Talk:Metallurgy/Archives/2023/December

Untitled
Possible Resources:
 * http://www.rocketmaterials.com/research/metallurgy/ (Metallurgy FAQ)

Metallography?
Working on the WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles, one that is in both the 1911 PD encyclopedia and the 2004 addition is metallography. Metallography.com is a website all about it. I created a stub for it, but wondered if it is really a separate subject from metallurgy at all. Any ideas? - Taxman Talk 22:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Blacksmith
What is the justification for the picture saying a Blacksmith is the father of modern metallurgy? This is a craft occupation whereas metallurgy is a science. It is not even a good illustration of a smith, just a man whom we are told is one. Abraham Gottlob Werner said that Georg Agricola was the father of metallurgy (as well as mineralogy). Traditionally the Bible gives Tubal-Cain as the origin of all metal operations.Chemical Engineer 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So I have changed the picture to that of Georg Agricola.Chemical Engineer 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Physical Metallurgy
Extractive metallurgy and production metallurgy (aka manufacturing metallurgy) are represented in this article. There is one other significant area of metallurgy, which is known as physical metallurgy. Although physical metallurgy and manufacturing metallurgy are more related to each other than extractive metallurgy, they are still separate fields.

Physical metallurgy's approach is based on the premise or belief that the properties of metals and alloys are determined by simple physical laws, and that it is not necessary to consider each alloy as a separate entity. (Source: Physical Metallurgy Principles, Reed-Hill, Third Edition, ISBN: 0-534-92173-6) In my own words, Physical metallurgy is the attempt to understand what is occurring at the atomic level and its affect on the physical and mechanical properties of metals.

I'm new to Wiki and Wikipedia. Does anyone else feel that this is a missing section to this article? If yes, I could begin the process of constructing this section as I am a practicing Metallurgical Engineer (~12yrs).

Rirowla (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so. Please do it. Chemical Engineer (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My father is a semi-retired Metallurgist--perhaps I should encourage him to get involved too.N^O^el (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Metallurgy Historically Male?
I remember learning in sociology class that out of all traditional jobs, historically only Metallurgy was universally cuturally male-dominated. Does anyone know of a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.106.47 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I'd like to suggest the merger of Brass and bronze ingot making into this article. I don't believe there's sufficient reference material to justify a separate article on that subject: much of what's there at the moment is uncited and geographically particular, and could be dumped; the rest would be better off discussed in more general terms in this article. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to also consider merging Brass and bronze ingot making into Ingot. J16s (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely think that it should not be merged it. This article is for very general info, and the info in the brass and bronze ingot making article is much too specific. However, I think that it should be merged into the article list of copper alloys. That covers both brass and bronze (and isn't actually a list; it should really be changed back to copper alloys). Wizard191 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not merge, wikipedia's strength includes the large number of articles. That topic is certainly big enough for its own article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Against. I would support a merge proposal of Brass and bronze ingot making into either Ingot or copper alloys.  Metallurgy is more about people, science and processes whereas the Ingot and Copper alloy articles are more about materials.  This is a distinction which would be lost if swept into this article.  Mfields1 (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Properties
This part bears discussion.

They are strong and hard.

There are a lot of soft metals, softer than non metals.

They are solids at room temperature (except for Mercury, which is the only metal to be liquid at room temperature)

Technicality, as there are a number or metals which are liquid below the boiling point of water.

They have a shiny luster when polished.

As a rule, yes.

They make good heat conductors and electrical conductors.

As a rule, yes.

They are dense

Don't know about this. How dense is diamond compared to beryllium?

They produce a sonorous sound when struck.

OK.

They have high melting points

See above about the boiling point of water.

They are malleable

OK.

Jokem (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you asking? Wizard191 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardness was discussed by not hardenability or Jominy testing or grain size testing. Could be useful to add or link to Kadyb9 (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hey all metallurgists out there....

I work at an aluminium casthouse on a continuous casting machine where we use launders as a way of transporting the metal in the furnace into the casting machine. I have noticed that a protective oxide layer will form in the launders which over time becomes thicker and thicker. This i know is the natural reaction of aluminium to oxygen. Sometimes this protective layer is skimmed off and a direct result of this is an increase in metal temperature which is measured just before the aluminium enters the machine. Can anyone explain to me why the temperature goes up? I would have thought that the temperature would go down due to the heat exchange that would take place once the protective layer was removed...but apparently not! Thanks, look forward to your answers!

