Talk:Galinstan

vapour pressure
Good evening. I want to know the reference regarding the vapour pressure of the alloy at 500°C. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.205.25 (talk)
 * It's in the MSDS linked at the bottom of the article in the References section. DMacks (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources and price
How much is in a typical household thermometer? What is the commercial price in bulk? What sorts of sources sell? -71.174.182.182 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Working with it at one atm, something like 200–300 $AUD per 50 ml bottle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.142.156 (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a speculative explanation: Galinstan is a commercial product! The company wants to sell it and advertise it as positively as possible! It is possible that Galinstan inside a thermometer don't freeze above &minus;19°C. Because of metastable and coated insight the thermometer by Ga2O3. But this should not be mixed up by its real melting point! I doubt that it contains mercury or alkali metals which could lower its melting point to &minus;19°C! Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Please check these data to the reference of the Ga : In : Sn eutectic which has a composition of 0.596 : 0.260 : 0.144 by weight and a melting point of 10.8°C. Either Galinstan has a freezing point of 11°C or contains further undisclosed material! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim1999 (talk • contribs)


 * I moved the above comment from the article to the talk page, where it belongs. Wizard191 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you please either correct the data are delete the wrong value?! This is a ridiculous, too-low value for the ternary any(!) alloy made of Ga, In, and Sn. Achim1999 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I copied this from a high quality German reference: “Aus der DD-PS 21 490 ist es bekannt, dass Vierstofflegierungen aus Gallium, Indium, Zinn, und Zink besonders niedrig schmelzen, nämlich bis etwa 8,5 C herab.”

So, minimal 8.5°Celsius, including Zn! Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please add a link. Never mind: I see that you added a link to the article. That's good enough for me. Wizard191 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Eutectic of 59,6% Gallium, 26% Indium und 14,4% Tin has a melting point of 11°C. The reference gives also two other compositions and two melting points which are all of the given Galinstan composition. So Galinstan is not the Eutectic. Normaly the “eutectic” has the lowest melting point. The patent is the last place in that cases where to find the truth.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) January 2010

February 2010

 * Warning! This is a marketing article supported by wikipedia by silliness. As a material scientist I know that the eutecticum of Ga, In, and Sn is at about 11° Celsius. Thus no mixture of these three metals can have a melting point lower than 11° Celsius, like ridiculous low &minus;19° Celsius.
 * This is a real painful article for the English wiki trusting a company new claimed data more than the scientific checked data know for decades! See also the discussion and the much more critical documentation in the German wiki. Sorry, to blame this wiki publicly, but they had enough time to correct this nonsense. :-(

I had to remove [the above comment] from the main article; I have no idea what it was doing in there. I don't know who posted it, though, but I know it should be here on the discussion page and not in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.192.70 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC) ; original comment added to article by 129.70.14.241


 * There is a ref for the –19°C value to what seems to be a referred scientific journal. That's a reliable source, so we need something more than just someone's assertion to contradict that. The ref for the content I just added about being a fusion-reactor coolant gives a mp of –20°C. That ref is an independent safety assessment in an academic/industrial setting. (Note that this ref specifically says it is a preprint that should not be cited or used, but it at least gives a second voice that agrees with the –19°C and disagrees with the ≥ 11°C claim, in addition to that alternate value not being verifiable that I can see. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be more confusing than that: As Stone notes in the section above there is a ref for the eutectic of indium, tin, and gallium to be 11°C and Achim1999 also supply another German ref for that value. So the problem arises from one of the following:


 * One set of the published melting points is just wrong.
 * Galinstan has other elements than indium, tin, and gallium. Wizard191 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec, which basically agrees with Wizard191) Reading the other comments on this page, it appears there actually is reliable source for materials identified as alloys that sound like the same stuff as galinstan having eutectic-mixture mp near +10°C. So something is wrong somewhere.
 * The refs that I see that identify the material by name "galinstan" disagree with others that look at various alloys? If that's the bright-line distinction, then either there are two different materials involved or there is something physically different in how they are being handled to get these properties, or one (or the other) all stem from an incorrect original parent source. Need a truly independent 3rd opinion from a reliable source I guess. I can't find pictures of thermometers to see how low they go and I don't know where else to look for more info. DMacks (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

January 2013
I noticed that the melting point controversy section in the article states that eutectic compositions are the lowest melting compositions. While this is always true for binary mixtures, it is not a guarantee that a specific eutectic point for a given mixture will be the lowest melting temperature possible for a given pressure. In other words: For mixtures with more than two components, there will almost certainly be a eutectic "surface" in the composition "space" that occurs over a range of temperatures, one or more of which would be the lowest. I have yet to find a ternary mixture with a single eutectic point.

