4 ms·

> There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to

by yiyus 6y ago

> There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to imbue them with various interesting properties... We know. The field of materials science is perfectly aware of these effects. We even have a quite good theoretical knowledge to explain almost everything, and some very good models built on that knowledge. I would even say that more research into new alloys is performed by modelling techniques than experimentation nowadays (for sure, this is the case now, with many labs and universities closed because of corona). New alloys are constantly being studied. We perform experiments, we run simulations, we have AI frameworks running thousands of those simulations... However, you have to take into account that the metallurgical industry has a huge inertia. We can make pretty good steel and aluminum alloys at a very cheap cost. The market for new ideas is not easy. You can maybe make some profit from high-end sports or medical equipment, but it is very difficult to make a new alloy profitable at a large industrial level.

peter_d_sherman 6y ago
>"We know." I know you know(!) <g>, but there's an interesting related discussion here about "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" vs. "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science"... New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science -- is what you've alluded to, "we have AI frameworks running thousands of those simulations". Well, there's nothing wrong with that! In fact, if I had the ability to run thousands of metallurgy/material science AI simulations, I probably would! (unless I had a higher need to use the compute power to run simulations in some other area of science or physics, which I currently don't! <g>) So if I had the means and ability to do so, I would probably be doing that! But that's "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" Let's talk about "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" for a moment... You see, if we want to understand metals, I mean, really understand them (hey, remember that scene about "Transparent Aluminum" in Star Trek IV?), we first want to ask a philosophical question, and that question is, "What is the common denominator between all metals?" ? Is that atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, ions, or any of the alphabet stew of sub-particles? Well, yes, but, that really doesn't really help our understanding... So, let's ask the question again: "What is the common denominator between all metals?" They're all shiny, they're all heavy (relative to other elements), some of them are really strong? Again, that doesn't really help our understanding... let's try again! Let's use a different kind of reasoning this time! Let's use the most general logic we can find! OK, so here we go again: "What is the common denominator between all metals?" Hmmm, well, let's see... The most general thing we know about metals (with the possible exception of mercury!) is that at room temperature, they're all solid. OK, so that's a good start! It doesn't tell us that much (yet), but it's consistent with logic, so it's a good starting point! So what else, other than metals, are solid? Well, we know that glass is, and we know that water can become solid (ice), just at low temperatures (but this is also true for mercury!) OK, still doesn't tell us much, but so good so far! So, to continue... wait a second now, if mercury can become solid at low temperature -- then can't metals become liquid at high temperatures? Well yes they can! So now if water is a substance which is liquid at specific temperatures, and solid at others, then what is the difference (other than the temperature range at which this happens) between water and metals? ? Well, we might say that metals are typically pure elements, and that water is a chemical compound of two of them (H2O), and that they're completely different, and leave it at that. But let's suppose that we didn't say that. Here's the thing. What do we know about water, when it freezes? We know it turns to ice. And what do we know about ice? We know that it's a crystal. So from this logic chain, and via logic, we finally introduce the $64,000 question: Are all metals -- crystals ? ? Even though they aren't clear like glass is, could they all be... crystals? (With Mercury excepted for the time being?) Hmmm... well, I don't know... but there's