Talk:Composite material

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have the following comments:

  • I would like to bring to all of the respected contributor's kind attention that the title "Mechanics" does not really fit into the context that is written there. Mechanics of composites is completely different thing.
  • Since the area of composites is very vast, I would recommend to split this areticle at the beginning. Something like types of composites such as fiber reinforcd, metal matrix etc. Then let the links flow to individual pages. For example, Fiber reinforced polymer(FRP) composite is pretty much worth a whole new page.
  • Overall organization needs over hauling. So,if anyone adding new things, please consider doing so with appropriate title of your content, not just fit into this format. I wanted to add things but did not mess the current format without asking you all.unsigned comment by User:Prasun92 on 6 October [2006]].
Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. :-) Actually, your bringing it up here is appreciated and the page would benefit from your expertise. You could either try your hand at changing this page directly, or you could experiment in a sandbox. Just create the page User:Prasun92/sandbox, copy this article over, make your changes there and tell us about them. I will be happy to comment on them there or here. Good luck! By the way, to sign your comments, just add four tildes '''~~~~''' and you user name, date and time will appear just like magic. :-) Luigizanasi 18:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I think the introduction section needs a serious rewrite. I'm not sure I want to start on it tonight but my general idea is to make it more of a progression from early examples of composites to a discussion of modern composite materials. The section currently doesn't seem to be written in the most encyclopedic language and is mostly unreferenced. I think there is a lot of room for improvement here on what could be a very interesting and useful article. Any help from other editors interested in this topic would be greatly appreciated as I am not particularly good at writing up long sections of prose. Stardust8212 04:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section "Geometry"

I would like the input of others. Suggest the section "Geometry" be deleted as the original writer did not specify what he was talking about, thus the text is gobblegook, and it is unlikely to be clarified/improved. I suspect the writer was referring to polymer chemistry which is well covered in Polymer section 'Structures and properties'. If others more conversant with polymer chemistry confirm that my suspicion is correct then a change of text with an internal link would be appropriate.Geoffrey Wickham 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's useless in its current form and completely lacking context. If someone knowledgeable about whatever that's supposed to be comes along and wants to expand on it that'd be great but until then I think removing it is the best course of action. As it is now I think it will only confuse people unfamiliar with the topic, certainly confuses me. Stardust8212 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and removed it. The original text follows below for anyone hoping to improve it. Stardust8212 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The geometry of a two-phase composite material may have any of the following 10 connectivities: 0-0, 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-2, 2-3, and 3-3, where 0, 1, 2, 3 represent the dimensions of either phase.


[edit] slight mistake "Space Shuttle Columbia"

The carbon fibre was only the heat shield, if I remeber correctly, and the internal structure of the wing is composed of aluminium. The wing also failed not due to the impact, but doe to reheated gas from reentry entering the internal space of the wing, heating (therefore softening) the structure. The tires of the internal landing gear where also heated, and exploded as a result. Therefore the primary cause of the failure can be attributed to the fracture of the composite heat shield, however that was NOT the reason for the destruction of the shuttle - the reason was entry of heated gas to the internal section of the wing, its bursting and following rotation of the shuttle exposed parts of the shuttle not protected against excessive re-entry heat.

J.K.cz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.2.172 (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)