needs, it will of course be non-magnetic - but there
may be other more mechanically desirable materials out there.

I still seem to remember somebody here posted historic details
on that alloy that included Ni though.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

and found there was an appreciable amount of Ni in electrical contacts
that were called 'coin silver' and the term had its roots in germany
from long ago.

Are you shure that you don't confuse this with "new silveer" (Neusilber)
that has no silver at all. It is als called Alpaka:

77-30% copper
11-26% nickel
12-44% Zinc

and is used for contacts.

just guessing. If I'm off, ignore me.

Nick
--
Motormodelle / Engine Models:
http://www.motor-manufaktur.de
Ellwe 2FB * VTM 87 * DLM-S3a * cubic
more to come ...

On 11 Jul 2005 15:32:26 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

I thought 'coin silver' had a lot of nickel in it.

Nope------it's 10% copper, 90% silver, at least here in the US. It was the
standard for striking silver coins, likely the reason it's called *coin
silver*. Canada uses a lower silver content, I think 80%. Other
countries use varying percentages.

There is no nickel in coin silver, never has been, although nickels, during
the war years, were made from silver and manganese, with no nickel content.
It's easy to distinguish the war years nickels (aside from looking at the
dates) because the mint marks are very large. Likely none left in
circulation now, though. They were probably all taken out of circulation
when the silver content exceeded their face value, in the same manner the
rest of our silver coinage experienced.

The term "coin silver" has a specific meaning when used in the electrical
contact industry - and that is quite different than the term when used
in numismatic terms.

I seem to recall that somebody on RCM a long time ago researched this,
and found there was an appreciable amount of Ni in electrical contacts
that were called 'coin silver' and the term had its roots in germany
from long ago.

I suspect the original poster was not refering to silver gotten from
coins for his apparatus. The term seems to be a bit vague, but the
90/10 cu/ag number you cite seems pretty much the standard. If
that meets his needs, it will of course be non-magnetic - but there
may be other more mechanically desirable materials out there.

I still seem to remember somebody here posted historic details
on that alloy that included Ni though.

Jim


Okay, In the interest of the straight poop, I rummaged around and
found my copy of "Butts & Coxe" A lieberal and queer pair of
metalurgists (stolen from another thread) who wrote "Silver Economics,
Metalurgy and Use", VanNostrand, 1967

In their list of "Silver alloys frequently used as electrical
contacts" they list "Coin silver" as 90% Ag, 10% Cu.

While they obviously do not list every alloy ever used for electrical
contacts, the highest nickle content in any of the 15 alloys they have
listed is .5%.

Of course these don't show composite type contacts, where the silver
may be laminated unto a nickle substrate.

Now, to the original poster, while I have this book out, the word
"properties" covers a lot of territory. Exactly which properties are
you interested in.

Paul K. Dickman

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:44:01 -0500,
wrote
in Msg.

Now, to the original poster, while I have this book out, the word
"properties" covers a lot of territory. Exactly which properties are
you interested in.

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Thanks,
robert

On 12 Jul 2005 09:33:07 GMT, Robert Latest
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:44:01 -0500,
wrote
in Msg.

Now, to the original poster, while I have this book out, the word
"properties" covers a lot of territory. Exactly which properties are
you interested in.

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Thanks,
robert


Hardness Rockwell 15T, annealed 70, cold worked 83
Electrical conductivity %IACS 85
Ultimate tensile strength (psi), annealed 40000, cold worked, 75000
Elongation % in 2in , annealed 32, cold worked, 4

As to machinability, they do not list it, so this info is anecdotal
based on my own limited experience.

Fine silver maccines about like copper.
Sterling silver machines about like 260 brass
Coin silver machines slightly better.

Paul K. Dickman

In article , Robert Latest says...

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Use aluminum, it will be better than Cu/Ag 90/10 alloy in all
of those catagories.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Latest says...

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Use aluminum, it will be better than Cu/Ag 90/10 alloy in all
of those catagories.

Jim


But probably horrible in the way of contact value, however. Aluminum
enjoys forming aluminum oxide rapidly---which is not known for its good
electrical properties.

Heavy duty silver contacts are made from tungsten powder and
silver------which yield the best of all worlds. Don't have a clue how
they'd machine, but I can't help but believe they'd be tough on tools.

They're right tough on contact burnishers!

LLoyd

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Latest says...

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Use aluminum, it will be better than Cu/Ag 90/10 alloy in all
of those catagories.

Jim


But probably horrible in the way of contact value, however. Aluminum
enjoys forming aluminum oxide rapidly---which is not known for its good
electrical properties.

Heavy duty silver contacts are made from tungsten powder and
silver------which yield the best of all worlds. Don't have a clue how
they'd machine, but I can't help but believe they'd be tough on tools.

Harold

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Latest says...

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Use aluminum, it will be better than Cu/Ag 90/10 alloy in all
of those catagories.

Jim


But probably horrible in the way of contact value, however. Aluminum
enjoys forming aluminum oxide rapidly---which is not known for its good
electrical properties.

Heavy duty silver contacts are made from tungsten powder and
silver------which yield the best of all worlds. Don't have a clue how
they'd machine, but I can't help but believe they'd be tough on tools.

They're right tough on contact burnishers!

LLoyd

I can well imagine, having machined tungsten on more than one occasion.
It's not for the feint of heart.

Refining the tungsten contacts was interesting. A prolonged boil in nitric
acid and water to remove the silver was required. Interestingly, some of
the contacts maintained their form, while others disintegrated. You could
tell when the silver had been totally removed by breaking a contact. Those
that broke easily were free of silver, while the others would have a
distinct line in the center, where silver was still present.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Use aluminum,
But probably horrible in the way of contact value, however.

Umm, Harold, that wasn't one of the properties he listed.

Aluminum
enjoys forming aluminum oxide rapidly---which is not known for its good
electrical properties.

Heavy duty silver contacts are made from tungsten powder and
silver------which yield the best of all worlds. Don't have a clue how
they'd machine, but I can't help but believe they'd be tough on tools.

They also use to be made from sintered silver, Wo, and Cd. I
knew a group at GTE labs that were trying to eliminate the Cd
from those.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

Mechanical as regards strength, hardness, and machineability.

Use aluminum,
But probably horrible in the way of contact value, however.

Umm, Harold, that wasn't one of the properties he listed.

Chuckle!

Just thought the information might be useful. I can see it all now. An
aluminum oxide grinding wheel used as a contact. Somehow, it sort of
loses something along the way. On the positive side, it doesn't arc
much! g

Aluminum
enjoys forming aluminum oxide rapidly---which is not known for its good
electrical properties.

Heavy duty silver contacts are made from tungsten powder and
silver------which yield the best of all worlds. Don't have a clue how
they'd machine, but I can't help but believe they'd be tough on tools.

They also use to be made from sintered silver, Wo, and Cd. I
knew a group at GTE labs that were trying to eliminate the Cd
from those.

Jim

I encountered the cad filled ones occasionally. It blended so well with the
silver that you weren't aware of its presence, yet there was a loss in
weight when the overall mass was processed. Had to be Cd. I can't help
but think that they were in better quality house switches and other light
duty devices. It's been too long to remember.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...


I encountered the cad filled ones occasionally. It blended so well with the
silver that you weren't aware of its presence, yet there was a loss in
weight when the overall mass was processed. Had to be Cd. I can't help
but think that they were in better quality house switches and other light
duty devices. It's been too long to remember.

These were contacts for circuit breakers for GTE's product line.

Back in the early 80s there was a realization that putting a lot
of cadmium in products like that was a bad idea, even if it made
the breakers (contacts) work really well.

When breakers close they don't dry switch, there's a period when
they have to arc a bit to make good contact for passing high
current. My understanding is that somehow the Cd would flash on
opening, and make it easier to close for the next cycle.

They were trying to replace them with the above-mentioned Ag/Wo
sintered contacts I think. The shop was very good at pressing
and sintering stuff.

The guy doing the research ironically lived in Woburn, Mass, which
was the town that had its wells all contaminated by WR Grace, et al.
He used to bring his drinking water home from the lab in a gallon
jug every night. I thought it was ironic anyway, here was a guy
working to eliminate a toxic metal from a product, but at the same
time he had to deal with corporate irresponsibility in a very
concrete fashion.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================