something, something here! You see, everything, everything that I have been able to logically deduce about metals -- tells me that all of them, all of them (including mercury, but it's not proven!) -- are in fact crystals !!! Now, let's go for the jugular vein in understanding all of this... We do this by asking the following question (you'll notice the pattern immediately I suspect!) "What do all crystals have in common?" For this one, I'll cut to the chase: All crystals (and there are many, many crystalline patterns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure)) represent THE SUBDIVISION OF SPACE. More specifically, the subdivision of space by FORCE. In other words, at the lowest level (before we get to atoms or subparticles) there are regions of FORCE -- surrounded by regions of SPACE -- in various different mathematical PATTERNS. PATTERNS OF FORCE IN SPACE Now, you see, modern science ("New Skool") -- while it is starting to understand this -- does not and cannot (yet) understand all of the possibilities (again yet) for those possible patterns. But that's what's going on. You see, if someone were to really study the subject, they'd not only need to understand metallurgy, but also crystallography, 3D math, patterns, etc., etc., a variety of interlapping areas and disciplines... And, even so, they would (as I alluded to before) only have "scratched the surface" -- of what might truly be possible. Also, with respect to profitability... well, yes, everybody needs money to put bread on the table and feed their family, no arguments here! But if someone really was interested in this, they'd experiment with it, that is, "do it for the sake of doing it" rather than trying to make money in the process... that will be me or someone like me in the future, or so I hope... What's the thing that Yoda said? "Do or do not do, there is no try..." Well, in my case now, it's "think about" or "do not think about", since there is no smelting equipment nor simulator available, to me at least! <g> Anyway, wishing you well on your future metallurgical/material science quests!
- tcpekin 6y ago
  > What is the common denominator between all metals? I think most people who study this would say the common denominator is that metals lack a band gap and have a very mobile sea of electrons, and therefore good conductivity. Metals can be amorphous, or crystalline, or anywhere along the spectrum. The "new school" certainly hasn't forgotten, or ignored, that crystals are patterns that tile all of space. These are known as space groups, and they enumerate every way to tile 3D space symmetrically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_group). Anyways, I can guarantee that people who really study the subject absolutely take courses in metallurgy, crystallography, 3D math, and much more. Also, if you're interested in simulations, I don't do that much myself, but you can always run some open source simulation software. http://www.opencalphad.com/ http://www.opencalphad.com/
  - peter_d_sherman 6y ago
    That looks like an interesting link, I might check that out! Also... "Amorphous" -- is just another way of saying that the crystal patterns contain shorter runs within the whole of the material... in other words, you can have differing crystal patterns which take up smaller amounts of space -- than the whole of the structure... That sort of brings us to Level 2... Level 2 is not just understanding metals as crystals, but (potentially) as crystals containing runs of various crystal structures, which could be the same crystal pattern, and could be different crystal patterns -- interrupted by fractures. That brings us to Level 3: Level 3 is sort of understanding Crystals -- as Fractals, that is, as "nested containers", that is, crystals themselves -- may contain one or more repeating patterns much in the same way that the larger structure contains one or more repeating groups of crystals... Anyway, my point is, there's a lot more research to be done here... that and certain words like "amorphous" can unintentionally obscure the deeper pattern... or broken patterns, as the case can be... Level 4 understanding: Broken patterns -- are indeed broken at one level(!) -- but they can be part of a "higher order" (unseen) pattern... a higher-order "pattern-breaker pattern". Which should be discoverable using higher-order (higher dimensionality) math... As I said... more research needs to be done here...
    - 6y ago

