Talk:Nickel titanium

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Metalworking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edited the composition to be accurate rather than absurd. As a material science student I am vastly amused that someone out there things an alloy can be 180% of anything by weight. I'm somewhat less amused to see this sort of thinking on a (somewhat) reputable source of information... (169.232.121.30 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I added some information that came with a Nitinol wire I have, I also added some of the company's websites. Jkasd (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitinol

I don't believe nitinol is a trade name, and it deserves an article of its own. I believe nickel and titanium can form alloys, but nitinol isn't actually an alloy, strictly speaking, and the word is used only to refer to the "shape memory alloy," not to alloys of nickel and titanium in general. Unfree (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't split. Unless you have an example of a nickel titanium alloy that is separate from nitinol (i.e. it doesn't have shape memory properties, or it has additional unique properties, etc...), I don't see why this article needs to be split. J kasd 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend "moving" this page to "Nitinol"

"Nickel Titanium," the current title of this entry, refers to any alloy made from the two elements. In fact, the article is about "Nitinol," the accepted name for a specific, equiatomic nickel titanium compound. It is appropriate, therefore, to rename the pate to "Nitinol." I would recommend keeping "Nickel titanium," and simply redirecting traffic to "Nitinol."

Tomduerig (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a section concerning Metallographic preperation be acceptable?

There are unique steps in the preperation on Ni-Ti for metallurgical purposes. Would those steps, along with the required etchant composition be valuable or appreciated in this article? Images of the microstructure could be added as well and are very beautiful. If this addition would be acceptable, please let me know. I could use some help with the editing process. Bikeric (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it's getting a little too much like a "how-to"; see WP:NOTHOWTO for more info. However, I think that images of prepared samples would be nice. Wizard191 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better for me as well. I do not want to potentially give away proprietary information. What are the rules for images? These would be images provided by me. Is that allowed?Bikeric (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the owner of the images then you can release them. However, if they are already published elsewhere then you have to go through another step verifying that you truly are the owner, and not just some guy stealing the image. For that process see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Wizard191 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the most commonly used materials...

...in medical device engineering and design." While this statement is probably true depending on your evaluation of "common" I can personally state I have never been involved or used a medical device containing this material. On the contrary, I can name several materials that are likely more common: Stainless Steel (primarily 316L), PEEK (Polyetheretherketone), Titanium (pure), Titanium alloys(Ti6Al4V or Ti6Al7Nb), Cobalt Chrome, PLDLA, Polyethylene, Polyurethane, several ceramics... et al. Nitinol is used, certainly, but often sparingly due to relative high incidence of nickel allergy. While the article mentions releasing nickel at a slower pace than stainless steel it does not address an area it is likely to be used which would accelerate this process, namely flexible parts that may cause particular generation (wear). 209.251.142.125 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement per your note. Wizard191 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

What about adding the pronunciation of nitinol /ˈnɪtnˌɔl, -ˌɒl/ to the topic? Peterkarl (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of nitinol?

Inconsistent. Midgley (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article now, and the inconsistent capitalization jumped out at me. Would anyone object if I made all instances lowercase? Paulehoffman (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Force" expressed in terms of pressure! (MPa and Psi)

Hi, here the sentence which hurt me:

"A great deal of force can be produced by preventing the reversion of deformed martensite to austenite — from 35,000 psi to, in many cases, more than 100,000 psi (689 MPa)."

If we speak of "force", please, let give the values and units of "force" (newtons) or only talk about "pressure" please, to not increase the confusion often made between these two concepts.

Thus, I correct to "a great deal of pressure". If there is an agreement to prefer talking about "force", please, use the correct units.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwartz (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict-of-interest reference removal

Hi, in this edit I have just removed a reference added by a user with a conflict of interest. I do not judge of the quality of the reference. If it is a valuable addition to the article, then a more experienced user can perhaps add it back. Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superelasticity Temperature Range

The article states "There are, however, constraints: the effect is only observed about 273–313 K (0–40 °C; 32–104 °F) above the Af temperature. " regarding the superelasticity effect. The temperature conversions here are incorrect. Since it is a difference in temperature (i.e. 273-313K above some other temp) the usual conversion formulae do not apply. 1 degree difference in Kelvin is the same as 1 degree difference in Celsius, and 1.8 degrees difference in Fahrenheit. If the outside temperature today is 0C above what it was yesterday, it is not also 32F above what it was yesterday.

I also believe that the initial range should be given in Celsius since those are the units used in the source material. ^[1]

Recommended edit: "There are, however, constraints: the effect is only observed about 0-40 °C (0–40 K; 0–72 °F) above the Af temperature. "

Please confirm these thoughts are correct and make changes as needed. Thanks ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.167.10 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same complaint. Since the two measurements are provided in the original text it is not entirely clear which is correct, but I expect the 0-40K is the correct one. Since these are temperature differences it is likely better to omit C and F entirely due to the possible confusion. If you want to express the difference on the F scale use °R (Rankine) which is the absolute version of Fahrenheit.

Clearly no one has done anything about it in the past 17 months... 198.91.146.41 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_titanium#cite_note-15

"memory metal" / AFB Wright-Patterson / Roswell

In Thomas J. Carey's "UFO Secrets: Inside Wright-Patterson" and also in "Roswell Revealed: The New Scientific Breakthrough into the Controversial UFO Crash of 1947 the authors claim that the invention of Nitinol was inspired by the memory metal that the military found in the Roswell UFO. After some years they gave either the memory metal itself or the idea for it to the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. Should this go into the article? I find it relevant 2A02:8106:208:9200:6537:A365:E63F:40A6 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_titanium#cite_note-15

[1]