>"Easton, manufacturer of aluminum bike frame tubes, began using the technology to make lighter, stronger tube sets than anyone else on the market.
Scandium works by convincing aluminum molecules to restructure themselves. When aluminum is smelted it hardens into microscopic grains that fit together to make a solid architecture.
Scandium makes those grains smaller, among other things, which allows them to fit closer together for a denser, stronger overall structure.
Scandium also interrupts melted aluminum crystalizing at a molecular level when the metal cools.
This means that the properties of the alloy are less likely to be affected by heat-treatment and welding, so a scandium-infused aluminum alloy is less likely to crack while cooling.
This is especially valuable in high-strength aluminum, like 7005 alloy. Traditionally, 7005 alloys make light, strong, forged or CNC machined bicycle components, but can't be welded because they weaken when they melt. By adding scandium to the tube or to the filler between welded tubes, melted 7005 aluminum becomes usable in welded components, like frames.
So, at a chemical level, aluminum alloys infused with scandium (less than 0.5% by volume) are stronger and more weldable than scandium-free alloys."
PDS: There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to imbue them with various interesting properties...
Opinion: Modern-day metallurgy and metallurgical sciences, though its knowledge is formidable in this area -- has probably just "scratched the surface" of all that is possible...
In other words, experimentation, much more future experimentation -- is required in this area...
> There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to imbue them with various interesting properties...
We know. The field of materials science is perfectly aware of these effects. We even have a quite good theoretical knowledge to explain almost everything, and some very good models built on that knowledge. I would even say that more research into new alloys is performed by modelling techniques than experimentation nowadays (for sure, this is the case now, with many labs and universities closed because of corona).
New alloys are constantly being studied. We perform experiments, we run simulations, we have AI frameworks running thousands of those simulations... However, you have to take into account that the metallurgical industry has a huge inertia. We can make pretty good steel and aluminum alloys at a very cheap cost. The market for new ideas is not easy. You can maybe make some profit from high-end sports or medical equipment, but it is very difficult to make a new alloy profitable at a large industrial level.
I know you know(!) <g>, but there's an interesting related discussion here about "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" vs. "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science"...
New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science -- is what you've alluded to, "we have AI frameworks running thousands of those simulations".
Well, there's nothing wrong with that!
In fact, if I had the ability to run thousands of metallurgy/material science AI simulations, I probably would! (unless I had a higher need to use the compute power to run simulations in some other area of science or physics, which I currently don't! <g>)
So if I had the means and ability to do so, I would probably be doing that!
But that's "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science"
Let's talk about "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" for a moment...
You see, if we want to understand metals, I mean, really understand them (hey, remember that scene about "Transparent Aluminum" in Star Trek IV?), we first want to ask a philosophical question, and that question is,
"What is the common denominator between all metals?"
?
Is that atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, ions, or any of the alphabet stew of sub-particles?
Well, yes, but, that really doesn't really help our understanding...
So, let's ask the question again:
"What is the common denominator between all metals?"
They're all shiny, they're all heavy (relative to other elements), some of them are really strong?
Again, that doesn't really help our understanding... let's try again!
Let's use a different kind of reasoning this time! Let's use the most general logic we can find! OK, so here we go again:
"What is the common denominator between all metals?"
Hmmm, well, let's see...
The most general thing we know about metals (with the possible exception of mercury!) is that at room temperature, they're all solid.
OK, so that's a good start! It doesn't tell us that much (yet), but it's consistent with logic, so it's a good starting point!
So what else, other than metals, are solid?
Well, we know that glass is, and we know that water can become solid (ice), just at low temperatures (but this is also true for mercury!)
OK, still doesn't tell us much, but so good so far!
So, to continue... wait a second now, if mercury can become solid at low temperature -- then can't metals become liquid at high temperatures? Well yes they can!
So now if water is a substance which is liquid at specific temperatures, and solid at others, then what is the difference (other than the temperature range at which this happens) between water and metals?
?
Well, we might say that metals are typically pure elements, and that water is a chemical compound of two of them (H2O), and that they're completely different, and leave it at that.
But let's suppose that we didn't say that.
Here's the thing.
What do we know about water, when it freezes?