by yiyus 6y ago

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

>"We know." I know you know(!) <g>, but there's an interesting related discussion here about "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" vs. "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science"... New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science -- is what you've alluded to, "we have AI frameworks running thousands of those simulations". Well, there's nothing wrong with that! In fact, if I had the ability to run thousands of metallurgy/material science AI simulations, I probably would! (unless I had a higher need to use the compute power to run simulations in some other area of science or physics, which I currently don't! <g>) So if I had the means and ability to do so, I would probably be doing that! But that's "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" Let's talk about "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" for a moment... You see, if we want to understand metals, I mean, really understand them (hey, remember that scene about "Transparent Aluminum" in Star Trek IV?), we first want to ask a philosophical question, and that question is, "What is the common denominator between all metals?" ? Is that atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, ions, or any of the alphabet stew of sub-particles? Well, yes, but, that really doesn't really help our understanding... So, let's ask the question again: "What is the common denominator between all metals?" They're all shiny, they're all heavy (relative to other elements), some of them are really strong? Again, that doesn't really help our understanding... let's try again! Let's use a different kind of reasoning this time! Let's use the most general logic we can find! OK, so here we go again: "What is the common denominator between all metals?" Hmmm, well, let's see... The most general thing we know about metals (with the possible exception of mercury!) is that at room temperature, they're all solid. OK, so that's a good start! It doesn't tell us that much (yet), but it's consistent with logic, so it's a good starting point! So what else, other than metals, are solid? Well, we know that glass is, and we know that water can become solid (ice), just at low temperatures (but this is also true for mercury!) OK, still doesn't tell us much, but so good so far! So, to continue... wait a second now, if mercury can become solid at low temperature -- then can't metals become liquid at high temperatures? Well yes they can! So now if water is a substance which is liquid at specific temperatures, and solid at others, then what is the difference (other than the temperature range at which this happens) between water and metals? ? Well, we might say that metals are typically pure elements, and that water is a chemical compound of two of them (H2O), and that they're completely different, and leave it at that. But let's suppose that we didn't say that. Here's the thing. What do we know about water, when it freezes? We know it turns to ice. And what do we know about ice? We know that it's a crystal. So from this logic chain, and via logic, we finally introduce the $64,000 question: Are all metals -- crystals ? ? Even though they aren't clear like glass is, could they all be... crystals? (With Mercury excepted for the time being?) Hmmm... well, I don't know... but there's something, something here! You see, everything, everything that I have been able to logically deduce about metals -- tells me that all of them, all of them (including mercury, but it's not proven!) -- are in fact crystals !!! Now, let's go for the jugular vein in understanding all of this... We do this by asking the following question (you'll notice the pattern immediately I suspect!) "What do all crystals have in common?" For this one, I'll cut to the chase: All crystals (and there are many, many crystalline patterns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure)) represent THE SUBDIVISION OF SPACE. More specifically, the subdivision of space by FORCE. In other words, at the lowest level (before we get to atoms or subparticles) there are regions of FORCE -- surrounded by regions of SPACE -- in various different mathematical PATTERNS. PATTERNS OF FORCE IN SPACE Now, you see, modern science ("New Skool") -- while it is starting to understand this -- does not and cannot (yet) understand all of the possibilities (again yet) for those possible patterns. But that's what's going on. You see, if someone were to really study the subject, they'd not only need to understand metallurgy, but also crystallography, 3D math, patterns, etc., etc., a variety of interlapping areas and disciplines... And, even so, they would (as I alluded to before) only have "scratched the surface" -- of what might truly be possible. Also, with respect to profitability... well, yes, everybody needs money to put bread on the table and feed their family, no arguments here! But if someone really was interested in this, they'd experiment with it, that is, "do it for the sake of doing it" rather than trying to make money in the process... that will be me or someone like me in the future, or so I hope... What's the thing that Yoda said? "Do or do not do, there is no try..." Well, in my case now, it's "think about" or "do not think about", since there is no smelting equipment nor simulator available, to me at least! <g> Anyway, wishing you well on your future metallurgical/material science quests!

tcpekin 6y ago
> What is the common denominator between all metals? I think most people who study this would say the common denominator is that metals lack a band gap and have a very mobile sea of electrons, and therefore good conductivity. Metals can be amorphous, or crystalline, or anywhere along the spectrum. The "new school" certainly hasn't forgotten, or ignored, that crystals are patterns that tile all of space. These are known as space groups, and they enumerate every way to tile 3D space symmetrically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_group). Anyways, I can guarantee that people who really study the subject absolutely take courses in metallurgy, crystallography, 3D math, and much more. Also, if you're interested in simulations, I don't do that much myself, but you can always run some open source simulation software. http://www.opencalphad.com/ http://www.opencalphad.com/
- peter_d_sherman 6y ago
  That looks like an interesting link, I might check that out! Also... "Amorphous" -- is just another way of saying that the crystal patterns contain shorter runs within the whole of the material... in other words, you can have differing crystal patterns which take up smaller amounts of space -- than the whole of the structure... That sort of brings us to Level 2... Level 2 is not just understanding metals as crystals, but (potentially) as crystals containing runs of various crystal structures, which could be the same crystal pattern, and could be different crystal patterns -- interrupted by fractures. That brings us to Level 3: Level 3 is sort of understanding Crystals -- as Fractals, that is, as "nested containers", that is, crystals themselves -- may contain one or more repeating patterns much in the same way that the larger structure contains one or more repeating groups of crystals... Anyway, my point is, there's a lot more research to be done here... that and certain words like "amorphous" can unintentionally obscure the deeper pattern... or broken patterns, as the case can be... Level 4 understanding: Broken patterns -- are indeed broken at one level(!) -- but they can be part of a "higher order" (unseen) pattern... a higher-order "pattern-breaker pattern". Which should be discoverable using higher-order (higher dimensionality) math... As I said... more research needs to be done here...
  - 6y ago