Talk:Powder metallurgy

... materials relatively abundant in space? - nothing is abundant in space except solar wind and solar insolation.

Asteroids are also abundant in space, which happen to have a lot of elements like silicon, oxygen, and aluminium. Hence, those materials are relatively abundant in space. How would you word it instead? Bryan 04:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In space?

The concept of powder met in space is interesting but detracts from the main article somewhat. Reading this article prom the perspective of wanting to know what powder met is I found it difficult wadeing through the conjecture of how space may offer advantagous conditions. Is this discussion better moved to a discrete sub section perhaps titled "opertunities for powder metallurgy in space"?

It's a technical and dense, but hardly conjecture. It shouldn't be removed or moved, and seems quite at home in the "History and capabilities" section. At best, someone who is more familiar with the section should spend more time expanding the section to make it easier to read. - Toastydeath 02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs

Void content is considered important and is not discussed in the article. The article lead contains "melt" which implies complete fusion; which is often most definitely NOT desired. The unique contribution to materials' properties which is achieved by combinations of two or more powdered metal phases, and the resultant combination; being a composite material superior to what might result from a pure alloy containing all the constituents of the individual powders; which might be the point of the article, is not mentioned! Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, this article is in desperate need of being cleaned up and expanded. If you have any expertise in the field feel free to jump in and help out. Wizard191 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look correct

In section: Powder production techniques subsection: Other techniques

"Finally, mills are now available which can impart enormous rotational torques on powders, on the order of 2.0×107 rpm. Such forces cause grains to disintegrate into yet finer particles."

First it says rotational torque (which as a side note is redundant), then provides a reference point in rpm, a unit of velocity. Finally it talks about force. Seems very disjointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleeisme (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one disjointed statement. I removed it as such. Wizard191 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)