We know it turns to ice.
And what do we know about ice?
We know that it's a crystal.
So from this logic chain, and via logic, we finally introduce the $64,000 question:
Are all metals -- crystals ?
?
Even though they aren't clear like glass is, could they all be... crystals? (With Mercury excepted for the time being?)
Hmmm... well, I don't know... but there's something, something here!
You see, everything, everything that I have been able to logically deduce about metals -- tells me that all of them, all of them (including mercury, but it's not proven!) -- are in fact crystals !!!
Now, let's go for the jugular vein in understanding all of this...
We do this by asking the following question (you'll notice the pattern immediately I suspect!)
More specifically, the subdivision of space by FORCE.
In other words, at the lowest level (before we get to atoms or subparticles) there are regions of FORCE -- surrounded by regions of SPACE -- in various different mathematical PATTERNS.
PATTERNS OF FORCE IN SPACE
Now, you see, modern science ("New Skool") -- while it is starting to understand this -- does not and cannot (yet) understand all of the possibilities (again yet) for those possible patterns.
But that's what's going on.
You see, if someone were to really study the subject, they'd not only need to understand metallurgy, but also crystallography, 3D math, patterns, etc., etc., a variety of interlapping areas and disciplines...
And, even so, they would (as I alluded to before) only have "scratched the surface" -- of what might truly be possible.
Also, with respect to profitability... well, yes, everybody needs money to put bread on the table and feed their family, no arguments here! But if someone really was interested in this, they'd experiment with it, that is, "do it for the sake of doing it" rather than trying to make money in the process... that will be me or someone like me in the future, or so I hope...
What's the thing that Yoda said?
"Do or do not do, there is no try..."
Well, in my case now, it's "think about" or "do not think about", since there is no smelting equipment nor simulator available, to me at least! <g>
Anyway, wishing you well on your future metallurgical/material science quests!
> What is the common denominator between all metals?
I think most people who study this would say the common denominator is that metals lack a band gap and have a very mobile sea of electrons, and therefore good conductivity. Metals can be amorphous, or crystalline, or anywhere along the spectrum.
The "new school" certainly hasn't forgotten, or ignored, that crystals are patterns that tile all of space. These are known as space groups, and they enumerate every way to tile 3D space symmetrically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_group).
Anyways, I can guarantee that people who really study the subject absolutely take courses in metallurgy, crystallography, 3D math, and much more.
Also, if you're interested in simulations, I don't do that much myself, but you can always run some open source simulation software. http://www.opencalphad.com/
That looks like an interesting link, I might check that out!
Also...
"Amorphous" -- is just another way of saying that the crystal patterns contain shorter runs within the whole of the material... in other words, you can have differing crystal patterns which take up smaller amounts of space -- than the whole of the structure...
That sort of brings us to Level 2...
Level 2 is not just understanding metals as crystals, but (potentially) as crystals containing runs of various crystal structures, which could be the same crystal pattern, and could be different crystal patterns -- interrupted by fractures.
That brings us to Level 3:
Level 3 is sort of understanding Crystals -- as Fractals, that is, as "nested containers", that is, crystals themselves -- may contain one or more repeating patterns much in the same way that the larger structure contains one or more repeating groups of crystals...
Anyway, my point is, there's a lot more research to be done here... that and certain words like "amorphous" can unintentionally obscure the deeper pattern... or broken patterns, as the case can be...
Level 4 understanding: Broken patterns -- are indeed broken at one level(!) -- but they can be part of a "higher order" (unseen) pattern... a higher-order "pattern-breaker pattern".
Which should be discoverable using higher-order (higher dimensionality) math...
As I said... more research needs to be done here...
I can also recommend looking into voroni clusters for amorphous glasses, as a level 3 type analysis. These can be combined into higher order "medium range order" clusters, which might be what call level 4, but these are all very interesting areas of research.
> You see, if someone were to really study the subject, they'd not only need to understand metallurgy, but also crystallography, 3D math, patterns, etc., etc., a variety of interlapping areas and disciplines...
