Talk:Ductility

message: ductile is not really a material property but rather related to the fracture of the correct mechanics. steel will have a ductile fracture if heated enough. enough frozen gold will have brittle fracture mechanics. have you ever tried to put a rose in a bath of liquid nitrogen and then drop on the floor?
bedrupsbaneman
What do you mean by ductility? 
 17:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really a material property 

message: What is the difference between plasticity? If there is no difference, should these pages merge? —BenFrantzDale 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a professor, plasticity is the phinominon whereas ductility is the property. —BenFrantzDale 16:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plasticity? 

message: Is there a standard system to measure ductillity?
:No, "ductility" isn't quite as well defined as, for example, "density". There are several reasonably good types of tests, but no standard. The historical standard seems to be "how fine a wire can I draw from this stuff?" but that presumes a particular wire pulling technique. When you deviate from those historical techniques, you have to ask if you want "ductility" to mean a property of the substance or simply to reflect the state of the art of wire making. For example the claims for ductility of platinum higher than that of gold are based on a technique in which the platinum wire being drawn is supported and prevented from breaking by a silver coating so, in a sense, it's a cheat. And if that isn't an extreme enough example consider where 3d printing is heading. It should, in principle, be possible to make a wire 1 or 2 atoms thick out of pretty much any metal and a lot of non-metals, so if you don't assume a specific technique of fabrication & merely define ductility in terms of how fine a wire can be made, it loses any real utility as a word as new techniques are developed. See: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-are-ductility-and-malleability.750473/ [unsigned]
: Article says or implies ductility is expressed or measured as a percentage elongation before fracture under tension (or percentage area reduction at the neck). If that is accepted can we have a table of values ? Comments above say gold can be drawn to a single atom so the percentage elongation depends on the diameter you start with ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring? 

message: Article seems to regard malleability as how thin a sheet can be beaten or rolled. If this accepted, can we have a table of such thicknesses ? Zinc, bismuth and arsenic apparently are "not malleable". - Rod57 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Malleability measure

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The image of the gold sheet shows malleability not ductility. Does anyone have an image showing ductility? Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current image should be removed then if it doesn't reflect ductility. Wizard191 (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to illustrate the difference, these platinum cubes were manufactured by making thick square intersection bars and stretching them until they were 1cm by 1cm (and then slicing them to make cubes). This happened without them cracking because platinum is ductile. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So added the image with a description of that. You might also want to add why they were manufactured that way, as opposed to other methods. --Wizard191 (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  I don't think this photo of platinum cubes illustrates ductility very well. There should be some indication of deformation, such as necking in a tensile specimen. Sigmund (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Gold is very ductile, therefore it can be hammered into sub-micron thickness. Malleability is directly related to ductility and yield strength. Ductility and yield strength are quantifiable properties; malleability is not. Sigmund (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definitions I have seen say ductility is about stretching, and malleability is about hammering into thin sheets. So the fact you can hammer gold shows it is malleable, not ductile. Ideally, we would have an image of something being stretched into a wire, but the question at the moment is whether this image is better than no image, as we don't have a more wiry one. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument is not valid: Ductility does not exclude malleability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigmund (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So perhaps merging the articles would be appropriate then. Ductility seems to be biased towards stretching, and malleability towards squashing, but they can both mean generally pliable. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind either way. The concept of malleability is historically important, but it doesn't see much use in modern materials science.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigmund (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the idea that malleability is only of historic importance, as the property is required when rolling sheet metal. However, I agree that it is rarely called malleability, and often referred to as ductility, in industry and educational institutions. --Wizard191 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Seeing as ductility and malleability are easily confused as it is, merging the articles may make be even more confusing. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not if the article is rewritten to clarify the point.Peterlewis (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So would all (physical?) properties of eg metals be combined into one article? What would be the underlying rationale for a merge? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm unconvinced it's an improvement, but not strongly opposed either. I suggest, if you want to do it, that you start by writing a new article called "Ductility and Malleability", and when it's done, redirect the other articles to there. In that way, we will never be without a complete set. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You sound better qualified and in any case it needs a sceptic to pare the arguments and description down to reality! Peterlewis (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's very kind from a distinguished author such as yourself. I think I'll look for some more information first from a materials science source, as the articles don't match up very well at the moment. The properties do mirror each other quite well, as you point out. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Are these distinct thing? I assumed they weren't. My exposure to materials science (focusing on metals) only mentioned ductility. Can anyone cite malleability being different? If so, how do you measure the ability to be drawn through a die as opposed to being flattened? I assume this extreme deformation is well outside of simple models of material properties used in fracture-mechanics? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to my materials and processes book (Degarmo), ductility is mentioned throughout (to describe the amount of plastic deformation a material can endure before "failure"), but malleability is only mentioned once. And when it was mentioned it was lumped with "workability" and "formability" to describe how suitable a material is for plastic deformation processing. I read that as there is a technical difference between malleability and ductility, which is that malleability actually references a process (flattening), but that it is just a subset of ductility. As such, I think the articles should be merged, with a paragraph explaining the slight difference. --Wizard191 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I checked out the source for the claim that gold is the most ductile metal, and the book clearly is ranking metals used in sculpture, NOT all metals. http://books.google.com/books?id=hW13qhOFa7gC&pg=RA1-PA129&vq=most+malleable&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1  
How is it that gold is more malleable and ductile than any of the alkali metals? I think if this "fact" remains in the article, it should be clarified. If there is no disagreement about this, I will make the necessary change.  Brittlandk (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who added that reference. It was the closest thing I could find to a listing of the most ductile metals. However, I also found this source which backs it up: http://books.google.com/books?id=4hbhBsRAOAoC&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=list+of+most+ductile\+metals&source=web&ots=MXkhtdT3cs&sig=n1YvGNaguoWqD9aeyXeRzMxfptQ&hl=en&ei=pIKYSd6NFYLqNIisnIMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result. If you can find a different reference that backs up your point, I'm all for it. Wizard191 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is gold the most ductile?

