Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006
Camera bodies, if not metal how about...
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Rich - 28 Jan 2006 00:29 GMT ...metallic glass? If it's good enough for cell phone cases...
Using state-of-the-art lab techniques and powerful computer simulations, Johns Hopkins researchers have discovered how atoms pack themselves in unusual materials known as metallic glasses. Their findings should help scientists better understand the atomic scale structure of this material, which is used to make sports equipment, cell phone cases, armor-piercing projectiles and other products.
The discovery, marking the culmination of a two-year research project, was reported in the Jan. 26 issue of the journal Nature. The work represents a major step forward because the tools used to study traditional crystalline metals do not work well with metallic glass, and a better understanding of the material has been sorely needed.
"How the atoms pack themselves in metallic glass has been a mystery," said Howard Sheng, an associate research scientist in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and lead author of the Nature paper. "We set out to decipher this packing information, and we were ultimately able to provide a clear description of how the atoms arrange themselves in metallic glass."
In conventional metals, atoms crystallize into uniform three-dimensional patterns known as lattices. But about a half-century ago, materials scientists learned how to make glassy metals by cooling a metallic liquid so quickly that the internal atomic configurations froze before the atoms had a chance to arrange themselves into a lattice pattern. The new material was described as amorphous, meaning its atoms seemed to be arranged in an irregular fashion without the long-range order characteristic of crystalline materials. This amorphous atomic structure is commonly found in other materials such as window glass, but it rarely occurs in metals.
Unlike window panes, metallic glasses are not transparent or easy to shatter. Many traditional metals are easy to bend out of shape because of defects (dislocations) in their crystal lattice. But metallic glasses have no crystal lattice and no such dislocations, and their disorderly arrangement of atoms gives them distinctive mechanical and magnetic properties. Metallic glasses, which are usually made of two or more metals, can display great strength, large elastic strain and toughness. Another advantage is that, like weaker plastic materials, they can easily be heated, softened and molded into complex shapes.
Despite the great potential of metallic glasses, the researchers who make them have been hampered by a scarcity of basic science knowledge about the materials. Powerful transmission electron microscopes can be used to view rows of atoms lined up in traditional metals. But when these instruments are used on a metallic glass, the resulting image is one of a scattered array of atoms, forming no obvious pattern. Because so little has been known about how atoms are arranged in metallic glasses, a number of basic materials science problems, such as how a metallic glass deforms, remain unsolved.
To help fill the knowledge gap, a team supervised by Evan Ma, a professor of materials science and engineering at Johns Hopkins, launched a two-pronged approach to solve the mystery of how metallic glass atoms are arranged. "Our goal was to advance the understanding of atomic packing in metallic glasses," Ma said. "This is a difficult task because of the lack of long-range order in these amorphous structures. Yet it is of fundamental importance because it is the structure that determines properties."
The researchers made samples of a number of binary metallic glasses, each composed of two elements, and then subjected them to high-tech lab tests to gather information about the samples' three-dimensional atomic configurations. Some of these experiments, conducted at Oak Ridge and Brookhaven national laboratories, involved X-ray diffraction and extended X-ray absorption fine structure data taken at synchrotron X-ray sources. Other analyses, utilizing a method called reverse Monte Carlo simulations, were conducted with a computer cluster at Johns Hopkins.
Independent of these lab tests, the researchers used powerful computer resources provided by the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center to run virtual experiments aimed at uncovering the arrangement of metallic glass atoms. Results from the lab experiments and the computer trials were used to validate one another, confirming the researchers' conclusions.
One of their key findings was that metallic glass atoms do not arrange themselves in a completely random way. Instead, groups of seven to 15 atoms tend to arrange themselves around a central atom, forming three-dimensional shapes called Kasper polyhedra. Similar shapes are found in crystalline metals, but in metallic glass, the researchers said, these polyhedra are distorted and do not align themselves in long rows. In metallic glass, the polyhedra join together in unique ways as small nanometer-scale clusters. In the journal article, these structural features were described as chemical and topological short-range order and medium-range order.
The Johns Hopkins engineers also made important discoveries about how low-density spaces form among these clusters in metallic glass. These "cavities" affect the way the material forms as a glass and the mechanical properties it will possess.
Sheng, the lead author of the journal article, believes these discoveries will lead to significant advances in the understanding of metallic glass. "Our findings," he said, "should allow the people who make metallic glass to move closer to intelligent design techniques, developing materials with the precise mechanical characteristics needed for specific products. The discoveries also advance our understanding of materials science in general."
