Any reason calcium transmission wires wouldn't work on the moon?

Thanks for the quick turnaround on those answers, Mike.

I meant to write that copper was rare, not aluminum or calcium.

I seem to recall that calcium performed SIGNIFICANTLY better than
aluminum, but isn't used on earth because of the atmosphere here. At
the time I came across this fact, I remember thinking that when
mankind gets up to the moon, then it might make sense to use it.

Well, here I am doing my deep thinking about these issues and I
remember this little piece of information, but now that I want to
know more about it, I can't seem to find any sources that discuss it.

I thought there might be an engineer, physicist, chenmist, or
materials scientist in this group who would have that information at
their fingertips, or could walk down the hall and talk to their
buddy who does know.

I'm working with the assumption (possibly eroneous) that in a
vacuum, it approaches superconductor performance.

I'm just looking for some facts to help straigthen out my thinking.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@h...]
>
> If I remember my college physics, calcium has low electrical
> resistance but doesn't fare very well in an atmosphere.
>
> Any reason why calcium transmission wires wouldn't work on the
moon,
> and have better performance than aluminum or copper (I know, very
> rare in regolith).
>
> I wouldn't worry about rarity of calcium on the moon. It's 8% of
lunar soil
> by weight, compared to 7% for aluminum.
>
> Would calcium really be that much better than aluminum? I've
pretty much
> taken it for granted that all conductors made from lunar resources
will be