Alright materials science geniuses, design a High School level metallurgy class!

[The Man]

Ok, make sodcutter plows?

Works for me, as long as the local board of education does not require them to beat our swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks.

 

[The Man]

Leaf spring knives are a very popular beginner project for smithing.
Blades made from steel cable are also popular, but more complicated due to the need to fuse the individual strands.


Ultimately, I'd say keep it simple. Do some basic theory (very brief, very simple) on the subjects I mentioned, and if the school has a metal shop, take advantage of it.
Some experiments are extremely easy to do, if the shop has some basic tools.


And I apologize to jj.
I misunderstood his comment about damascus.

In my high school metal shop we actually did sand castings (I thing it was bronze, but it was a long time ago) much like in the olden days. Later as engineer I was able observe (and design components manufactured by) modern production casting (at least at that time). I think any high school metal shop should do both, give students hands on training with metal casting (which is simple technology) and expose them to the environment and technology (from investment casting to sintered metals, even drop forging and extrusion) of current metal production. I doubt that any company would deny access to a class tour, but would the powers that be defer their safety concerns for the benefit of the students? Metal, mold (or die), some heat (or not) and pressure, the basic principles are simple but the intricacies and resulting properties are varied. Swaging was one of the metal material production applications that I always found most interesting (combining pressure and the working flow of metal) and although a major process of one of the companies I worked for, I was not involved much in that production process and never had the opportunity to design tooling for.

“Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?” Ulysses Everett McGill “O Brother, Where Art Thou”

 

[SirPhilip]

Start with the basics: material properties.

Properties of the behavior of nonliving matter. Let's humanize it.

Stress

Strain

Strength

Stiffness

Hardness

Elasticity

Tension

Compression

Hooke's Law

Deformation

Some apply to stress analysis as well, but all are fundamental to material science. Then, once the basics are understood, you can progress to things like strain hardening, ductility, brittleness, temperature effects, and the like.

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Terry]

martensite, maybe?

 

[Doubt]

Well, I am a controls guy who works in the heat-treat industry and used to work in a steel mill.

The ASM, American Society of Metals, used to have a self taught course called "Metallurgy for the non-metallurgist." It was mostly about steel, however.

Not sure how you would do a high school course with labs. Lots of ways to get hurt there, as JJ pointed out.

If you want to get kids interested in the subject, start with the salaries of metallurgists.

As for the tools steel comment, try austempered ductile iron. Less brittle. (Disclaimer, the guy who founded our company also owns a very useful patent on a process for austempering.)

 

[jj]

martensite, maybe?

Terry gets the 3 points.

 

[GreyICE]

Isn't Mat Sci pretty much the most boring thing ever though?

If we want kids interested in Engineering, why not Thermodynamics? It's absolutely the most basic principles of Engineering (all engineers, like it or not (even you, Civil) deal with energy) and is quite interesting to boot.

Mat Sci is just boring combined with moments of intense frustration.

The only fun part would be doing the steel cooling experiment with Mo's hardness testers to show quenched steel is harder than steel that is allowed to cool slowly, and also showing the rearranging of the molecular structures in steel based on temperature (something I found fascinating).

 

[Sunstealer]

Isn't Mat Sci pretty much the most boring thing ever though?

If we want kids interested in Engineering, why not Thermodynamics? It's absolutely the most basic principles of Engineering (all engineers, like it or not (even you, Civil) deal with energy) and is quite interesting to boot.

Mat Sci is just boring combined with moments of intense frustration.

The only fun part would be doing the steel cooling experiment with Mo's hardness testers to show quenched steel is harder than steel that is allowed to cool slowly, and also showing the rearranging of the molecular structures in steel based on temperature (something I found fascinating).

Absolute basic does not mean most interesting.

This (my bolding) made me laugh. I can't think of anything worse than being subjected to thermodynamics at an early age, it was bad enough during my degree. My experience of getting into the materials world (and therefore exposure to other subjects) was not one of thermodynamics even though I was studying some of it at A-level (it was of mountain bikes, their manufacture, lightness etc). There is nothing fun about differing cooling rates and their affects on the properties of steels (even with samples and microstructures). Much better to ask far more real world questions and their applications that might have a bearing.