Source: Johns Hopkins University This news is brought to you by PhysOrg.com
Randall Ainsworth - 28 Jan 2006 02:48 GMT I think I speak for the regulars here when I suggest:
STFU
Bob - 28 Jan 2006 03:02 GMT >I think I speak for the regulars here when I suggest: > > STFU This is the first time I've ever agreed with something that Randall has said.
This Rich guy must be a very lonely person.
Shut the f.ck up, Rich! Please.
Bob
Nigel Cummings - 28 Jan 2006 12:50 GMT Perhaps Rich is suffering from some form of mental illness or Asperger's Syndrome. For all we know, he may never have used a camera in his life, metal or otherwise!
The poor man probably needs urgent psychiatric treatment, perhaps we should pity him, and/or try and offer a bit of support?
>>I think I speak for the regulars here when I suggest: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bob John A. Stovall - 29 Jan 2006 01:10 GMT >Perhaps Rich is suffering from some form of mental illness or Asperger's >Syndrome. For all we know, he may never have used a camera in his life, >metal or otherwise! > >The poor man probably needs urgent psychiatric treatment, perhaps we should >pity him, and/or try and offer a bit of support? For the starting regime of treatment may I suggest a full lobotomy followed by a few years electro convulsive shock with out the benefit of sedation.
That should fixed the boy right up...
**********************************************************
"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white"
David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Rich - 29 Jan 2006 22:41 GMT >>Perhaps Rich is suffering from some form of mental illness or Asperger's >>Syndrome. For all we know, he may never have used a camera in his life, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >followed by a few years electro convulsive shock with out the benefit >of sedation. Now why would a lobotomy have any effect if my brain were aerogel? Make up your....your....? -Rich
C J Southern - 28 Jan 2006 09:29 GMT Of course, if people stopped giving him the attention he craves, ...
(a) He'd probably get sick of talking to himself, and
(b) The killfile would take care of the problem.
Steve Franklin - 28 Jan 2006 11:04 GMT > Of course, if people stopped giving him the attention he craves, ... > > (a) He'd probably get sick of talking to himself, and > > (b) The killfile would take care of the problem. Well...lets not wonder. Lets ask the man.
Rich, if people kill filed you, is it likely to stop you from posting polycarbonate/plastic/kit lens threads? Is it just all the abuse that you cop is just causing you to be passive agressive? Or do you really believe that you are contributing? Are you just being an a.shole cause it feels good to be an a.shole (no less valid a reason)
Or here is a better question.
Rich, how can we get you to stop posting these broken record posts?
nrh - 28 Jan 2006 11:44 GMT > Well...lets not wonder. Lets ask the man. <snipped>
Perhaps he is just used to being provocative?
Nigel
C J Southern - 28 Jan 2006 21:58 GMT > > Of course, if people stopped giving him the attention he craves, ... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Rich, if people kill filed you, is it likely to stop you from posting > polycarbonate/plastic/kit lens threads? Is it just all the abuse that you I think you mis-understand. The kill file takes care of the problem because I never get to see the post - unless (as always seems to happen) - someone replies to the post - then I get to see the reply. Hence, if people would stop replying to the "polycarbonate posts" it wouldn't be a problem, it wouldn't be an issue for any of us.
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah - 28 Jan 2006 23:57 GMT "C J Southern" <spamreport@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:tMRCf.49682
. The kill file takes care of the problem because
> I never get to see the post - unless (as always seems to happen) - someone > replies to the post - then I get to see the reply. Hence, if people would > stop replying to the "polycarbonate posts" it wouldn't be a problem, it > wouldn't be an issue for any of us.< It's a great shame that you don't own Usenet, CJ - then you'd be able to enforce what is posted, and by whom.
But, since you don't own it, I suppose that all you can do is piss off and stop being such a pompously censorious twat.
C J Southern - 29 Jan 2006 08:14 GMT > But, since you don't own it, I suppose that all you can do is piss off and
> stop being such a pompously censorious twat. I have no wish to own usenet - I do however reserve the right to have my PCs censor any and every thing that I wish to be censored on it.
What others do with it is up to them - I'm simply trying to highlight the obvious that you won't stop an attention seeker by giving them attention - you only encourage them - and give them a laugh at your expense.
