3 ms·

A (trivially) true but empty statement without a appropriate context for relevance.

by 001sky 11y ago

toss1 11y ago
Sorry you missed the context. Per the comment, please read my other post which provides a good primer on high level detail and perhaps do some research on Engineered Materials vs Monolithic Materials. I'll also provide a bit more detail here: Monolithic materials, such as ordinary metals or plastics are substantially the same in all directions. You can work with them by getting the basic info on their properties, and then design and cut them from any direction. Other than edge cases pushing the limits where you have to watch for grain effects in some metals, you can cut it and shape it any way you like. In contrast, for engineered materials, at the most basic level, their properties are HIGHLY directional. The cool thing about this is that it means that we can put the strength exactly where it is needed, and omit the strength (and weight) where it is not needed. BUT, this means that these materials MUST be engineered. The designer MUST understand the details of the loads and load paths, and design the material to handle it. The fabricator MUST follow those designs exactly in hundreds of parameters. Otherwise, the part will fail. On the good side, it is not unusual for us to beat the performance of aluminum by 40-50%. On the bad side, it would not be hard to make a carbon part that appears massively overbuilt, heavier and thicker than steel, yet would fail catastrophically. (note that this is just the most basic level, and overlooks issues of the many types and grades of carbon or the hundreds of types of epoxy, chemistries, cure rates, bonding, inserts, etc., and their appropriate application.) Carbon Fiber is most definitely NOT "just fancy plastic" or 'black aluminum', and that assumption is wrong and can be very dangerous. (ironically, I agree with many of your other points, but that assumption really needs to be put to rest)

A (trivially) true but empty statement without a appropriate context for relevance.

by 001sky 11y ago

A (trivially) true but empty statement without a appropriate context for relevance.

toss1 11y ago

Sorry you missed the context. Per the comment, please read my other post which provides a good primer on high level detail and perhaps do some research on Engineered Materials vs Monolithic Materials. I'll also provide a bit more detail here: Monolithic materials, such as ordinary metals or plastics are substantially the same in all directions. You can work with them by getting the basic info on their properties, and then design and cut them from any direction. Other than edge cases pushing the limits where you have to watch for grain effects in some metals, you can cut it and shape it any way you like. In contrast, for engineered materials, at the most basic level, their properties are HIGHLY directional. The cool thing about this is that it means that we can put the strength exactly where it is needed, and omit the strength (and weight) where it is not needed. BUT, this means that these materials MUST be engineered. The designer MUST understand the details of the loads and load paths, and design the material to handle it. The fabricator MUST follow those designs exactly in hundreds of parameters. Otherwise, the part will fail. On the good side, it is not unusual for us to beat the performance of aluminum by 40-50%. On the bad side, it would not be hard to make a carbon part that appears massively overbuilt, heavier and thicker than steel, yet would fail catastrophically. (note that this is just the most basic level, and overlooks issues of the many types and grades of carbon or the hundreds of types of epoxy, chemistries, cure rates, bonding, inserts, etc., and their appropriate application.) Carbon Fiber is most definitely NOT "just fancy plastic" or 'black aluminum', and that assumption is wrong and can be very dangerous. (ironically, I agree with many of your other points, but that assumption really needs to be put to rest)