regards, curious operator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.70.98 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Curious operator, Wikipedia talk pages aren't a forum. Please ask your question at the reference desk. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Education
Has anyone else noticed people removing relevant and sourced information with trying to get consensus? Philly jawn (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what are the criteria for the inclusion of a school in this extensive listing under "United States Collegiate"? Since the list's length seems arbitrary, too long to comfortably read but certainly too short to be complete, why not shorten it to, say, the top three schools as ranked by some metric and make it less awkward to read? - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.63.48 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed, justification: it simply was a batch of school promotion with no sourcing as to notability. If you want it back, then provide sources justifying the notability of each institution. Otherwise leave it out. Sorry if your alma mater or whatever got axed. The Boy Scout bit about a short term merit badge was the only thing with even a remotely good source -- and that seems rather unencyclopediac or notable. Additionally, just because something's been here for forever ... doesn't make it encyclopediac. Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm ... no, there was sourcing. Your reasoning is nothing more than I just don't like it. The section could use expansion, but that's why it has the tag. Also, your comment about an alma mater ... well, it's insulting and a violation of WP:Civil. What would you like to see in terms of content. Why don't we work to expand the section ... Philly jawn (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The only "source" (other than the Boy Scout bit) was a link to UNNV Reno page. Yes, UNNV has a program, but what is notable about it -- it's not a source, just advertizing. I'd say many universities have metallurgical programs, but how is that notable or encyclopediac? And the high school prep school in CA - is that notable? If you wish to create an article List of notable metallurgy schools, be my guest. Again: WP:notability and WP:RS are required -- otherwise it's just promotional trivia. Vsmith (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Vsmith is definitely correct here. There are no reliable sources, as the two "sources" are primary sources, which do not quality per WP:RS. As such, I don't see why this is such a point of contention. Wizard191 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need for an article, List of notable metallurgy schools. Odds are that if it was created it would be merged someplace because it was a stub. It's not like it is Law school in the United States. The field of metallurgy is actually a shrinking field. I think its informative to list the schools that do have that specialty. You can quote WP:notability, but IMHO you're using that in place of I just don't like it. I will go out and find some more sources just to flesh it out. Philly jawn (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable to have a piece about how metallurgists are educated (providing this does not have the usual USA bias) but it is not appropriate to have lists of places where the subject can be studied. They should be removed.Chemical Engineer (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no USA bias. Anyone else is welcome to add to the section and expand it. Philly jawn (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Philly jawn, there is no encyclopedic basis for the list, there are no Wikipedia policies that protect it/warrant its inclusion, and, other than you, there is consensus that the list should be removed. As such, I'm removing it. If you disagree, please get a third opinion. Wizard191 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Metallurgical education?
There is no section about "education" in other sciences: physics, chemistry, mathematics. It is quite off-topic, and should at most be in the "see also" section. By the way, the see-also are mostly irrelevant. Setreset (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, see the education section above for our initial discussion. There was consensus between all but one editor about the removal of the section. I'm going to remove the section based on that consensus and your newest comment. I also think the spin-out article should be deleted based on lack of notability. Wizard191 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, many other articles dealing with a topic have lead ins to other pages. The metallurgical education section should go back in. Metallurgy is a subject taught in many schools. It should be more than a "see also".
 * "Metallurgy applies engineering and technical skills in the development of industrial metals and manufacturing processes. Subjects such as mechanics and thermal physics, thermo science, applied thermodynamics, metal testing, quality control, instrument calibration and advanced mathematics are required."


 * Philly jawn (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are lead ins to other pages, which are relevant to the article. However, none of them is about-education-about the subject, which is off-topic. Setreset (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Properties section
I've removed the properties section for a couple of reasons. First, it is a direct copy from metal; the information should maintained in one place and if neccessary a main template can be used to link to it. Second, metallurgy is the study of metals, therefore the properties of metals should not be listed here, but rather in the metal article. This article should discuss how the properties are studied, not what they are. Wizard191 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

missing study and testing - not B-class
Quoting the article: "Metallurgy is a domain of materials science that studies the physical and chemical behavior of metallic elements".

There is almost nothing written (only microstructure section) about studying properties, only on processing materials, which is about half the scope of metallurgy. I think that currently the article is C-class, and much should be added, specifically, about: metallography (exists but is introductory), tensometer, Fractography, crystallography, among others. Setreset (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've changed it. This article needs lots o' help. Wizard191 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Gold phosphine complex
Hi, I was trying to de-orphan this article Gold phosphine complex as part of that I googled for refs and it has heaps. Unfortunately I don't have a clue about this subject. If anyone is interested in expanding this stub here is the link to google scholar search  Blackash   have a chat 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

History
The history section only goes up to 1556. Have there been no advances since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.225.12 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

First image in article
It seems to me that the first image in the article should be something more interesting than a portrait of an author from the 16th century. I think the portrait of Georgius Agricola would be fine in the History section. Perhaps a picture showing the process of making something out of metal -- either in a modern facility or something traditional like sword-making -- would be more interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Where are the sources for Extracting, Alloys, and some of the processes? Should information related to more modern processing being added to the article? Cmwxc (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Page in need of overhaul
I made major revisions to the introductory section. Minor revisions to Microstructure Section and Alloy section. Provided references from recognized textbooks to support the revisions. I can provide more references as required. Even now, the article is not fleshed out enough. Flag for expansion if possible. Overall, this page needs many more citations from recognized textbooks or peer-reviewed literature. Sections in particular need of attention include Alloys, and Characterization. Additional sections should and could be added (I hold both an M.Sc, and B.Sc in Materials Science & engineering. I am also a registered Professional Engineer). Gmnelson1 (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Which articles should link to Native state (metallurgy)?
Which articles should link to Native state (metallurgy)? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Native Americans were among the world’s first coppersmiths
Not sure where this should be included


 * https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/ancient-native-americans-were-among-world-s-first-coppersmiths

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Biology
Biochemistry 39.42.161.187 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Difference between matte clay and slag clay
What do both clays consists of and why? 41.150.210.203 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)