Over-and-out "Pinky"
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah - 29 Jan 2006 15:23 GMT > > But, since you don't own it, I suppose that all you can do is piss off > and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Over-and-out "Pinky"< In that case, why not simply ignore threads that don't pass your own standards?, instead of telling others not to post/repost content that offends you?
C J Southern - 29 Jan 2006 20:51 GMT > In that case, why not simply ignore threads that don't pass your own > standards?, instead of telling others not to post/repost content that > offends you? Never once have I ever told anyone "not to post/repost content that offends me". For that matter, I don't think I've ever read anything that has offended me (with the exception of an eMail I got many years ago offering to make made-to-order kiddy porn (turned out to be a hoax)).. If you care to re-read my previous posts in this thread you'll see that all I've said was, in essence, if people would stop replying then the "problem" would take care of it self. Whether or not they do (or not) is entirely up to them.
I am trying to point out however that when someone replies with the likes of "STFU" all that happens in reality is (a) all those who have the guy in their killfiles now have to read the reply (so the replier has now re-created a previously solved problem), and (b) by giving the OP the atention he seeks, it encourages him to escalate the problem.
All I'm offering is food-for-though - nothing more, nothing less.
Over to you "Pinky"
Rich - 29 Jan 2006 22:40 GMT >> In that case, why not simply ignore threads that don't pass your own >> standards?, instead of telling others not to post/repost content that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >offended me (with the exception of an eMail I got many years ago offering to >make made-to-order kiddy porn (turned out to be a hoax)).. But of course you checked it out? :) -Rich
Rich - 28 Jan 2006 22:57 GMT >> Of course, if people stopped giving him the attention he craves, ... >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Rich, how can we get you to stop posting these broken record posts? It's a free internet, so IMO, you shouldn't read them. Better yet, maybe some of the purely reactionary here could actually post something themselves? -Rich
Charles Schuler - 28 Jan 2006 23:45 GMT > It's a free internet, so IMO, you shouldn't read them. > Better yet, maybe some of the purely reactionary here could > actually post something themselves? And we do indeed do that when we actually have something (of value) to share or actually have a relevant question. Otherwise, we take photos (we actually own cameras).
Rich - 29 Jan 2006 22:39 GMT >> It's a free internet, so IMO, you shouldn't read them. >> Better yet, maybe some of the purely reactionary here could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >or actually have a relevant question. Otherwise, we take photos (we >actually own cameras). Some of you do. -Rich
Rich - 28 Jan 2006 22:55 GMT >I think I speak for the regulars here when I suggest: > >STFU I'll take it under advisement. -Rich
Pinky & Perky sing The Messiah - 28 Jan 2006 13:44 GMT > ...metallic glass? If it's good enough for cell phone cases... Nope - wood is the way to go. unvarnished Birch and Beech for some of uppity newcomers like Canon, while a venerable marque like Leica deserves to be fashioned from Cedar or Mahogany.
Think of the advantages - hard wearing, environmentally sustainable (for the left-wing beardies who care about such things), and with a wonderful patina that will only get better with age, not to mention the excellent electrical isolation properties of genuine timber.
Fungus and woodworm would only be a problem if the camera was not stored correctly,
Jeroen Wenting - 28 Jan 2006 15:07 GMT real cameras are made of wood
MrB - 29 Jan 2006 00:54 GMT Concrete cameras are best!
> real cameras are made of wood U-Know-Who - 29 Jan 2006 01:41 GMT > Concrete cameras are best! But only if the reinforcement bars/wire are magnesium!
LabRat - 01 Feb 2006 00:01 GMT I vote for cameras made of beef. If you get lost in the outback while taking photos, you can eat your camera.
Labrat.
> Concrete cameras are best! > >> real cameras are made of wood Kennedy McEwen - 02 Feb 2006 00:05 GMT >I vote for cameras made of beef. If you get lost in the outback while >taking photos, you can eat your camera. Hehe - reminds me of a project we ran about 20 years ago when it was suggested we make the lenses out of sodium chloride (table salt). The dispersion is very low throughout the visible and infrared bands we were interested in. We joked with the customer that the optics could be used as an emergency substitute for salt tablets in the desert. We looked at crystallised sugar too, but the optical performance wasn't so good.
Incidentally, NaCl optics are really used in some precision instruments, albeit in humidity controlled environments.
 Signature Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
John A. Stovall - 29 Jan 2006 01:08 GMT How about aerogel? Then they would be just like your brain. **********************************************************
"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white"
David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
|
|
|