Metallurgy or Materials Engineering is a profoundly physical subject that is tangible to everyone who has ever held a piece of metal or any other smelted/extracted and/or manufactured good(s), however, when studied it's far deeper and it's the degree of how deep the rabit hole goes for pupils of the age the OP is interested in. There are certainly lots of teaching aids available via a great many organisations. Materials Engineering extends so far into our modern world it's unbelievable when you look - everything from a silicon chip to a frying pan (coated with teflon). It has so many specialist subsets that an all encompassing subject is hard to teach - doubly so at the level the OP is asking for and this is why it's so difficult to give an idea at a pre 18 age. You can teach a large part of the world (and many other much needed concepts) to pupils simply by expanding their knowledge of basic science and how they see materials (metals, polymers, ceramics).

Thermodynamics is important, vastly important, and whilst it does allow for expansion into a good number of areas it becomes complex and detached from experience quite quickly (imho).

I wouldn't want to ever teach (high school) students about relative hardness with cooling rates without a prop or physical concept that they could see themselves and understand the need for an application in a wider world.

Materials science isn't for everyone and I fondly remember my very bright (much brighter than me) friend trying to understand some of the basics (as he was required to appreciate) in his Mechanical Engineering course, as I laughed. I tried as much as I could to explain and he did indeed grasp alot of the concepts, but never had a solid grasp of them (but then again he wasn't required to - the mat science was a small part of his course). And I guess this is where alot of people find it obscure/not interesting/important. I'm not surprised. Similarly when I quizzed him about what he was doing and why, I could also grasp the concepts, but not the details and he would laugh at me.

Science is not an all encompassing genre, there are many nuances and just because one understands one nuance does not automatically mean one understands another not matter if they are closely related. The thing about science is that it is there. Regardless of whether one grasps or enjoys one or multiple, related or non-related subjects.

However, one thing is sure; the material can drive the science in what ever way anyone likes. I think it's important for children to grasp the basics from a material view involving experimentation and above all fun, it gives them a practical feel and does not mean in anyway they'll all turn into metallurgists.

( I'd love to find out what everyone thinks is an archetypal metallurgist - I'm sure I've met a few of them!).

 

[GreyICE]

Absolute basic does not mean most interesting.

This (my bolding) made me laugh. I can't think of anything worse than being subjected to thermodynamics at an early age, it was bad enough during my degree. My experience of getting into the materials world (and therefore exposure to other subjects) was not one of thermodynamics even though I was studying some of it at A-level (it was of mountain bikes, their manufacture, lightness etc). There is nothing fun about differing cooling rates and their affects on the properties of steels (even with samples and microstructures). Much better to ask far more real world questions and their applications that might have a bearing.

I don't have any idea how this DOESN'T have a real world bearing. The fact that different molecular structures can form out of the same material is fascinating. As for Thermo, I just don't understand how someone can't like it.

For mountain bikes, I'll let you in on a little secret. You can take all that Mat Sci and toss it out the window. They're going to use the cheap abundant metals anyway, and that means aluminum alloys, steel alloys, or carbon fiber (not a metal, but you know what I mean). Titanium makes an awesome bike frame, but unless it's the olympics, not gonna happen.

Then you can run your basic calculations, and then throw them out the window and give everything a Factor of Safety of at least 2.

Metallurgy or Materials Engineering is a profoundly physical subject that is tangible to everyone who has ever held a piece of metal or any other smelted/extracted and/or manufactured good(s), however, when studied it's far deeper and it's the degree of how deep the rabit hole goes for pupils of the age the OP is interested in. There are certainly lots of teaching aids available via a great many organisations. Materials Engineering extends so far into our modern world it's unbelievable when you look - everything from a silicon chip to a frying pan (coated with teflon). It has so many specialist subsets that an all encompassing subject is hard to teach - doubly so at the level the OP is asking for and this is why it's so difficult to give an idea at a pre 18 age. You can teach a large part of the world (and many other much needed concepts) to pupils simply by expanding their knowledge of basic science and how they see materials (metals, polymers, ceramics).

It's inconceivably boring. It's literally the most boring thing I ever experienced in school. Sure, it sounds cool, until you realize that every practical thing you do with it is intensely boring.

Thermodynamics is important, vastly important, and whilst it does allow for expansion into a good number of areas it becomes complex and detached from experience quite quickly (imho).

