Talk:Materials science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page Problems

This page is in bad need of editing. The structure of the writing as well as the content of the article are lacking. I hope that others will aid me in repairing this summary of a tremendous field. -Morgan

i know =, because this page is really wiered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.59.58 (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help edit though I am rather new to doing any massive editting to wikipedia articles. Perhaps we could start by dividing the long introduction into something more brief and moving the majority of the text below the table of contents. The writing style used here could also use some work and if you'd like I could try to improve the flow. I am tentative to do any major editting on my own though. -Stardust8212

Just jump in; Be bold; it can always be rolled back to a version in the history. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to be bold, very slowly. I don't have the energy for extensive grammar editting at the moment but I think just changing to have an actual lead section will help to make the article look better in general. I will try to go through the text over the weekend and make it fit more closely and flow better.

To be honest this page doesn't seem too bad. The long 'history and techniques' section could be chopped into 'history' 'aims' and 'techniques', and maybe a section dealing with non-crystalline materials? Crystals and defects account for a vast amount of the field, sure, but the crystallinity and thus the effect of defects in polymers is a (very) complex issue and there are amorphous materials, such as glass, all over the place. Trent 900 14:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section could be divided up, I wasn't sure exactly how to divide it though, I was just happy that it looked better than when I started! If you want to divide those sections go ahead, if the paragraphs look a little short we might need to add a bit more info. How do we know when it's good enough to take the editting tag off? Stardust8212 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the plunge and broken up the big section. Afraid I edited out rather a lot of it. I think it's best not to use specific examples; much as it would be nice to talk about precipitation hardening of aluminium, there's not much point unless you're going to explain dislocation mechanics and that's not a topic for this page. I don't feel experienced enough to remove an editing tag! Trent 900 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put up a request for a page(that this page links to) that attempts to create a comprehensive list of materials properties: physical, mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical, thermal, whatever just so that there exists a thorough list to refer to when you want to know what sort of things there might be to know about a material.

Chemistry?

I don't know if this is the right place to say this, but it strikes me as odd that Materials Science is treated as a subsection of chemistry. If it's a subsection of anything it's got rather more in common with physics, in my opinion, but in reality it's too multidisciplinary to categorise like this. Trent 900 09:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am of the same imrpression. I think Materials Science is closer to Physics. The category makes it look as if Materials Science is a subsection of Chemistry... - Cribananda 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So should we just remove the chemistry info box from the bottom? Other suggestions? Stardust8212 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not take away the chemistry box. We could add a physics box, or make and add a materials science box, or a multi-disciplinary box. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re this, I think the best solution is not to have Materials in chemistry or physics - maybe split the boxes and have subfields of the two big sciences and then 'related subjects'. I mean, a materials scientist is just not a chemist. I'm a materials man myself and the most I know about chemistry is bond enthalpies and Hess cycles! Trent 900 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Chemistry a subsection of Physics? ;-) Murray.booth 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha isn't physics a subset of maths? Trent 900 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

At universities, MSE is sometimes treated as a branch of chemical engineering, sometimes as a branch of mechanical engineering (with civil engineering having a captive branch), and sometimes on its own. Metallurgy is often part of chemistry, and polymers is often part of chemistry or chemical engineering. It is chemistry and physics and some other stuff. It really is a field onto itself. Fortran (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest we avoid getting caught up with what is a subset of what. Materials is clearly interdisciplinary. If the homes of Materials programs at U.S. universities are any indicator, if you look, you will find materials degree programs fit within departments including chemistry and physics. However, the VAST majority of schools organize materials with engineering: chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, biomedical engineering, and of course, standing on its own. I favor having the field stand on its own in this article. Links to other fields are fine, but it is too important to be portrayed as a subset of physics or chemistry. Neither of those addresses the most relevent part: ENGINEERING --Lacomj (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Engineering?

