Creating the worlds strongest sword?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Oct 30, 2005.

  1. Pantaz Registered Member

    Messages:
    31
    You are basically describing what is called a "bimetal" -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetal
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    As with any dense sword, tungsten would be very brittle. Tungsten titanium alloy would be a good mix between the two as titanium would combat the brittleness.
    "Strongest". That to me means the least likely to break or chip and the most likely to keep it's edge.
    The more flexible something is the less likely it's going to chip or break. But to be a good sword you don't want them to be so malleable that they can't make a clean cut.
    Diamond is one of the most useful cutting tools due to its hardness, however if chipped at from the wrong angle it's very brittle. Hard metals are the same way.
    Tungsten titanium carbide could very well be a great sword, and with the advances in technology be made very precisely. Yet the more cost effective and reasonable choice would still be a good carbon steel.
    Many professionals including combat reenactors and swordsmiths prefer this over others due that's is widely known how to make properly and that it's flexible yet doesn't give up its structure.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Er what?
    Lead (you must have heard of it - it's a dense metal) isn't known for being brittle. neither is gold.
    Pure tungsten, also, is NOT brittle - being ductile enough to be drawn into wire.
    It's contaminated tungsten that's brittle.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    I didn't refrence density I stated hardness. Gold while dense is quite malleable, and also not what I was talking about.
     
  8. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Saying dense in that sense was a misspoken word on my part
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Of course!
    It was obviously some else that posted:
    Then don't you think it would be a good idea to actually write what you're talking about?

    So you actually meant "dense" in the sense of... what, exactly?
    There aren't that many meanings for the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dense
     
  10. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Are you that dense? (Haha) I was merely stating that I used a word other than what I intended not that I had used the word in incorrect context
     
  11. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Now if you're done with those ad hominem attacks could we proceed with what this thread was originally for.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    No, but apparently you are.

    Yet, once again, that isn't what you wrote: Saying dense in that sense was a misspoken word on my part.

    I note that you've completely ignored the part where I showed that you lied about "not referencing density".
     
  13. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    I didn't lie I just didn't mean to put that there.
    Swords is actually what I was referring to in the thread.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Oh dear.
    A) They weren't ad hom attacks: you CLEARLY AND DEMONSTRABLY wrote something that was incorrect, although, apparently, what you wrote you didn't mean. The words are right there in your posts, despite your denial of them.
    B) You also got it wrong about tungsten being brittle.

    You stated (post #164) "I didn't refrence density".
    Yet, the reference is right there in YOUR post #162 "As with any dense sword".

    Oh wait.
    "You didn't mean to put it there" - a tacit admission that it actually IS there - which you denied.
     
  15. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Im not saying in any way that I did not put that there I'm saying that, that it's not the word I should have put to adequately convey my idea.
    And being brittle in comparison to the carbon steel in which I alluded to.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Actually you did say that you didn't put it there: "I didn't refrence density".

    Don't talk crap.
    Carbon steel swords are typically made with steels containing 0.5-0.7% carbon (because below that the steel won't harden).
    That carbon content makes it less ductile - i.e. MORE BRITTLE - than, say, mild steel. Or even tungsten.
     
  17. Joshua Cotton Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    tungsten is an intrinsically brittle[6][7] and hard material due to its weak grain boundaries, making it difficult to work. However, pure single-crystalline tungsten is more ductile, and can be cut with a hard-steel hacksaw.
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    Hmm, apart from the fact that you didn't provide the source - it's here - and thus leave yourself open to accusations of plagiarism, you ALSO neglected to quote the ACTUAL words.
    I'll do it for you: Polycrystalline tungsten is an intrinsically brittle[6][7] and hard material due to its weak grain boundaries, making it difficult to work. However, pure single-crystalline tungsten is more ductile, and can be cut with a hard-steel hacksaw.[8]

    Now, as I noted earlier, Pure tungsten is a light gray or whitish metal that is soft enough to be cut with a hacksaw and ductile enough to be drawn into wire or extruded into various shapes.
    You also seem to be ignoring the fact that, PROPERLY alloyed, tungsten is used for anti-tank projectiles. If it were that brittle the shot would break up on impact, as opposed to penetrating several hundred millimetres of hardened armour.
     

Share This Page