Talk:Powder metallurgy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Powder metallurgy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Metalworking High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Powder metallurgy be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

In space?

... 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)

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)[reply]

Proposed merge from Axial powder compaction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge. Wizard191 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axial powder compaction is just one part of powder metallurgy, and as that article is currently laid out, I feel that it would be better treated here. Wizard191 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Density range table would me more useful if expressed in terms of percent relative to solid parent material. I was looking specifically for the strength of PM parts compared to solid material. Did not find it in this article.

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)[reply]

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

Copyvio

this edit, as per wikiblame. 192.12.81.1 (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards

There is no mention of possible health and safety hazards from powdered metals. The very high surface to volume ratio increases the chemical reactivity of the metal in biological exposures (for example, inhalation or ingestion), and increases the risk of dust explosions. This is a major omission from the article's coverage. There should be WP:RS in industrial safety and occupational health reference sources, as well as mention in MSDSs. Reify-tech (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Compaction Table

Does anyone know where the source for the data in the table in the Powder Compaction section comes from? It has a column labeled as hardness but doesn't give a scale for the hardness values. Based on the numbers, I would guess it is referenced HRB scale but cannot be sure and would like to see the actual source. 199.36.201.140 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some good sources

https://www.britannica.com/science/metallurgy/Powder-metallurgy is very good; it has a good lead that maybe we should copy.
https://learnmechanical.com/powder-metallurgy-process/

Mrfoogles (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Sintering?

I recall an article from 10 or 20 years ago perhaps that described a possible advance in powder sintering by use of microwave radiation to generate ECAS effects. Did I miss it, or, does anyone know where that went? 2601:243:2402:3B60:81FF:7B45:E5D9:78B5 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]