>> They look at me like I've lost it.
I get that exact same look a lot.
>> but at least I wouldn't look like a fool. * * They would just think I was smart. * * *
I couldn't remember it during the previous discussions. It also helps to say "dissimilar metals" because that sounds a little more like "science" and less like urban legends.
In principle we should be very sad that a couple of three-syllable words have more credibility than a reasoned argument. But if the person you're talking to doesn't remember puttering around with electrodes and beakers in Chemistry class, how can you convince him you aren't just making it up?
If I could remember which is which, I would say "the more electronegative metal is the anode and donates electrons so the less electronegative metal becomes the cathode, and a small current flows, accelerating the corrosion". But which one is the anode and which is the cathode? I remember that "LEO says "GER", so losing electrons is oxidation, but I forget the "more and less" and "anode/cathode" within minutes of looking them up, every time.
Oh, well.
I read a book about embarrassing mistakes that engineers tend to make - like bridges and buildings falling down unexpectedly. Apparently it's often true, and not just a line of BS ... you can nod solemnly and say that you suspect stress-corrosion cracking and be mostly right much of the time and partly right most of the time. No matter what the "real" ultimate cause is, there will usually be some SCC occurring before it actually falls down. And if some engineer forgot to take something sufficiently into account, it will often be poor maintenance and infrequent or spotty inspection. Those result in SCC occuring, and not being caught before the "boom", hence SCC, hence BOOM.
Now being THOUROUGHLY off topic ...
