GL: Stainless steel and brass

[Ken Bloomfield]

Rex,

I must say that I am confused, as to why the passive stainless steel would 
corrode.  The galvanic scale that I have used in the past goes as follows:

CATHODIC/ MORE NOBLE / PROTECTED END
Palladium
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Titanium
Stainless steel (316 passive)
Stainless Steel (304 passive)
Silicon bronze
Stainless Steel (316 active)
Monel 400
Phosphor bronze
Admiralty brass
Cupronickel
Molybdenum
Red brass
Brass plating
Yellow brass
Naval brass 464
Uranium 8% Mo
Niobium 1% Zr
Tungsten
Stainless Steel (304 active)
Tantalum
Chromium plating
Nickel (passive)
Copper
Nickel (active)
Cast iron
Steel
Lead
Tin
Indium
Aluminum
Uranium (pure)
Cadmium
Beryllium
Zinc plating (see galvanization)
Magnesium
ANODIC/ LESS NOBLE / CORRODED END

Looking at this, it would seem that the passive stainless steel is the least 
likely to corrode.  While I do understand the principle involved, the logic 
you stated seems backwards to me, but I am sure that I am missing something. 
Can you enlighten me? Thanks, in advance
Ken Bloomfield



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rex Miller" <rexwmiller@gmail.com>
To: <great-loop@lists.samurai.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:06 PM
Subject: GL: Stainless steel and brass


> Both Naval Brass and Yellow brass are at 450 millivolts on the galvanic
> scale and *passive* Stainless Steel is at 150 millivolts so it is anodic
> relative to the brass and would be the sacrifial material.