I understand and agree with the initial opening paragraph, which indicates that Materials Science and Engineering is a multidisciplinary field. We need for someone to say more about Materials Engineering, especially since searching for that term redirects you to the Materials Science page. I am working on the U.S. Occupational Information Network (O*NET) update of the Materials Engineers classification, and there is very little information available about Materials Engineering as a separate or specialty [field from or of] Materials Science. See http://online.onetcenter.org/link/details/17-2131.00 and http://online.onetcenter.org/link/details/19-2032.00 for our current comparison between Materials Engineers snd Materials Scientists. It is not clear whether these actually exist as separate occupations in the U.S. workforce. Any expert comments?

Not all Materials Engineers practice in Materials Science and Engineering. There is the parallel group of Materials Engineers which exists inside of Civil Engineering. And if you go looking for Materials Engineer on a jobsearch website, you will find this definition very active. There is a minority of business people who think that Materials Engineering is something done by the Materiel (Purchasing, Shipping and Receiving, ...) function of a business. I've purposely used a foreign spelling, as it would be nice if you wouldn't have to trip over the plethora of "Materials Management" (Purchasing, Shipping and Receiving, ...) jobs in looking for Materials Engineer. Of the 3 types of jobs (Civil Engineering, Purchasing, Materials Science and Engineering), Materials Science and Engineering typically comes in third at any given jobsite (personal feeling, no hard statistics).

Engineering is the safe application of science for the benefit of society, or that is one definition I like to use. Many people in the US have the title of Engineer, but are not professional engineers. Some people practicing engineering, do not have Engineer in their job title. In my opinion, if the job does not involve public safety, and the person doing the work is not liable for damages or cannot be held accountable for professional misconduct, they are practicing Materials Science. If their job does involve public safety, ..., they are practicing Materials Engineering. Fortran (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Engineering is distinguished from science in that it emphasizes the application of knowledge over the discovery of new knowledge. The majority of materials degrees awarded in the US are in "Materials Science and Engineering". Some schools allow students to specify engineering or science, with some differences in the curriculum. On the job, the materials person will often need to wear both hats (scientist and engineer), which is part of the reason most schools offer the "science and engineering" degree. This is what employers seem to favor. Fundamental knowledge is valued, but most employers want to do something practical with it, and the engineering part of their education is also very important. --Lacomj (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hooke's law

i'm in the faculty of eng. in egypt portsaid and i wonder about some questions about hooke's law and how 2 prove it in lab.in the us and uk faculties of eng.

• Hooke's law is a lot like Moore's law or Ohm's law: it's empirical, and there are a lot of exceptions to the rule, so it can't really be "proven"--in fact, it's quite easy to disprove, using a rubber band (as a diode disproves ohm's law). That said, I would recommend having your students buld and calibrate weighing scales. In the calibration step, the deflection can be recorded under several known loading conditions, and the resulting deflection vs. load curve should be very nearly linear. Plus in the end, they'll have a useful tool of known precision. The best way to show the law's generality is to give them springs with widely varying stiffness, in all varieties (see spring (device) for a fairly complete list). This also has the advantage that a wide variety masses can then be assessed by the resulting range of scales. For a more demonstration-style proof, you could suspend heavy weights by a long, thin wire and show the students its linear length increase, or use an Instron or other tensile machine to test a wide range of materials. Hope this helps. --Joel 08:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) (by the way, you can sign your posts using tilde characters (~), three or four in a row.)

• This talk page isn't really the place to have this discussion. This page is intended for discussion of the attached article. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that Hook's law is anywhere near as empirical as something like Moore's law. Hook's law has a firm theoretical basis in the amount of work/force necessary to make small deformations of atomic bonds. For small bond stretches, the necessary force increases linearly with the distance stretched. With that said, Joel's suggestion for a lab experiment is pretty standard. --Lacomj (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Semiconductors are basically ceramics?!?!?!?