You just described metallurgy. Of course, no material scientist knows everything, even the field as a whole has many knowledge gaps. We are working to fill those gaps, usually with the result of finding more new gaps. And for this we use crystallography, 3D (and 4D) math, chemistry, physics, mechanics, computer science... Metallurgy (old and new, that distinction you make is pure fiction) already is multidisciplinary.
> if someone really was interested in this, they'd experiment with it, that is, "do it for the sake of doing it"
Testing equipment and electron microscopes are not cheap, so at some point you usually need some kind of return. But we constantly do research "for the sake of doing it", specially at universities, but also in some companies. It looks to me like you have many misconceptions about the field and how scientific research works in general.
How was the first Hydrogen atom in the Universe created from empty space?
In fact -- how are any Hydrogen atoms created from empty space?
(Because that's quite the trick... if you ask me...)
If you have an answer for that question -- then I challenge your knowledge by asking that you prove that knowledge with a lab experiment...
Produce for me, in the lab, using whatever equipment you like, one single teensy Hydrogen atom -- out of nothing but empty space...
Produce for me a single Hydrogen atom -- in a vaccuum...
You see, if someone understood how to do that then that would be a huge understanding for any material scientist because if they could do that, then
They would understand how matter is created in the first place...
Which is sort of the root level understanding for all material science (if you think about it) for Hydrogen and every heavier element and compound than Hydrogen... for everything material science related...
Please tell me that you as a material scientist -- actively seek this knowledge...
Why?
Because if I were doing material science, I'd be actively seeking that knowledge, as a foundation for everything else...
For everything else that would exist subordinate to, and on top of (to use the foundation analogy) it, or below (to use a pyramid/hierarchy analogy) it...
Why?
Because I don't know how Hydrogen is created in the first place!
It seems like that would be the place to begin any and all material science research/experimentation, that is, how the first material in the universe is actually created, wouldn't it?
If it could be discovered, then that would be the first principle -- from which all material science would proceed from, from which all other principles in material science were derived, wouldn't it?
Me, well I claim Socratic Ignorance in the matter...
I don't know -- but then again, no one pays me to, so I guess that's OK! <g>
On a serious note though, it would be really good information to have, do you not agree?
I'm out of my depth when it comes to materials science, but it seems to me that the answer might lie in how the crystals form when cooling. I.e. tensegrity like structures are known to be the strongest/lightest. So, if we're able to simulate the formation of these 3D crystal bonds and understand the assoc. tension/compression forces in the bonds we could predict the best materials.
So much with metals is about how the material is processed (forged, extruded, heat treated, etc.).
With newer technologies like 3D-printing, because of the very high cooling/freezing rates int he processing, even more Scandium (>0.7%) can be added, and even more strength gained, while still being very ductile (it'll tend to dent rather than cracking when abused).
Maybe this will be the 'new Scandium' material to take on the carbon frames. Might need to get cheaper though...
https://www.apworks.de/scalmalloy
Second your opinion, if you look at the state of the art vs what was considered impossible only a decade ago there is a very large amount of knowledge waiting to be discovered here. I believe you could even generalize that to all of materials science.
Scandium works by convincing aluminum molecules to restructure themselves. When aluminum is smelted it hardens into microscopic grains that fit together to make a solid architecture.
Scandium makes those grains smaller, among other things, which allows them to fit closer together for a denser, stronger overall structure.
Scandium also interrupts melted aluminum crystalizing at a molecular level when the metal cools.
This means that the properties of the alloy are less likely to be affected by heat-treatment and welding, so a scandium-infused aluminum alloy is less likely to crack while cooling.
This is especially valuable in high-strength aluminum, like 7005 alloy. Traditionally, 7005 alloys make light, strong, forged or CNC machined bicycle components, but can't be welded because they weaken when they melt. By adding scandium to the tube or to the filler between welded tubes, melted 7005 aluminum becomes usable in welded components, like frames.
So, at a chemical level, aluminum alloys infused with scandium (less than 0.5% by volume) are stronger and more weldable than scandium-free alloys."
PDS: There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to imbue them with various interesting properties...
Opinion: Modern-day metallurgy and metallurgical sciences, though its knowledge is formidable in this area -- has probably just "scratched the surface" of all that is possible...
In other words, experimentation, much more future experimentation -- is required in this area...