Not really. Energy balances are an absolute function of anything that:

Generates heat
Involves movement
Uses energy

That's a HUGE range of practical areas.

I wouldn't want to ever teach (high school) students about relative hardness with cooling rates without a prop or physical concept that they could see themselves and understand the need for an application in a wider world.

Yeah, we did it with an autoclave, steel samples, a Mo's Hardness tester, and 800 degree samples.

Minus handling 800 degree samples (the teacher could do it) it's reasonably practical.

Materials science isn't for everyone and I fondly remember my very bright (much brighter than me) friend trying to understand some of the basics (as he was required to appreciate) in his Mechanical Engineering course, as I laughed. I tried as much as I could to explain and he did indeed grasp alot of the concepts, but never had a solid grasp of them (but then again he wasn't required to - the mat science was a small part of his course). And I guess this is where alot of people find it obscure/not interesting/important. I'm not surprised. Similarly when I quizzed him about what he was doing and why, I could also grasp the concepts, but not the details and he would laugh at me.

Science is not an all encompassing genre, there are many nuances and just because one understands one nuance does not automatically mean one understands another not matter if they are closely related. The thing about science is that it is there. Regardless of whether one grasps or enjoys one or multiple, related or non-related subjects.

However, one thing is sure; the material can drive the science in what ever way anyone likes. I think it's important for children to grasp the basics from a material view involving experimentation and above all fun, it gives them a practical feel and does not mean in anyway they'll all turn into metallurgists.

( I'd love to find out what everyone thinks is an archetypal metallurgist - I'm sure I've met a few of them!).

He works in a boring field.

Seriously, I'm like your ME friend (I'm an ME, fancy that). You can't send me to sleep faster than exposing me to Mat Sci.

 

[Sunstealer]

I don't have any idea how this DOESN'T have a real world bearing. The fact that different molecular structures can form out of the same material is fascinating.

It is and it's not intuitive either and also has real world applications.

For mountain bikes, I'll let you in on a little secret. You can take all that Mat Sci and toss it out the window. They're going to use the cheap abundant metals anyway, and that means aluminum alloys, steel alloys, or carbon fiber (not a metal, but you know what I mean). Titanium makes an awesome bike frame, but unless it's the olympics, not gonna happen.

MS is not just about the metal or the alloy. It's the whole process from getting material from the ground, extracting the metal, alloying, processing and forming and heat treatment (if needed). Welding and joining (which I find a boring topic) is a whole science in itself. I remember when a cromoly welded steel (rather than brazed) was an expensive item as opposed to the hi-tensile crap that was heavy. The development of steel tubing for bicycle frames from rubbish to aermet 100 is quite a feat. I remember when aluminium frames were rare as hens teeth and very, very expensive, now they are 10 a penny and the cheapest bikes now use that material. There was extensive development in the manufacture and design of the tubing, but more importantly the preparation and joining (Cannondale's website is a good one). Titanium frames are expensive, but they have been around a long time (see Litespeed) and are quite readily available. Infact my dad has a cheap Raleigh Dynatec MTB that uses Ti for the front triangle (bonded into Al lugs) with a bolt on steel rear triangle (Gary Fisher did something similar first with aluminium front triangle). Carbon fibre is about as expensive as Ti but gives a completely different ride and can be fashioned into different shapes that normal tubing can't (See Trimble, my brother has had one since early 90's). Bike frames have been made from cast magnesium (Kirk Precision) and even Beryllium (American Bicycle Manufacturing) and cost $26,000! Yes I could bore for GB on mountain bikes if it was an Olympic sport.

Then you can run your basic calculations, and then throw them out the window and give everything a Factor of Safety of at least 2.
It's inconceivably boring. It's literally the most boring thing I ever experienced in school. Sure, it sounds cool, until you realize that every practical thing you do with it is intensely boring.

So the manufacture of everything in the post industrialised world is boring eh? From railway boilers to silicon chips. MS isn't just about metals there's ceramics, polymers, metal-matrix composites, ceramic-matrix composites, glasses, etc - with a huge range of applications. Without metallurgy and the mass production of quality steel we would certainly not see the world as we know it for metallurgy was a huge part of the industrial revolution which has driven the western world for the past 150 years.

