There's also specific strength (strength per kg) vs strength per volume and strength per dollar.
Steel also comes in lots of different flavors, with very different (orders of magnitude) strengths.
So when someone writes an article saying "it's stronger than steel!" that's exciting, but it's not enough information. In this case we know it's stronger by yield strength. We can say the new material's yield strength is twice that of the weakest known steel alloy, but no more than that.
A quick look around found this:
https://amesweb.info/Materials/Steel-Tensile-Yield-Strength-...
You can see here, there is a wide gulf between the weakest and strongest alloys just in this chart, which only has five alloys and a handful of different treatments. Yield strength is anywhere from 210MPa to over 1600MPa, an 8x difference.
This page has some charts for the new material:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mechanical-properties-of...
Subchart (g) in the image shows a plot of yield strength against elastic modulus, and it looks like the plot tops out around 1.4 GPa, meaning the strongest tested configuration by yield strength is weaker than that of tempered 4140 and 4340 steels, while nearly 7x stronger than hot-rolled 1020 steel. I don't know if "2D yield strength" is different than what is shown in the amesweb.info table, though.
That's not yield strength.
Yield strength is how much force is required to permanently deform the material.
Ultimate tensile strength is the force required to break the material.
One great thing about steels is that they tend to work-harden.
Typical 250 grade mild steel, meaning it takes in excess of 250 MPa force to permanently stretch a 10mm round diameter section, usually has an ultimate tensile strength exceeding 400 MPa.
[*] Within a temperature range of about ~-30 °C to ~400 °C. Below that and the toughness goes way down so that it's prone to cracking. Above that and carbon starts to work its way into all those crystal structure discontinuities, preventing some percentage of the strain from being relieved each stress cycle (the "creep range").
That's just for carbon steels. Stainless has a different set of problems.
If the new material is plastic-like, it may have worse issues here?
They also tested bulk plastic. It takes a long time to set, with hours in a gel phase, so epoxy-like mold pouring, flooring, and other bulk plastic applications are likely.
It might be awesome for bullet proof armor, safety equipment, and lightweight cordage and fabrics.
The synthesis is simple - it's an advance using polarized light at particular wavelengths in novel chemistry, probably inspired by the recent discovery in electrochemistry that can impose specific chirality on well known reactions.
For instance, many aluminum alloys have about 60-80% the tensile strength of steel, but only 1/3rd the weight.
For those, they are actively swapped around where cost vs weight trade offs happen.
steel vs aluminum vs magnesium, vs titanium in engineering application, where for example engine blocks, airplane parts, car parts, battery components, etc. all have a long history of this.
It’s a complicated process because the trade offs are not simple cost/weight/strength.
Steel has an nearly infinite fatigue lifetime for instance, so steel springs are great.
Aluminum does not, so aluminum springs are terrible - among other things. No amount of weight savings can likely fix that problem in a useful way.
These pose big challenges in aircraft in particular where aluminum skins and fuselages make flight doable/economic, but means pressurized aircraft in particular have a finite lifespan in pressurization cycles/takeoffs and landings before they fall apart, no matter how nicely you treat them.
Several major accidents (including the top of an airliner coming off and sucking a flight attendant out over the pacific on the way to Hawaii) happened before this was fully understood.
Titanium is in theory much better, but is incredibly difficult to work with(requiring forgings in most cases, and being almost unmachinable), and very expensive as the bond it forms with oxygen is so strong the normal fluorine based processing used with Aluminum won’t work. Yeah, you read that right.
Fire danger (such as magnesium engine blocks burning) is also a non trivial thing to mitigate. Titanium can be one of the worst offenders here (powdered titanium fires can burn SAND used to try to put it out as an oxidizer), which makes working with it hazardous in some cases. Iron, which will also burn, is generally so mellow when it does that burning it is a normal operation while scrapping and cutting it and you can’t get a runaway from doing so except in truly difficult to achieve circumstances (it’s what an oxy-acetylene cutting torch is doing).
The British were good in early jet design and actually introduced jet aircraft into the non-military world, but the early hulls would fail catastrophically after a certain, relatively low # of cycles, tearing the fuselage apart mid-flight and killing everyone on board. After several such incidents in short order, the entire fleet was grounded and scientists came up with solutions, but by then, the reputation of Comets was tarnished and Boeing came with a competing 707 model.
These days, the UK does not have a domestic jet manufacturer anymore.
Per your last point, BAE and Hawker are still around. The UK also does plenty of Airbus work.
The manufacturers you mentioned are all military or regulatory sop manufacturers no? Though I guess Boeing isn’t much better, so meh.
It was actually an inter-island flight so lots of short flights (and therefore pressurization cycles relative to flight hours or miles). The amazing thing was that the plane was able to make an emergency landing.
I would have suspected this story was out of the early days of the big airliners.