I think the confusion over this likely due to not understanding the real meaning of what a eutectic composition is: A eutectic composition has the same composition on either side of the solid-liquid-equilibrium (SLE) phase boundary. That is all it means. One can think of a eutectic as the SLE analog of an azeotrope in a VLE. There can be low melting, high melting, and asymptotic eutectics, just as there are low boiling, high boiling, and asymptotic azeotropes. More often it is the low melting eutectics that are of common interest given the wider application in solders and liquid metal bearings. High melting eutectics are occasionally used to make alloys for high temperature applications, but high temperature tolerance designs are usually done with an error margin that exceeds any need for the high production standards needed to squeeze out that last few degrees of solid state.

If I have any time later I'll put something together for the main article to clear things up. In the meantime, hopefully this'll motivate someone else to get started on it.

As an aside on the January 2010 hysterics: Galinstan may be a registered trademark for a German company, but in-kind with the vernacular dilution of brand names like Kleenex, Band-Aid, Google, etc., it is a common means for referencing any eutectic mixture of these three specific metals. Its common use is more than enough reason to maintain an article describing it. Also, an MSE ought be cognizant of the degrees of freedom involved in the thermodynamics of a ternary mixture. The claim that there is a single eutectic composition for a ternary mixture is worse than the purported bias. But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong./denis_miller_rant

Xenomancer (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

2015
Ternary eutectic is 66,0% Ga : 20,5 %In : 13,5 %Sn, with melting at 10.7±0.3°C. S-Ene (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Boiling point - Dissociation temperature information
In the scientific publication "Gallium Safety in the Laboratory", L. C. Cadwallader states that Galinstan ... boils at about 2300°C. The Safety Data Sheet published by Geratherm simply states that the boiling point of Galinstan is greater than 1300°C.
 * Temperature range of the liquid phase of the elements of galinstan (gallium, indium, and tin).

The author of this diagram (Peter Dow) wonders if rather than boil from liquid galinstan into "gaseous galinstan", a dissociation of galinstan into its elements occurs at galinstan's boiling or dissociation temperature, namely gaseous gallium, gaseous indium, and tin vapour which could condense into liquid tin at temperatures below the boiling point of tin? Or is there a stable temperature range for molecular gaseous galinstan above galinstan's boiling point and if so what is galinstan's dissociation temperature? Anyway: Internet searches are not turning up much in the way of information about the boiling behaviour of galinstan so this diagram if nothing else can highlight the lack of published detail on this and if someone knows and wants to let the rest of us know, that would be kind. Thanks. Peter Dow (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps somewhat carelessly, I simply assumed the values for the boiling points of the elements which were given in the Wikipedia pages for the elements gallium, indium and tin would be about right so I used those values for my diagram.
 * Boiling points of Gallium and Tin disagreements

Now it seems there is a big disagreement as to the boiling point values especially for gallium and tin. See the discussion pages for Gallium and Tin but we are talking hundreds of degrees of a difference so I am now doubting the values given on the Wikipedia pages and therefore doubting the accuracy of my own diagram. One of my old text books gives values there which correspond to the Chemical Elements website at first glance. On the other hand, another of my text books gives different values again. Disagreement all around it seems.

I would like to suggest that Wikipedia has got those boiling point temperatures for gallium and tin far wrong and to invite editors to comment. Peter Dow (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No it is the other sources you cite that are inaccurate. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for all infobox entries see: Chemical elements data references. See also my reply at talk:Gallium. Polyamorph (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have had reported to me different values from the same "reliable source", from different editions of the same handbook. Why is one source more reliable than the other? It seems to me that each of us may be taking an arbitrary decision about which source to rely on. Peter Dow (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly the most up-to-date edition will have the most up-to-date information. So I would tend to trust the most recent edition. It doesn't surprise me that earlier editions quote different values: There are many instances where measured values change over time due to the improvement of measurement techniques / more rigorous studies. Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A little bird tells me that a review of the CRC Handbook values may be in the offing. My web search found a very relevant scientific paper "The Vapor Pressure of Indium, Silver, Gallium, Copper, Tin, and Gold Between 0.1 and 3.0 Bar" by F. Geiger, C. A. Busse and R. I. Loehrke, published 1987 in International Journal of Thermophysics, Vol. 8, No. 4 and this has inspired me to revise my diagram and to upload a second version. Peter Dow (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