The world would be a pretty boring place if everyone liked the same subjects. Obviously we differ and that's fine. Hell I've made a career out of it!

 

[jj]

and even Beryllium (American Bicycle Manufacturing) and cost $26,000!

Um, when you fall on it, and scrape some metal off the side, do you have to call the EPA pronto?

YIKES!

 

[196]

I agree that metallurgy is an interesting and useful topic. The content of classes (called "courses" in Canada) is set by provincial governments. The Ontario curriculum for science doesn't include metallurgy in any topic in any of the strands (units):
Ontario curriculum for Grades 11 and 12 science
Ontario curriculum for Grades 9 and 10 science

A teacher could still work it in, but it couldn't be an entire unit. FWIW, the science teacher at my school does a bit of metallurgy with her classes.

What if, instead of a class, you could design a single lesson that would take one or two periods (say 150 minutes maximum). What would you want students to experience? Next year I'm scheduled to teach math and possibly one grade 9 science in second semester. If I get that science class, I'll come back and get some ideas to include a metallurgy lesson in the "exploring matter" topic of the chemistry strand (Ontario curriculum for Grades 9 and 10 science). As an example, we could explore the effects of heat treating (heat & quench one day, bend or break the next day).

 

[Sunstealer]

Um, when you fall on it, and scrape some metal off the side, do you have to call the EPA pronto?

YIKES!

Be is only hazardous in dust form, it's quite safe to handle, I've done it a few times. What is crazy is committees getting overzealous and banning it in alloys (eg: Al castings where it acts as a grain refiner consequently improves fatigue properties and BeO layer to prevent oxidation in the melt) even though it's beneficial and the introduction of Be is done prior to casting usually as BeCu and the machining of said castings are all 5 axis CNC enclosed machines (even though open would be fine) . Adds cost because AlBe aerospace alloys are standard and requires addition materials testing to gather data on the material behaviour for stress/design engineers etc.

What if, instead of a class, you could design a single lesson that would take one or two periods (say 150 minutes maximum). What would you want students to experience? Next year I'm scheduled to teach math and possibly one grade 9 science in second semester. If I get that science class, I'll come back and get some ideas to include a metallurgy lesson in the "exploring matter" topic of the chemistry strand (Ontario curriculum for Grades 9 and 10 science). As an example, we could explore the effects of heat treating (heat & quench one day, bend or break the next day).

Effect of heat treatment (including quench and temper) of steels is a good one. It shows change of properties very well and you can tie this in with most of the basics whilst giving the children something visual to focus on. It would be cheap too as no machinery is needed other than a forge/furnace and a bucket plus water/oil (quenching bath). 4 pieces is all you need - one control, one heated to austenite temp and air cooled, one quenched in water/oil, one quenched and tempered. Then the you can show them that the properties are reversible by going back to the austenite temperature or higher and air or furnace cool.

Hint: Austenite is non-magnetic so you don't need a thermocouple just place the metal next to a magnet. If it sticks it's not in the austenitic region, if it doesn't then you have reached the austenitic region on the phase diagram - approx 730°C.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I just feel I have to comment on this.

Springs are used because they are predictable, versatile, and reliable. If they weren't, we'd use something else (for instance piston-cylinders full of air replicate many/most of the properties of springs very easily).

It is not fortunate that springs have those properties. The inventions use springs because they have those properties. It's the good ol' puddle marveling at the hole that exactly fits it.

Compared to the reliability of pneumatic buffers (which are used in some applications), springs are far cheaper and less sensitive to environmental conditions, and scale better.

Indeed, compared to most other human inventions, metal springs are unusually cheap, environmentally insensitive, and scalable. Surely that is worthy of remark?

What if, instead of a class, you could design a single lesson that would take one or two periods (say 150 minutes maximum). What would you want students to experience? Next year I'm scheduled to teach math and possibly one grade 9 science in second semester. If I get that science class, I'll come back and get some ideas to include a metallurgy lesson in the "exploring matter" topic of the chemistry strand (Ontario curriculum for Grades 9 and 10 science). As an example, we could explore the effects of heat treating (heat & quench one day, bend or break the next day).

I like this idea. For a grade 9 introduction this sounds just short and informative enough to keep attention and possibly spark more interest.