From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk   
      
   In article <5dcb47db.0403230434.23ca942b@posting.google.com>,   
   cray74@hotmail.com (Mike Miller) writes:   
   |>   
   |> Automakers are not avoiding advanced materials because the materials   
   |> in cars are already super-strong. Rather, they're avoiding many weight   
   |> reducing materials because the advanced materials are too expensive or   
   |> too difficult to form. This is why you only see structural   
   |> carbon-carbon or carbon-epoxy composites in no-expense-spared racing   
   |> cars, and why titanium only finds a few niche applications within   
   |> cars.   
      
   Don't forget failure modes - mild steel fails very gracefully,   
   except for the rust issue, which is critical for safety-critical   
   constructions subject to uncontrolled abuse.   
      
   |> Further, there ARE materials used in the aerospace industry that   
   |> deliver better strength and strength-to-weight performance than   
   |> "liquid metal." The commercial aircraft industry is somewhat like the   
   |> car industry - it sticks to aluminum because aluminum has an adequate   
   |> balance of cost, strength, weight, and formability. "Liquid metal"   
   |> might be strong enough and light enough for aircraft, but I doubt it   
   |> can economically replace aluminum.   
      
   Modern aluminium alloys are much better than they used to be   
   at avoiding "metal fatigue".  I remember when aluminium bicycle   
   components were a disaster area for general use - they are now   
   as reliable as cast steel.   
      
   Are "glassy metals" resistant enough to that to be useful even   
   in the aerospace industry?  I have no idea.   
      
      
   Regards,   
   Nick Maclaren.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)