Talk:Superalloy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Braydenbekker. Peer reviewers: Hensldm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

FCC Alloy?

What is FCC? (Surely not the Federal Communications Commission.)Lou Sander

FCC stands for face-centered cubic crystal structure. --Shaddack 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you guys work so hard what's the trick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.15.81 (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Jargon

I'm not sure whether the correct tag is context (which I've used for the moment) or confusing or something else, but this article is, at the time of this writing, abuzz with copious unexplained technical language, such that a person with only one or two semesters of chemistry in his background has difficulty reading it. The technical information should probably not be removed, but more of it needs to be _explained_ better. For a layperson, the article on tungsten arguably gives more accessible information about superalloys than this article does.

As far as I can see, it is only the "Chemical development" and "Scientific facts" sections that are impossible to understand. Are you worried about other sections, too? RandomP 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Structure of Gamma prime

Can someone check if the crystal structure is indeed fcc and not primitive cubic? I think it might be primitive cubic or Cubic-P (see Cambridge website).

70.43.48.18 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Vikram.

- any, if you hin at gamma prime. This structure is called L12.
 here is picture:
 http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk/l1_2.html

 Its looks like fcc, but isn't.

 This is typical misunderstanding between lattice and crystal structure
 Crystal structure is result of assignation of some ornament to space lattice. 

Lattice is only math term no more. And L1₂ can't be derived from cubic face centred lattice. THE PROBLEM is that this same term "FCC" IS USED FOR 2 DIFFERENT THINKS. First is name of lattice and second is name of crystal structure where each corner is occuped by atom of this same element. So Cambridge website is true that thid structure can be derived only from Primitive Cubic latice, but the name of this structure is L1₂

FCC Alloy

Interesting in one paragraph Ni3Al is correctly described as L1₂ and in one incorrectly as FCC

I think it's okay as written. The superalloys being discussed here contain two major phases: a gamma (fcc) matrix phase and a gamma prime (L1₂) precipitate phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTJGC (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mo and Nb based Silicide In Situ Composites

I believe this article would be strengthened by discussing Mo and Nb based Silicide In Situ Composites in the Superalloys in the future section of the paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.154.234 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

γ' phase

I would like to understand the metallurgy section, but terms such as gamma phase and gamma prime are not described. I hope someone knowledgeable in this area can find some good citations to fill in this information. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The external link section gives the perfect point to start. The page from Cambridge is very good. [1] --Stone (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fatigue-life ≠ Fracture

You linked Fatigue-life to Fracture, which, by looking at the page Fatigue (material), can be seen as an incorrect link.

Also, with simple knowledge, it is easy to define fracture from fatigue.

Fracture is the actual breaking of the material in general, while fatigue is the wearing of the material through repeated loading and unloading.

For the layman, fracturing is when it snaps, fatigue is when it wears.

The incorrect link is on the main page when I saw it, but it may show up further on too.

Thanks, just pointing this out. If i wasn't so busy, I would fix this myself. --JezzDawga (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's possible this should be a category, not a page. Just a thought.

Anyone else have a thought on this?

Category as well, but no reason to prune the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)