I am new to Materials Science, but thus far my impression is that the the study of semiconductors is a seperate sub-field from the study of ceramics. For example, at my university, students may list topics for their PhD qualifier in order of preference, and electronic materials (i.e. semiconductors) are a seperate topic. I would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge could confirm this, and make the appropriate changes.

Also, I simply cannot believe that under ceramics there is no mention of ferroelectrics and ferromagnetics.... (again, I would appreciate it if the hypothetical "person who knows more than me" would recitify this omission :) )

On the other hand, I'm quite impressed that you have the Materials tetrahedron rather than the Materials triangle :D--Conwiktion 05:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

re semiconductors are defined by thier electrical properties not by the elements used. semiconductivity can occur in metals, semimetals, ceramics and polymers.

characterization

Obviously, the link in this article to characterization is not appropriate, because the article titled characterization is, as one would of course expect, not about the topic called "characterization" here. Michael Hardy 03:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I've changed the link to Characterization (materials science). Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

An increasingly exhaustive list

Unless someone can come up with a reasonable criteris for inclusion, I'm going to delete the "non-exhaustive list of some materials science research institutions and facilities." Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree--most other articles on disciplines certainly don't seem to have a similar list. I think it can be cut completely. If people don't want it cut, I think it should at least be spun off to a new article (something like List of Materials Science Institutions and Facilities). -- Karnesky 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree too - and must partially take the blame for adding to the list. I have no issues with simply cutting it out. Most universities with science and engineering departments do materials science research. Cribananda 18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point re. the universities, but that makes me think the government lab and corporate sections could potentially be useful. -- Karnesky 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, go ahaed. There is no way for the list to be complete. — orioneight (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've retained the government and coprorate labs, per Karnesky's comment. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cut corporate? Pretty much any largish medium- to high-tech industrial company does materials research. I mean, all the aerospace companies, power plant companies, nuclear companies, raw metal companies, automotive companies...etc. etc. Were this list exhaustive it would be prohibitively long and as it is it seems so incomplete as to be pointless. Actual government labs are far less common/predictable and are worthy of documentation here, by contrast. Trent 900 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, unless a corporation does only materials research I doubt it is significant Stardust8212 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the corporate list will attract a lot of additions the way the Univesity section did. The number of "largish" corporations doing substantial amounts of fundamental materials research is not too large. That being said, most nat. labs also do materials research of one type or another. In other words, kill the list entirely or leave it as is--no reason to only pare it down. --Karnesky 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This list is highly US-centric. Either include research centres around the world as well or cut it altogether.

- J Elliott

Bibliography

I think a well-chosen list of print references can add a lot to our articles. I added a few references to Eutectic point#Bibliography using the book cite template. I thought it might be useful to do something similar on this page. I wonder if people would like to add the references they have found most useful? I think a range of levels would be good, from something accessible to a motivated high school student, to undergraduate survey texts, up to graduate level, though I suppose we want to put the more specialized works in different articles. Either add them to the page, or list them here and I'll add them later.

good idea, I think the best books for an introduction to the subject are:

• J E Gordon 'The New Science of Strong Materials or Why You Don't Fall Through the Floor', Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691023808, Reissued 1984
• J E Gordon 'Structures: or Why Things Don't Fall Down', Da Capo Press, ISBN 0306812835, Reprinted 2003 Trent 900 10:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

How do we know when it is appropriate to remove the cleanup tag? I think this article has been significantly improved since the tag was added and I am unsure what should be done to continue improvement. The person adding the tag left no comments on why the article needed cleanup so I guess all of those have been addressed. Would it be appropriate to submit for a peer review to continue to improve this page? Would anyone besides myself be interested in finding out what they have to say? Stardust8212 21:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. From here on, more specific tags would be more helpful. Thanks. - Cribananda 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Ageing to be a topic

I've made a "stub" on it, but I know that I will never have time to edit into a correct form. I didn't want to create it, especially in such a raw form. Can I post it someone to complete it?

