Hi I was given this small piece of sheet Titanium some 2 mm. thick ---- thought Titanium was a very tough metal but as the size was quite handy for a cabinet scraper I polished all faces and edges and for fun made the burr and bended it as I am used to with the steel ones, --- and it turned out to be the longest lasting scraper edge I ever made.
Anyone heard about this before ? --- it seem Titanium are fairly easy to polish with a fine arkansas stone and making the burr is no more difficult than on my other scrapers, care for a photo please ask.
Odd... Ti is generally shunned by knifemakers. Though strong and light, it is not hard at all, relative to steel. It is not known for it's ability to keep an edge.
Titanium is highly useful for such things as making fighter planes, because it has a very high strength to weight ratio, and has very good high temperature properties. But, it is expensive and hard to work. Don't be seduced because it is exotic.
But I remember when I worked at Boeing on the 1st 747's we had to drill some titanium now and then. It ate drill bits like they were string. Steel was a piece of cake to drill. Maybe it depends on the alloy. It sounds like it would be worth a try.
Now what I found at first , was that the arkansas , the right very fine one, realy "bite" . I guess not all stones will perform as well ,but the stones I use are the right ones for cabinet scrapers and the bite is quite there, you can't hear it but cirtainly you can feel it. Also this piece are 2 mm.
--- it is easier to burr with a thicker piexe than a thin one ,still it take only one or two blow to form the burr more than that don't work
------- guess Titanium are better grinded than worked with drill bits , anyway I see to leave the photo I promised . Btw --- Titanium are a strange metal, you can red heat a 15 cm ling piece and shuld be able to hold the other end in your fingers, make me wonder why epoxies are still thought to be better for space crafts .
the weight-strength issue don't make sense . What is needed is not super expensive special on-site woven reinforcement producing one-off special compoments that surely are strong but not realy fitted for heat. ---- the picture show a 3D-H framework forming a plane fuselage all done in sheet metal , now if that technology had had the same develobment as the petrochemic epoxy one, there allready would be super strong plane fuselages without all that epoxy trouble. Digital manufactored and micro welded that could produce a fuselage acting as it's own cooling element.
Eh , ---- I proberly shuld add, that 3D-H by the FAA is described as "an exiting new way to build fuselages for small commersial and sports planes".
What it do , --- and please think about how even today plane fuselages are still made with ribs and stringers as if they was row-boats , ---- anyway the 3D-H form a strong framework where each frame support eachother instead of letting the "skin" act as a main structural element.
I'm sorry, but I don't see where fire is an issue for something that functions in a vacuum. Do you know of any spacecraft that have had problems with onboard fires?
Would you try that in English?
What "epoxy trouble"?
No doubt. What leads you to believe that there is a need for such a fuselage and what does this have to do with spacecraft?
Well others suggested that it could be a hardening process that just occour, while making the burr you proberly generate much more heat than you would expect just at the edge, -- I remember "self hardening" tool steel I used for a stasionary router head , Im'e also just speculating
Trouble realising you reached a dead-end , say after 40 years realise that a once promising technike never will deliver the rugid parts it ask , trouble realising that metal acturly could have done the job if new way's to put things together had had the same investment . Now I started as boatsbuilder and develobed software to be able to saty building fine quality items like this that profited fully from digital projecting and digital design tools ;
formatting link
this aproach in the fine old crafts just allowed me to realise that there realy are a call for a new way to put things together ---
3D-H -- or 3D Honeycomb that allow you to project a house, a boat, a plane ,a Cabin or an arts museum 3D with a standard P.C. , and after all the detail modeling and projecting, just by a press of a buttom will offer you all major structural frames in a brand new way --- the breakthru did not come with the FAA approval but earlier this year ,when I and an article in english and chinese published about the method, in a major chinese architect magazin ;
formatting link
you can try make a fool of me just becaurse my bad english , this will be typical usenet, I am used to that --- people nip picking a single word while they themself totaly misunderstand the messeage or from some wierd reson, only can understand a happy messeage as "somone who think he is someone" --- well I think I am someone, somone who is not afrait to share my results and offer a new way to put things together ; But when you ask ;
Then think about it --- 30 or more years ago Epoxies was promised a glorious future , today dreamliners only show at what expense but what many tend to forget, is what other technikes that could have been develobed , technikes such as 3D-H that is the only technike that fully engage digital manufactoring and deliver a super strong structure as a honeycomb structure , with no problems with heat and same strength beside fully intergrated with direct-link production. This is simply a new way to put things together, a method so simple that offer advanced structures where foundations and bulkheads act compleatly different remember , that from the start aeroplanes was acturly just boatsbuilding ,just ribs and stringers and, since then this old concept even today reflect in construction of modern plane fuselages, now remember what FAA. said about 3D-H , and they just scraped the surface.
The problem is not "new ways to put together", the problem is that the stiffness-to-weight ratio and strength to weight ratio achievable with metals, no matter how cleverly put together, is less than that achievable with organic composites.
superior in performance to other designs? And what makes you think that honeycomb is metal?
Don't be so defensive. Your English is so poor that it is difficult to figure out what you are on about. That is something that you are going to have to accept until you learn to improve your English.
You have not explained the need for the configuration you propose nor have you explained what it has to do with spacecraft. You keep talking about "heat" without explaining why anybody should _care_ about it.
First I must ask you to realise that Epoxies _also_ once had to fight it's way --- that _all_ new methods and materials have their share of, sorry to say but also epoxy had a fight before reconised. Now your arguments support epoxy with just those arguments that proven it's value but ; why is it you think nothing have changed, why 30 years later and with 30 years of develobment , metal shuldn't be able to challance again . And please remember the limitations as I point to --- hyber expensive woving mills that produce hyber expensive one-off parts ,That is my main argument .
True it ask an open mind, that you take a look at some of the hundreds of different structures for planes, houses, boats that demonstrate the flexibility of a new perception of the build works ---- remember that a building structure in 3D-H consist of only sheet materials , not the hundreds of different materials you are used to. Remember how different this concept is ; today when architects project a house they acturly use the computer as a spreadsheet --- I say so as I am registrated application develober --- none of these programs acturly "build" the house they keep an account on what windows and doors is put in . But
3D-H do it different it generate each and every building frame to be cut plain, in sheet material , you can not say it is wrong just becaurse it work different a steam engine work different than a jet engine , and you can't blame the jet engine that there are no place to poor the coal.
It is an aeroplane made in plastic.
Sorry but it is more than that, it is a complete new way to use a computer to generate each and every frame for a honeycomb structure ; now you proberly think about that as honeycomb sheets that you bend in place ,but this is not what 3D-H is ; with 3D-H you can manufactor a honeycomb structure that follow any form without bending and fiddeling, you can make the honeycomb framework from plastic or metal , and just the way it work (when you realise and understand the method) , allready made FAA. realise that here is a new way to produce aeroplanes, --- but
3D-Honeycomb offer much more than just that ; it is different compleatly different but ofcaurse it is a new way to put things together, to build the basic structure for almost anything.
Just remember not to blame it that it don't work as the methods you are used to, that shuld be the privilige of all new methods to be judged on their own terms --- just like epoxies was 40 years ago. Realy wouldn't you think metal would strike back and how many deg. can hardened epoxy restand.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.