I know they use aluminum because it's lightweight.
What if they used copper?
|
I know they use aluminum because it's lightweight.
What if they used copper?
This is neither Astronomy NOR Cosmology.
pros: it shure would be purdy. Lets go all out and use gold.
MODERATOR NOTE : Probably best suited to the Engineering section. Moved.
This is, like the majority of lorbo's threads, utter bullshit.
1) Copper is too ductile to be used as a structural material.
2) If weight saving - as indicated by the comment on aluminium 1 - is the aim then it should be noted that:
Steel - 7.8 g/ cm3
Aluminium - 2.7 g/ cm3
Copper - 8.9 gm/ cm3
i.e. a weight INCREASE.
It should also be noted that, in a large number of cases where aluminium is used structurally, it's nothing at all to do with "lighter material" because to achieve the same strength 3 times as much of it is needed. Which brings it up to the same weight as steel. The saving is that, given three times the thickness then each component becomes sufficiently stiff enough to not require internal bracing: leaving out THOSE means that - overall - the entire thing is lighter.
1 I refuse to call it "aluminum".
Copper helps kill bacteria and prevent the spread of infections (like superbugs in hospitals), so you won’t have to scrub down your ship’s interior as often.
Another con is that Copper is over 4 times more expensive per oz.
« freeze line in walls | Wood moisture content influence to cutting tool wear » |