New Metallic Glass Beats Steel as the Toughest, Strongest Material Yet
source: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/new-metallic-glass-toughest-strongest-mater...
-
-
- pjacobs51
- added this
The glass, a microalloy made of palladium, has a chemical structure that counteracts the inherent brittleness of glass but maintains its strength. It’s not very dense and it is more lightweight than steel, with comparable heft to an aluminum or titanium alloy.
“It has probably the best combination of strength and toughness that has ever been achieved,” said Robert O. Ritchie, a materials scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who is one of the authors of a paper describing the new glass. “It’s not the strongest material ever made, but it’s certainly one of the best with a combination of strength and toughness.”
In other words, some tougher materials exist, but they are less strong; there are stronger materials, but they’re not as tough. To grasp this, you have to define the the difference between strength and toughness. Strength refers to how much force a material can take before it deforms. Toughness explains the energy required to fracture or break something; it describes an object’s ability to absorb energy. Most of the time, these qualities are mutually exclusive. “The holy grail is to get both those properties at the same time,” Ritchie said.
Think of a ceramic mug — it’s pretty strong, maintaining its shape while handling hot and cold temperatures with ease. But it’s not very tough — there’s no give, no bendy quality to stop it from shattering when it falls to the floor. On the other hand, a rubber band is tough, stretching and contorting to wrap itself around your newspaper, your carton of eggs and a myriad other objects. But it’s weak, and it doesn’t take much energy for it to deform and break, snapping back on you with a painful recoil.
Souped-up glass is nothing new — Corning’s Gorilla Glass, which coats cell phones, laptops and TVs, is chemically strengthened with compressed ions, which helps prevent cracks and chips. Pyrex, used in telescope mirrors and baking dishes since 1915, is heat-strengthened to resist breakage. But neither has the toughness you’d want for making things like airplanes or bridges.
Ideal structural materials are both strong and tough; steel is a good example. The new glass has a far better combination of strength and toughness than any steel.
“When you build a structural material, you want it to be as strong as possible, but the limiting property is that it must be resistant to fracture, i.e., as tough as possible,” Ritchie said. “For instance, the Golden Gate Bridge is made of a relatively low-strength steel, because you’d like it to bend first rather than break catastrophically without warning.”
Glassy materials are usually very brittle — they break after the formation of shear bands, which are narrow zones of strain that ultimately become cracks. Once the bands form, it’s pretty much impossible to stop cracks from forming. But palladium’s properties change this dynamic, Ritchie explained. Instead of a single shear band propagating throughout the glass, a proliferation of shear bands form and curl back on themselves, taking longer to turn into cracks. The bands allow the material to bend before it breaks — not a property you’d expect from glass.
“It is very easy to form these shear bands, but it is difficult for them to become cracks. The net result is, you get a lot of shear bands forming, and this causes plasticity — you can bend it very readily,” Ritchie said.
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology, led by Marios D. Demetriou, have been working on metallic glass for several years, using various formulations to toughen it or prevent it from breaking. A previous iteration involved introducing a crystalline phase that stopped the shear bands in their tracks, for instance. The new glass has no crystals at all, just microalloys of palladium with phosphorous, silicon, germanium and silver.
“Each element wants to effectively crystallize in its own form, but if there are five, the material gets confused — it doesn’t know which way to crystallize, so the crystallization process is slowed down,” Ritchie said. “It’s 100 percent glass; there’s nothing to stop the cracks, and we think this is an important development.”
The Caltech researchers want to try it with other metal recipes next.
The glass is expensive and difficult to make because of the amount of metals involved and the process required to cool them. So you won’t start seeing palladium-glass airplanes and bridges anytime soon — but the material, and its fabrication process, holds promise for the future of those structures.
“For a bridge, a ship, a spacecraft, for engine material, you would like to combine strength and toughness. This does provide a means of doing that in quite frankly the most unlikely of all materials, a glass,” Ritchie said.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-01/new-metallic-glass-toughest-str...
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Tech, Upstream, 4 more
-
- tags:
- Stuff, Strength, toughness, strong tough stuff
-
- recommended by:
- Vierotchka
-
-
royulery
-
sounds like this material would be perfect for the space elevator. the limitation is the price of palladium ($804 for 1/20 of a pound). there is a thin strip of palladium rich rock that runs around the whole world, it is called the k.t. boundry. a left over from the impact by the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. turns out that metallic asteroids have a lot of it.
- 2 years ago
-
royulery
-
-
royulery
-
it wasn't till i broke a large diamond that i understood that hard doesn't mean strong.
- 2 years ago
-
royulery
-
-
Vierotchka
-
What about carbon fiber and the new ceramics?
How heavy is this new compound, can it replace airplane aluminium bodies?
- 2 years ago
-
Vierotchka
-
-
twohawks
-
Vierotchka:
Its not that heavy, but its also not all -that- strong (per the article).
However, I believe you are right about Carbon... the fullerine (buckyballs and nanotubes) is extremely light, and may provide the hardest building potential of anything we know of so far. I think I read in recent year that they think/hope they will be able to break the microscopic building-things-with-it barrier with that stuff within 5 years or so, but its late and I may not be thinking straight, and I'm too tired to look it up right now.
I think that stuff is said to be the most indestructible lightweight potential building material we know of to date, outdistancing anything else by (many?) thousands of factors. ("tensile strength about 20 times that of high-strength steel alloys, and a density half that of aluminum") - 2 years ago
-
twohawks
-
-
EmperorThan
-
Vierotchka:
Would be kind of awesome and terrifying to fly on a see-through airplane.
- 2 years ago
-
EmperorThan
-
-
GISchmo
-
Exciting! I can't wait to see the real world applications of this material. Maybe wreckless cars?
- 2 years ago
-
GISchmo
-
-
FtheBULLSHT
-
Graphene is tough as hell too.
- 2 years ago
-
FtheBULLSHT
-
-
hunzedog
-
wonder woman jet comes to mind
- 2 years ago
-
hunzedog
-
-
pjacobs51
-
hunzedog:
. . . or an indestructible bong!
- 2 years ago
-
pjacobs51
-
-
Buddha2112
-
This would be great to design with... Though we already have translucent concrete, it is by no means light...
This could make some really awesome buildings... but the real question is, how much does it cost? Its says expensive, but HOW expensive are we talking here?
- 2 years ago
-
Buddha2112
-
-
idealist
-
awesome. i want a sword made out of it :P...
- 2 years ago
-
idealist
-
-
remanns
-
Very cool stuff. +^d
- 2 years ago
-
remanns
-
-
twohawks
-
Famous Quotes: "How do you know he didn't invent the thing?"
Aluminum Oxynitride
http://galacticwatercooler.com/2009/08/01/sci-fi-science-transparent-aluminum/ - 2 years ago
-
twohawks
-
-
coolplanet
-
twohawks:
I was thinking exactly the same thing!
Didn't Scotty invent that 200 years from now? - 2 years ago
-
coolplanet
-
-
Argon18
-
coolplanet:
Scotty did but he gave away the credit to an engineer in the past in exchange for a plexiglass whale tank and told him "that's the ticket laddie"
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory must be collaborating with that engineer to apply the formula and achieved what Dr. McCoy told him that he could be "rich beyond the dreams of avarice"
- 2 years ago
-
Argon18
-
-
coolplanet
-
Argon18:
Time travel are always my fave Trek episodes.Who can forget City on the Edge of Forever!
Or Future's End. - 2 years ago
-
coolplanet
-
-
twohawks
-
coolplanet:
Nope, if you look into ST timebase you will find that Scotty didn't.
This is what is termed "uncaused cause" in "predestination paradox" temporal theory. Looking those two terms up will waste lots of time, or none at all, depending on what you find ;^) - 2 years ago
-
twohawks
-
-
coolplanet
-
twohawks:
What I don't quite get is that if a wormhole somehow sucked me back in time and I altered history so that I was never born then I couldn't have gone back in time in the first place. Would I simply vanish or stay embodied in the past?
- 2 years ago
-
coolplanet
-
-
twohawks
-
coolplanet:
While I do not claim to have studied such things in too much depth myself, according to modern cutting edge physicists (Kip and his international buddies) this is said to have something to do with "Cauchy horizon" in relation to the "Novikov self-consistency principle" (or GrandFather Principle problem which your question speaks to).
It is said that according to the(se) best theorists the paradox your question poses is in fact impossible, because you cannot limit the free will, i.e., the possiblity of unlimited trajectors of an object theoretically moving into the past. They discuss the problem in terms of plain old physics with quantum mechanical qualifications affecting 'trajectories' and 'outcomes', using wormhole constructs for the sandbox investigations.
I posted somewhere (within last few months) where physicists had successfully conducted experiments where they could change a past event by affecting forces to a causal event in the present, i.e., changing something caused to happen now by an event in the past, hence causing the event in the past to be differnt - supposedly impossible, but it has been done with photons and it is reproducable.
okay, found it... read about that here...
Does the Past Exist Yet? Evidence Suggests Your Past Isn't Set in Stone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-the-past-exist-yet-e_b_683103.ht....I know nothing ;^)
- 2 years ago
-
twohawks
-
-
twohawks
-
coolplanet:
Oh yeah, and I think there is a total possibility of something like 4 sandbox scenarios... closed loop, open-loop, parallel loop and dimensional shift [don't know if those are the same or how they may be considered connected]... and then this wormhole foldback thing which may or may not fall into one or more of those categories.
Bottomline, I think any way you look at it, if you kill yourself in the past, it means you both lived to tell about it, and not... and I would call you one bad-ass dimensional travelling kahuna, loops or no!
- 2 years ago
-
twohawks