There was a presumption that like steel and several other materials, once it hit a specific low stress point the fatigue life became infinite, and that point was just so much lower for aluminum it just LOOKED like it has no infinitive fatigue life point.
It turns out they were wrong.
> Titanium is in theory much better, but is incredibly difficult to work with(requiring forgings in most cases, and being almost unmachinable), and very expensive as the bond it forms with oxygen is so strong the normal fluorine based processing used with Aluminum won’t work. Yeah, you read that right.
I have a spoon bought from Amazon which they claim is made from titanium. [Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird) claims 31 aircraft made from titanium and first flew in 1964. Given they got it off the ground in 1964 and can make a spoon in 2022 what kind of machining problems are left to solve for titanium? Usually it's the other way round like make s spoon from wood for 5,000 years then make an aircraft in 1905.
Because it’s a small part with no significant critical tolerances, it’s also only $10-$20 for a few grams of metal, and only 5x as expensive as a typical spoon.
The equipment required to forge it is also doable in a garage due to the small surface area the forging is happening over (force required goes up as the surface area goes up - which is squared for the dimensions, so very rapidly gets very large).
Compare that to say an engine block, wing spar in an airplane, or fighter jet bulkhead [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151007005865/en/Alc...] and it gets dramatically more expensive and harder.
It isn’t truly impossible to machine titanium (generally - like most metals the alloy, heat treatment, etc. matter a lot), it’s just so much harder and requires so much more expensive tooling that it’s hard to justify economically except in niche applications.
It’s improving though with better insert based machining tools and hardier insert material.
I’ve heard of some impressive titanium 3D printing using sintering techniques that also have a lot of promise.
Many of the alloys (many more than say aluminum) are nearly impossible due to material characteristics and do require EDM to machine.
Decades ago I happened to get a tour of the Edwards Air Force Base SR71 hangar (near the end of their effective time in service) and the machinists there were very proud of their EDM work for this reason.
Titanium is distinguished from steel, besides its raw strength/wt, in that it can be stretched a great deal without ever developing stress cracks.
People were very impressed when Russia took to making whole submarines out of titanium.
Compression wise it’s close to a wet noodle the way it’s manufacturable (though that has more to do with cost/practical production/gathering methods - if we could get a solid chunk of it I imagine it would be pretty strong in compression).
Sliding, it’s a fiber, so very weak in that sense (barring the same scenario above). It actively flexes, so isn’t strong’
ADDED: In fact, if you deform a supported I-beam you get similar amounts of tension and compression on the bottom and top respectively at the mid-point of the beam (given a variety of assumptions).
Not just similar, but pretty much identical from what I recalled from my uni classes. Wikipedia for structural materials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_material) also has this bit -
>Steel is equally strong in tension and compression.
Spider silk has ultimate tensile strength comparable to some high-strength steels, around 1.4 GPa. Everyday steels are significantly weaker, around 0.4 GPa. Some steels have higher tensile strengths, like 2.6 GPa maraging steel. There are many materials with similar or higher tensile strengths: E-glass (3.5 GPa), carbon fiber (typically 4.1 GPa, 7 GPa for Toray T1100G), kevlar (3.8 GPa), zylon (5.8 GPa), boron (3.1 GPa), sapphire (1.9 GPa), diamond (2.8 GPa), graphene (130 GPa), dyneema (3 GPa). Some of these, like dyneema, are even comparable in density to spider silk. So what's so special about spider silk?
Where spider silk is outstanding is that it combines high strength with high extensibility. Think of rubber: cast iron or diamond are much stronger than a rubber tire in the sense that they can bear heavier loads on the same cross section, whether in tension, compression, or shear; but if you hit a cast iron pot or a diamond with a sledgehammer they will break, while a rubber tire will be unharmed. This is because the rubber deforms under the blow, slowing down the hammer without ever experiencing a very high force.
If you integrate the force on a spring over a distance (∫ F · dx), you get the change in the energy of the spring. If you integrate it over the spring's entire working range, you get its energy capacity as a spring. Every solid object is a spring, so you can do this for any solid object. "Stress" is force divided by cross-sectional surface area, and "strain" is extension divided by length, and the presumption of linear elasticity theory is that the stress–strain relation of a material, as well as its yield stress and breaking stress, are properties of the material rather than of particular objects made from it.
If, instead of integrating force over distance, you integrate stress over strain, you get the amount of deformation energy the material can absorb per unit volume without breaking, for example in an impact. That's the material's theoretical toughness.
All the other high-strength materials in the above list either deform plastically or break at under 10% extension; many of them break at under 0.1% extension. Spider silk breaks at 35%–500% extension. This makes some spider silks 10 times tougher than even kevlar.
Usually compressive, tensile, and shear strengths increase and decrease together; the biggest exception is when the material is full of cracks, like glass and concrete.
As a layman, I greatly enjoyed this one as a primer.
Not of course saying improvement in any of those metrics is bad, but the comparison being made needs to say what is being compared, and how it compares to the existing best in class.