Pantaz
Registered Member
You are basically describing what is called a "bimetal" -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetal
Creating the worlds strongest sword?
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
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.
"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.
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.
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
I didn't refrence density I stated hardness. Gold while dense is quite malleable, and also not what I was talking about.
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
Saying dense in that sense was a misspoken word on my part
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
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
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
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
Now if you're done with those ad hominem attacks could we proceed with what this thread was originally for.
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".
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
I didn't lie I just didn't mean to put that there.
Swords is actually what I was referring to in the thread.
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.
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
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.
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.
Joshua Cotton
Registered Member
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.