4 ms·
Giant steel objects are much harder to keep intact, to the point where non iconic objects are easier to replace once than maintain for 100+ years. What about t
by goatinaboat 6y ago
Giant steel objects are much harder to keep intact, to the point where non iconic objects are easier to replace once than maintain for 100+ years.
What about the Eiffel Tower? Or Blackpool Tower. That proves it can be done.
- oillio 6y agoThose are iconic. The difference between being possible and being cost effective.
- Miraste 6y agoThose are both made of iron.
- spiritplumber 6y agoSo they're iconic and ironic.
- auxym 6y agoThe word is actually "ferrous", but, yeah.
- throwanem 6y agoSteel is iron, with a carbon content somewhere in the range of about 0.25% to 2%.
- ashtonkem 6y agoNo, steel is an alloy of iron, carbon, and other trace elements. Saying that "Steel is iron" is like saying "Bronze is copper".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- throwanem 6y agoIt isn't, but that's beside the point, which is that there's little enough difference between iron and steel that the Eiffel and Blackpool towers being made of wrought iron doesn't prevent them demonstrating that large structures engineered in steel are quite possible to maintain given the requisite investment in actually doing the maintenance. (Saying that, for example, 300-series stainless, around 30-40% chromium and nickel, "is iron", could be fairly criticized this way. Mild steel not so much, and that was what I really had in mind with the statement, although I concede I didn't say so.)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]