Correlation between metal strength and melting point?

AI Thread Summary
Stronger metals do not consistently have higher melting points, as the relationship between tensile strength and melting point varies by material and temperature. For instance, some strong metals may melt at lower temperatures than softer ones, depending on specific properties. The discussion highlights that tensile strength is influenced by temperature, complicating generalizations. Additionally, energy calculations for moving objects can be derived from changes in kinetic energy, using formulas that relate mass, acceleration, and distance. Understanding these concepts requires careful consideration of the specific materials and conditions involved.
Physics quest
Messages
88
Reaction score
5
I am unsure of this matter and so I am curious, do stronger metals more than likely have higher melting/heating points? Does a metal that takes more force/pressure to break or snap have a higher melting/heating point as well? Do metals/alloys like steel or titanium have higher melting points than a softer metal due to their strength? or is it deeper than that?

Also, although not technically related I thought another matter was not worth a new thread, I was just interested in how to calculate, if its possible the energy used in moving an object based on weight and distance/time it took to travel.

Thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. Its one of those yes and no things - you can look up tensile strengths and melting points for different metals and see for yourself.

2. you do work whenever you accelerate an object equal to the change in kinetic energy, which is also the applied force multiplied by the distance moved.
 
Simon Bridge said:
1. Its one of those yes and no things - you can look up tensile strengths and melting points for different metals and see for yourself.

2. you do work whenever you accelerate an object equal to the change in kinetic energy, which is also the applied force multiplied by the distance moved.

1. So its not really related? strong metals may melt quicker than softer metals and its really just specific to the metal?

2. So how do I find the change in kinetic energy? Let's say I picked up say a bowling ball, assuming all I got was its weight and the speed I accelerated it to, distance it went etc could I find out how much energy I was dealing with?
 
1. Its one of those yes and no things - you can look up tensile strengths and melting points for different metals and see for yourself.

It's a bit more complicated than this since tensile strength is itself a function of temperature as was found at great cost when the 'Liberty Ships' broke up due to cold induced brittle failure.
 
Physics quest said:
1. So its not really related? strong metals may melt quicker than softer metals and its really just specific to the metal?
Like the guy said - the strength of materials also depends on temperature - and depend differently for different materials so material a is stronger than material B at temp T1, but it is reversed at T2. Like I said - go look.
2. So how do I find the change in kinetic energy? Let's say I picked up say a bowling ball, assuming all I got was its weight and the speed I accelerated it to, distance it went etc could I find out how much energy I was dealing with?

You can do it directly from difference of kinetic energy:
W=\frac{1}{2}mv_2^2 - \frac{1}{2}mv_1^2

... for your example, you'd have to find the initial speed from kinematics.

v_1^2=v_2^2-2ad

But I'd reason like this:

W=Fd but F=ma so W=mad ;) and your example has all these. (Note: the KE method will produce the same formula.)
 
Hm these formulae are a bit beyond me. Do you mind breaking it down as basic as possible? without any abreviation?
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top