Talk:Material selection

Ashby's book is entitled "Materials selection..." but I always felt that was ungrammatical and incorrect -- incorrect because the methodology applies to selection of a single material. I added a redirect here from Materials selection to cover that base in case people use that name.

If enough people disagree with me, I am fine with renaming this to "Materials selection" and putting a redirect from "Material selection".

To do
Tighten up the cost section with citation(s) for more recent $/kg values (these are from memory in a presentation 10-15 years ago).

More than two attributes: those funny web-like plots, difficulty of objective comparison between materials in such circumstances.

Multiattribute utility analysis and cost.

Reads like an advertisement
For a such a general topic as material selection, I don't see the need for such an emphasis on one professor and his software company. For example, everyone calls "Ashby" charts tradeoff charts. There is no need for special terminology. The caption of a figure is "Plot using Ashby's own CES Selector software." Why not "Tradeoff chart of density verses Young's modulus"?

This was written by the owner of CES selector, and it certainly reads like it.

Dcreech1 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some of the emphasis in CES Selector software. I know that these plots are just scatter plots, but in Material Science community they are knownn as "Ashby" maps. Hopefully you can help us improve this article as well. Nicoguaro (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Readability
I've reworded the second paragraph beginning "Systematic selection for applications requiring multiple criteria..." so as to address the "please clarify" tag. I've retained what I understand to be the author's original meaning while tweaking the sentence to structure to remove the ambiguity cited by M101200.

Shenrichs (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)