NFPA 704
This article is missing a NFPA 704 diamond. As far as I know, chemicals used in industry must have one of these, though admittedly I don't know all the law details. But in my work experience every chemical used in factories and labs has one of these posted somewhere, so the data for this chemical should be available somewhere. I cant seem to find it on the web, but also I don't read German. In any case, this is a well established indicator of danger in handling and using chemicals, so should be a basic part of all chemical descriptions. I also note that many (most?) other chemicals listed in Wikipedia, do have these (iridium, lead, sulfuric acid, to name just a few).

Perhaps the problem is that this chemical is made (exclusively?) by Geratherm Medical AG, which may not be constrained by NFPA 704, the latter probably being a USA law.

Also, looking at the safety data sheet on the Geratherm Medical AG, this does not seem to be "totally safe" chemical, which is interesting in that it is used in thermometers, touted as "environmentally friendly" (I just bought one of these). Perhaps the lesson is that "environmentally safe" chemicals can still be toxic to humans. Though probably this chemical is less toxic to humans and other animals, than Mercury.

Please pardon me if this post is formatted improperly, or improper in content, as this is my first post on Wikipedia. Pduerig (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Melting point, December 2018
There is no "melting point controversy". A wealth of peer-reviewed sources state that the eutectic temperature of Gallium-Indium-Tin is close to 11 C. The trademark holder's claim is a lie, pure and simple.

The same sources will also tell you that the thermal conductivity of eutectic GaInSn is around 25 C, not 16.5 C. However, many less reliable sources state 16.5 C, almost certainly having got their information from this page.

If there are no objections, I intend to rework this page by creating a second page (title "Eutectic Galllium-Indium-Tin"). The current page will be reduced to a single paragraph which explains the trademark and mentions the melting point claim (and that it is without all evidence). It will link to the scientifically accurate "Eutectic Gallium-Indium-Tin" page. In the new page, based on this one, I will also review/correct all data, in accordance with multiple peer-reviewed papers. I will not remove the work of others (except where it is in stark disagreement with multiple peer reviewed papers), nor will I make significant additions.

Please object within 7 days if you do not approve of the proposed changes. Barneypitt (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 December 2018‎ (UTC)


 * I Object. I appreciate your energy but your opening talk statement is logically incorrect, libelous, unsigned and you deleted the bot provided signature.  In future, please sign your Talk page edits with four tildes (~) and the site will fill in your details automatically.  This article is about the Galinstan trademarked alloy.  There is no requirement for it to only contain 3 elements, and there is no requirement for the MSDS to list all of the ingredients.  There is therefore no requirement that any of the properties match the ternary eutectic.  The company is not giving away the secret sauce, that is all.  If you want to add to the article a section on the ternary eutectic and it's properties I would support this.  I have no connection to the company and I do like a good mystery.  Ambix (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I certainly didn't deliberately delete any sign or bot signature. I moved the original as I realised it could be placed better, deleted anything bot added, and assumed the second edit (the move) would get bot added again. I can see a signature and timestamp now(?).

There would be a need to add any toxic, reactive or radioactive ingredients to the material data safety sheet. Mercury, cadmium, lead, rubidium, cesium, potassium, sodium, lithium, thallium are all ruled out, therefore. Bismuth has negligible effect on melting points of gallium-rich alloys and none on eutectic GaInSn. Silver, copper, zinc and antimony all have mild melting point lowering effects on eGaIn, but simply adding more and more high-melting point impurities to the existing tin impurity (in any reasonable combination) gets you very rapidly diminishing returns, and very quickly causes increases in melting point if any sizable quantities are added. So what is the secret sauce which purports to cause a 29.5 (!) degree lowering in melting point? Pixie dust?

So is there any paper which actually verifies the melting point of commercial Galinstan, rather than reiterates the manufacturer claim? Isn't it somewhat odd that the trademark holders only make Galinstan thermometers which read near body temperature, and that they don't utilise what would frankly be the metallurgic miracle of the century for anything else?