message: There appears to be a contradiction between the statement early in the article that "lead is only malleable [not ductile]" and the placement, one screen later, of lead in the list of ten "most ductile metals" (albeit at the end).  Maybe that is the complete list of metals from that source and lead, being at the end, is supposed to have zero ductility.  But in that case the phrasing "most ductile metals" should be changed.
Derek1G (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are saying. I looked up the ref to the list and have modified it accordingly. Let me know what you think. Wizard191 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Please, fix interwiki list. The list contains double link on the same wikis, for examle, double link to pl, de, and simple --Dnikitin (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Easier said than done. As far as I can tell, I can only understand some of the languages, the double links have arisen because of the merger of the ductility and malleability pages, in the other wikis these are still treated as separate articles. Therefore, the double links are correct, if admittedly confusing. So the only 'fix' available is to either separate the two articles again here or to merge all those in the other languages. Mikenorton (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki 

message: simple:Ductility
simple:Malleability
As seen in the "in other languages" box on the left. Which will it be? 77.249.229.249 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both, since this article is about both. Wizard191 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple.wikipedia.org 

message: What about Mercury? Is it infinitly ductile or does it come under a different sort of system because it is a liquid metal @ STP?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybergothiche (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ductility is a property for solids, therefore it doesn't apply to liquids nor mercury at STP. Wizard191 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any accessible published work on the physical properties of solid mercury? Roger (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ductility of mercury

message: The reference used in the wikipedia article to claim that iron is more malleable than platinum or copper is a book ("The Materials and Methods of Sculpture", description on http://books.google.fr/books?id=hW13qhOFa7gC&hl=fr  ,  written by an ARTIST who compiles data and interprets them accordingly to his background . It is not worth much.
When reading materials handbooks destined to be used by design engineers working in the industry, books such as "Materials Handbook" by McGraw-Hill, 15th edition, 2002, are much more valuable
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=007136076X  .
In the entry "platinum" for example, it is explained that platinum is more ductile than gold (hence platinum is the most ductile metal) and in the "gold" entry, it is explained that gold is the most malleable of metals.
I erased the paragraph comprising "lists" that were posted in the article, they were not reliable and contradict all the data available in engineering books.
Other engineering data books would be of better use for future reference instead of "art" books.
Another book which confirms the non-validity of the art book cited before is the "CRC encyclopedia of materials parts and finishes,second edition by M.Schwartz, 2002" 
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781566766616 . M.Schwartz isn't a nobody, he's the editor of the "Advanced Materials Journal".
His book, in the entries "gold" and "platinum" confirms that:
-gold is the most malleable metal
-platinum is the most ductile metal  82.240.163.245 (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References that are unreliable, better books to replace them 

message: Repeating robbiemuffin's request for units of malleabilty and ductility to be included in this article. http://www.engineersedge.com/material_science/ductility.htm uses "Percentage of Elongation after fracture" and "Percentage reduction in Area at fracture". Is maleability "the ratio of max achievable surface area/volume"? Or more simply the thickness of the thinnest coherent stable sheet formable from the material using stamping or hammering. Also requesting the creating of 2 articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities so  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maleabilities_of_Substances and  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ductilitiesies_of_Substances
124.170.2.66 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could easily understand that malleability is NOT "the ratio of max achievable surface area/volume" with "achievable" being the equivalent of "by any means, methods". By electrodeposition, CVD,plasma beam deposition , ion beam deposition, etc you can create extremely thin atomic sized layers on a substrate. Malleabilty is all about hammering and stamping for example , in other terms purely mechanical forces are applied .Rolling into a sheet with a rolling mill could do the trick , it is a method used industrially, see "goldbeating" on wikipedia. 82.240.163.245 (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Both the requested lists seem to have strange spellings - Maybe have : List_of_Malleabilities_of_Substances and List_of_Ductilities_of_Substances or even List_of_Malleabilities and List_of_Ductilities - Rod57 (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  units of Ductility and Malleability 

message: : Both the requested lists seem to have strange spellings - Maybe have : List_of_Malleabilities_of_Substances and List_of_Ductilities_of_Substances or even List_of_Malleabilities and List_of_Ductilities - Rod57 (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: thumb
Is this picture really nodular cast iron? Cast iron is brittle, but nodular cast iron should have higher ductiliy.
--Eio (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brittle nodular cast iron?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ductility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122161341/http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk:80/tlplib/ductile-brittle-transition/index.php to http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/ductile-brittle-transition/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The opening section of the article was a bit of a mess so I replaced it with a more general and cohesive summary on the subject of ductility. I thing some of the content previously included in this section (e.g. the formulas on percent elongation) is useful, but would be more suitably placed in different sections of the article.
BirdmanOfHorseradish (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening section