Liquidmetal

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-09 03:09am

http://www.asc2002.com/summaries/a/AP-14.pdf

Wierd. I looked at the companies website, www.liquidmetal.com, but couldn't exactly figure out any of it.

Is this real deal, or just bullshit?

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-04-09 04:17am

I would love to see Wong's comments on this.

Luke Starkiller · Post by **Luke Starkiller** » 2003-04-09 04:34am

It sounds like a load of shit, amorphous strucutres are not suitible for structural elements for a reason. They are, by definition, chaotic and you will never get the same structure twice by heating and cooling the same sample, that makes it kind of hard to standardize a manufacturing process for a part.

Liquidmetal solidifies without crystallizing, which Drs. Johnson and Peker believe is why it's twice as strong as titanium, but softer and more malleable.

That right there is a problem too, Tensile Strength is a function of Hardness. The harder something is the higher it's strength.

*edit: I just sent off a polite email asking for some general information about the contents of this stuff, we'll see if I get any response.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-04-09 06:01am

I would like to see that reply!!!!!!

That quote is so stupid! Titanium is stronger than steel due to its hexagonal crystal structure, allowing more packing of atoms, as opposed to the cubic crystal structure of steel...
That site is shite.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-04-09 07:51am

Actually, steel is far stronger than titanium, I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time I hear that Ti is stronger than steel. The strongest beta-Ti alloys top out at around 220-230kpsi in tensile strength and a Rockwell C hardness of around 45 or so. Steel alloys such as Aermet 100 have a tensile strength of 280-300kpsi and a Rockwell C hardness of 50-57 depending on how they're heat treated. If you want to count tool steels, CPM-10V (AISI A11) is about 375kpsi with a hardness of RC 62. I'll go disect that article in a few hours after my class is over.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-04-09 08:29am

Like anything, the usefullness of Titanium depends on use. The benefits of Titanium are a good strength-to-weight ration, low density, low coefficient of expansion, and good corrosion resistance. Its also non-magnetic which makes it usefull for submarines.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-09 08:46am

Zoink wrote:Like anything, the usefullness of Titanium depends on use. The benefits of Titanium are a good strength-to-weight ration, low density, low coefficient of expansion, and good corrosion resistance. Its also non-magnetic which makes it usefull for submarines.

However it's also more expensive to produce and extremely hard to work with, which is why only Russia ever built submarines out of it. The USN considered HY80 and HY100 steel just fine.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-04-09 10:54am

On further reading, I think the liquidmetal guys are full of shit. On one page it says it has "high hardness" as one of the main properties, but head over to the another page and it says "Liquidmetal solidifies without crystallizing, which Drs. Johnson and Peker believe is why it's twice as strong as titanium, but softer and more malleable". I'm sorry, but anything under a Rockwell C hardness of ~45 (which is what beta-Ti is) is pretty friggen soft, and from the way they're phrasing it it sounds like it's substantially softer than Ti.

The next part is fun, from the website..

One of the direct consequences of the unique atomic structure of Liquidmetal alloy is very high yield strength, which approaches the theoretical limit and far exceeds the strength currently available in crystalline metals and alloys. For example, yield strength of over 250 ksi has been achieved in Zr-base and Ti-base Liquidmetal alloys (VIT-001 series). This is more than twice the strength of conventional titanium alloys.

I guess they haven't heard about the Aermet 100 and Aermet 310 Co-Ni-Cr supersteels, or 440C stainless, all of which have a yield strength in excess of 260ksi. Far exceeds my ass, and if I bring up tool steels and maraging steels into the mix things look even worse for Liquidmetal.

Based on the above I'm highly suspicious of their claims, and the fact that they don't list any real properties of the material such as elongation, fracture toughness, Charpy v-notch tests, Rockwell hardness, or any other such measureable properties. What they do list tells very little about the material itself, do the same graphs they have for carbon fiber you'll get something similar but better, it tells you nothing and allows them to hype things.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-09 11:15am

This is funny, I mean, you don't make buildings out of jelly do you?

But having started reading T2: Infiltrator and reminding myself of the prototype liquid metal called "Intellimetal" that can take preset shapes, looks like people are trying it in reality.

And don't forget metal alloys, trying to get the best of each metal is what we need, the lightness of titanium, strength of steel and ease of use of aluminium etc.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-04-11 03:00am

Thanks Aerius.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-11 03:23am

Vympel wrote:http://www.asc2002.com/summaries/a/AP-14.pdf

Wierd. I looked at the companies website, www.liquidmetal.com, but couldn't exactly figure out any of it.

Is this real deal, or just bullshit?

Probably both. It may be possible to create amorphous substances using metallic elements as a component, although they wouldn't fit the term "metals" or "alloys", so their nomenclature is wrong. I'm also seriously concerned at the lack of a material specification sheet on their webpage. Any normal steel supplier has fully detailed material spec sheets on their websites and ordering sheets, while this site has nothing but fancy Flash animations, and this sets off my bullshit detector big-time.

As mentioned, the site is long on flash, short on technical specifications. But after looking around, I found precisely two specs:

Yield strength of Zr-based "liquidmetal alloy": 250 ksi. Elastic limit: 2% strain.

These are actually pretty good specs, but they have to claim that they're two and three times better than any competing material, which is just stupid. Ordinary 440 stainless has a yield strength of 275 ksi, and it's going to be much less expensive than a fucking zirconium-based alloy! Moreover, there is a conspicuous absence of certain important specifications, like impact toughness. This is going to be a question mark with any structural or armour application, and amorphous materials are usually shit for impact toughness. What's the verdict?

Hmmm, did some checking around and despite their hot-shit claims, the only widely known commercial application for liquidmetal alloys right now is golf clubs. Not encouraging.

My guess is that this shit will be hideously expensive and one-dimensional in its applicability. I wouldn't be surprised at all if its impact toughness is shit, hence their reluctance to post a full specsheet on their website.

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2003-04-11 07:14pm

Another bit of info they let slip:

In addition, Liquidmetal alloy has very low melting temperature relative to its constituent metals. As a result, it is possible to fabricate Liquidmetal alloy in intricate and sophisticated designs without costly post-finishing processes.

I imagine this is not so great for some structural materials, but would make it useful for other things.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Liquidmetal

Liquidmetal

Re: Liquidmetal