Or is it more likely that the claim is inaccurate? Or refers to some temporary supercooling (usual for GaInSn) followed by eventual freezing?

I like a mystery too - but I don't like unverified trademark claims being reported ever more widely around the internet as time passes, because the go-to source of information repeats the unverified claim?

I have a proposal. I'll buy a Geratherm Galinstan thermometer. I'll unbox it, break it, freeze the Galinstan, heat it till it melts, take temperatures with a digital thermometer, film it all in a continuous (very boring!) take, and post on YouTube. Would that qualify as a reliable refutation of the claim? Barneypitt (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your first post has a sig and timestamp because I added it manually. The company has the <2% each of Bi and Sb claim in several patents, the priority date is 1992 and that matches old claims that the method is patented until 2012. They also have GaInZn and Cu or Ag in other patents (but I may be confusing these with Virginia tech patents) making the claim that they are liquid at <-19 in vacuo. They state those are only <0C at atmospheric pressure (stated measurements go down to -11C for GaInZnCu/Ag. Patents are unreliable sources in my experience but I have a Geratherm thermometer and the safe storage temperature is between -15 and 42C according to the packet. I note that a number of people have claimed to use liquid from the company including one posting in this talk page. A youtube video would be WP:NOR. It would certainly stir things up if what you guess is true but it seems scarcely credible that the company has been selling a +11C melting point alloy and no-one has noticed. That leaves us with BiSb working and/or Effect of a vacuum and/or 'impurities' to consider at minimum. Ambix (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason for this has finally be found to be flux additions in the technical product Galinstan (R) from Geratherm. 10.1016/j.mtla.2022.101642. The Galinstan (R) is therefore not a eutectic alloy but a near eutectic alloy with a melting temperature of -19 °C. The pure eutectic composition has a melting temperature of around 11 °C.~ Synperiplanar (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Miscibility
Is it miscible with mercury? 188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some miscibility between Ga and Hg (10.1007/BF02667885), albeit the miscibility is low and only a few wt% of each element are miscible at room temperature. Moreover, In is miscible with Hg (broader range than Ga). See for example: Constitution of Binary Alloys, Second Supplement, Francis A. Shunk. Sn is not that soluble in Hg, but forms readily intermetallics with it (thats why it was used for making mirrors in the past, see 10.1002/ejic.202200313). The phase diagram can be viewed here: 10.1007/BF02667888. Therefore, there should be some miscibility of the alloy Galinstan in mercury. Synperiplanar (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Capital G?
Should galinstan be spelled with a capital first letter as it is know in the article? Ulflund (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Galinstan is a registered trademark of Geratherm Medical AG. In a sense, it may be a proper noun, so capitalization may be appropriate.152.51.56.1 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Composition Confusion
While I can appreciate many would correctly consider weight percent (wt%) to be the common assumption of a layperson, for sake of clarity it should be properly noted that the commonly sold composition given is indeed by mass, (ex. see GalliumSource). I will make the (admittedly small) edit in a moment's time, but I thought it better to leave the rationale behind it here. Xenomancer (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Murano glass octopus?
Is it possible to run a Hewittic mercury arc rectifier with Galinstan, instead of Hg? Those big glass octopus were highly efficient, like 86% or more, worked reliably for decades and looked cute in a way (whch may be important in post-industrial society). They were everywhere, powering movie theatres, lifts, escalators, trams, and cranes.

Yet the "Superfund" nature of a quart of liquid Hg needed for their operation led to the adoption of shorter-lived semiconductors. An alternative filling could bring them back to life. 82.131.236.19 (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

More info on melting point (2022)
I just came across an interesting paper investigating the characteristics of Galinstan. It suggests experimental evidence that the MELTING point is indeed 11°C, but that it can be readily supercooled to -10°C before re-solidifying (all at 1 atm). 193.53.93.14 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, the eutectic alloy of Ga-In-Sn melts at 10 to 11 °C, but the Galinstan (R), the technical product of a company melts at -19°C (see 10.1016/j.mtla.2022.101642). This is likely related to flux used in the manufacturing process. Due to this, many physical properties of the two alloys are different. Maybe we can add this information in the article here?
 * The surface tension should be near to 600 mN/m, as detailed in 10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c05859. Thermal conductivity is also incorrect, it is near 25 W/mK. Source and reasoning can be seen again from the previous article, as well as the Wiedemann Franz Lorentz law. Synperiplanar (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)