Best Regards, Gábor Boda

Perovskite/Perovskite Structure

I have already added "merge" tags to both these pages and have requested that the perovskite structure page be subjected to scientific peer review. However I would like to bring to the attention of as many Wikipedians as possible my suggestion that these two articles require a lot of work to bring them up to the standard they deserve. Despite having only first-year undergraduate knowledge of materials science, I infer that the perovskite structure is a fundamental part of the subject particularly regarding ferro- and piezo-electricity. I would much appreciate any thoughts on this topic and/or any suggestions as to how I should proceed with improving the articles. Many Thanks. I-hunter 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold. I've merged perovskite structure into the main perovskite article. The material is now all in one place, and more coherent. I've also fixed up a redirect from the old structure page, but hopefully that won't be needed for much longer. SheffieldSteel 05:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Move

I saw this page was recently moved to Materials Science & Engineering but I have moved it back. The move was never discussed on the talk page and I disagree with the logic that the name was "More descriptive". Also the move was to a page using incorrect capitalization conventions. If you feel the page should be moved please discuss it here before doing so. Stardust8212 14:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I favor moving the article (for the purpose of changing the title). I believe that the broader convention is to use the phrase "Materials Science and Engineering" when refering to this discipline. I also feel that it is indeed more descriptive, because the field is integral in engineering. Most materials degrees are "materials science and engineering" degrees, and the jobs involve engineering as well as science. So, let the discussion begin! --Lacomj (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

MSE: Metallurgy/Ceramics/Polymers versus Civil

Time/situations finally allowed me time to revisit Wikipedia with the idea of adding/editing information. Looking at history stuff, I see that someone didn't like the idea that Materials Engineering is multiply defined, with Civil Engineering laying claim to the name Materials Engineering field long before the amalgamation of Metallurgy/Ceramics/Polymers (called MSE here). One obvious proof of this, is to go looking at many careers search engines. The civil engineering usage usually outnumbers the MSE one. That notwithstanding, if you look at this civil-materials engineering field, it share a lot with MSE, but the jargon tends to be much different. It is something which should at least be mentioned in the page somewhere. Fortran (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New image

Hope you like your new pic. If you have any requests for changes or improvement (or even new pic suggestions, this page could do with some eye candy), please talk to me; I'm not a regular visitor. Dhatfield (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysprosium

Is there a replacement for dysprosium ?.

Um, for what application? the wub "?!" 11:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tetrahedron?

Um, where does the tetrahedron image at the head of the page originate from? I've been studying materials science for 4 years, and the only place I've come across such a thing is a single textbook (The Science and Engineering of Materials by Askeland and Phulé). And that has entirely different labels (Performance/Cost, Synthesis & Processing, Composition, and Microstructure). The tetrahedron doesn't seem to be explained in the article at all, so if no one objects I'll take it out. the wub "?!" 11:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Polyparadigm (now inactive) made a JPG of the tetrahedra based on Ohio State's design. User:Dhatfield made the present SVG figure (adding "characterizion"). Many basic texts present either a triangle (or a venn diagram with three separate factors) or a tetrahedra or aboth. I don't know if I have seen others that have FIVE nodes, though. --Karnesky (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that these triangles/tetrahedra are over-used by materials educators. They appear in one form or another in most introductory materails texts, but without explanation, they say very little by themselves. For someone who already knows a good deal about the discipline, the tetrahedron is a good way to encapsulate what the field of materials science & engineering involves. However, if it requires a degree in the field to appreciate it, then I don't think it is appropriate. I favor removing it from the article. --Lacomj (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Important Journals

I recommend we delete the section of important journals. Those who read journals won't likely need this list-- and few just browse through journals any more (way too many). --Lacomj (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point. I'm easy either way. Though, when I initially saw that list, I thought it would be beneficial for, say, providing a PhD student or someone else new to the field with an idea on where they could try to publish. Often, their mentors simply are not aware of all the avenues. Romaioi (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1