New supermetal?
>Here we show that a dense uniform dispersion of silicon carbide nanoparticles (14 per cent by volume) in magnesium can be achieved through a nanoparticle self-stabilization mechanism in molten metal. An enhancement of strength, stiffness, plasticity and high-temperature stability is simultaneously achieved, delivering a higher specific yield strength and higher specific modulus than almost all structural metals.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/full/nature16445.html
>>7741636
>5 years ago: "Alloy"
>Today: "NANOTECH SUPERMETAL"
>>7741636
Is there any reason this technique couldn't be applied to other metals for similar results?
>>7741636
>14 per cent by volume
Juden pls
>>7741651
Yeah, there's been a ton of research in nanoparticle inclusions in different matrices, metallic and otherwise. I'm guessing this one got in Nature because
>delivering a higher specific yield strength and higher specific modulus than almost all structural metals.
>>7741647
It's not an alloy because it's not a mixture of two elements, one of which is a metal. It's a ceramic compound in a metal matrix. It's a composite.
And they're not claiming it's "nanotech." They're claiming it's made with "nanoparticles", a completely legitimate technical term referring to particles of nanometer diameter.
>>7741636
A note on the paper (turns out you can rent it for $5): Tests were conducted on a single-crystal "micropillar" of 4 micrometer diameter, so as to avoid any of the complicating effects of grain boundaries. However, the micropillars were sampled from a larger sample that's big enough to refer to as an "ingot", so at least this isn't limited to micrometer scale like all the other wonder materials with "nano" in the name.
However, the micropillar size was carefully selected to avoid size-induced strengthening, and a larger micropillar of 9 um diameter and 18 um height showed similar properties, suggesting that the same strength should scale up to bulk materials. Furthermore, the data should actually indicate superiority to other structural metals, because they were comparing it against data from other structural metals in micropillars of similar size.
The actual properties:
>Compressive yield strength 716 +/- 38 MPa
>Yield strength at 400 C: 123 +/- 17 MPa
>Young's modulus 86 ± 5 GPa
>Specific modulus (also eyeballed from graph): Looks like ~45 MN-m/kg
>Specific strength (likewise): ~360ish? kN-m/kg
>>7741718
I didn't know enough to have any reference for these numbers so I googled one.
Seems pretty fucking good.
>>7741636
I read this the other day. My burning question, so to speak, is how easy is it to burn this shit and how exothermic is that reaction.
Because they aren't going to be building anything out of fucking magnesium if you can turn it into a goddamn blast furnace by lighting a small firework off in one corner...
>>7741739
For magnesium, those numbers are certainly really good. Here's a chart for comparison with many basic types of materials:
http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/interactive_charts/spec-spec/basic.html
However, keep in mind that "compressive strength" is often not really a useful number for things besides bricks - when compressed, parts generally fail through *buckling* well before they squish. And tensile strength is usually significantly lower than compressive strength for composites.
>>7741741
>I read this the other day. My burning question, so to speak, is how easy is it to burn this shit and how exothermic is that reaction.
>Because they aren't going to be building anything out of fucking magnesium if you can turn it into a goddamn blast furnace by lighting a small firework off in one corner...
Building parts out of magnesium alloys is actually somewhat common for high-performance applications requiring low weight. (The matrix here isn't pure magnesium, by the way; it's a 2:1 alloy of magnesium and zinc.)
A brick of magnesium, while flammable, is extraordinarily difficult to light; it's only magnesium powders, shavings, or ribbons that burn effectively. Flammability depends on the surface area exposed to the air, and a solid block just doesn't have much of that. (You can set steel wool on fire, but good luck lighting up a steel beam, jet fuel or no).
>>7741684
>It's not an alloy because it's not a mixture of two elements, one of which is a metal.
So steal is not an alloy and in fact contains carbon nanoparticles making up an organo-metallic composite?
>>7742370
No, steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. And usually some other stuff, there are a wide variety of alloys we call "steel".
The other stuff is a ceramic compound. Not the same.
>>7741636
I thought it was a nug of some dank at first.
>>7742370
No, steel is an alloy because it's a mixture of at least two elements, at least one of which is a metal. It's an iron-carbon alloy.
This is not an alloy because it is not a mixture of at least two elements, at least one of which is a metal. It's a mixture of magnesium and silicon carbide. Last I checked, silicon carbide wasn't an element.
