Material Hardness

[foodchain]

Is the hardiness of a material giving by its bonds or its structure it takes via bonds or configuration in regards to subatomic particles, like the electron configuration for instance. I was on wiki reading up on tanks, as in war, of all things and about armor types. The use DU for instance, more so in the front of the tank and of course various technologies for munitions that would puncture armor and such have evolved also. So going from what I know of say matter and energy, which is not a whole lot, I was wondering exactly what gives rise to strength of a material, being they may be separate in counts of neutrons and so on for example, but all are typically composed of such thing, atoms and elements that is.

 

I have been looking around such as if a certain form of energy interacts differently with the same element, say aluminum for example, but have not come up with much really. So its just a question I thought I might pose here to help my endeavors.

 

So again, what exactly leads to the hardiness of a material, is it bond strength, configuration, or a combination of the two, or is it something else.

[MolotovCocktail]

As far as I understand it, the hardness of a material is determined by the molecular structure, which also determines strength of the bonds.

 

In a diamond, for example, the carbon molecules are arranged in a pyramidal like structure, which allows the atoms to form very strong bonds with each other. In Graphite, on the other hand, the bonds between the molecules are weak and they are arranged like flat sheets, so they easily slide right off.

 

Note that both Graphite and Diamonds are made of carbon, but because of their molecular structure, they have different strength.

[foodchain]

As far as I understand it, the hardness of a material is determined by the molecular structure, which also determines strength of the bonds.

 

In a diamond, for example, the carbon molecules are arranged in a pyramidal like structure, which allows the atoms to form very strong bonds with each other. In Graphite, on the other hand, the bonds between the molecules are weak and they are arranged like flat sheets, so they easily slide right off.

 

Note that both Graphite and Diamonds are made of carbon, but because of their molecular structure, they have different strength.

 

Speaking of Diamonds do you think a nuke could make diamonds rain from the sky?

 

Ok, more to my topic. So does structure such as what gives rise to the form carbon takes on in a diamond only exist at higher then an atomic level, or single atom?

[John Cuthber]

You could argue that the electron density of some excited state of a single carbon atom is more like graphite or diamond than the ground state but I think that would be pushing it.

Diamond is different from graphite because the atoms are arranged differently. You can't arrange just one atom.

 

BTW, DU isn't strong; they use it because it's dense.

[foodchain]

You could argue that the electron density of some excited state of a single carbon atom is more like graphite or diamond than the ground state but I think that would be pushing it.

Diamond is different from graphite because the atoms are arranged differently. You can't arrange just one atom.

 

BTW, DU isn't strong; they use it because it's dense.

 

Right but my question is that atoms build into stable structures or molecules, or at least can correct? Then when we go to the atomic level, is there an entire different set of rules for structure? I mean I hear the physics side of it about something collapsing on view to be something else, and I dont know if thats to me because you are simply viewing it or what not, half the time it sounds sort of like a voodoo emplaced rather then saying we don’t know.

 

What I mean is my current understanding of matter from a physics perspective puts things in motion at an atomic level. Is this motion constant? If so I would think that constant motion would at somepoint become visible in molecular structures really. Now I know some isomers can be somewhat systematically unstable, but that’s not what I am getting at. What I mean is a piece of rock left alone for millions of years should at some point like glass change in appearance right, at least on some level. Also for constant movement, where is that energy coming from, more so say for hydrogen up to YT or any element really.

 

Also why are phase changes in matter behave the way they do, I mean such acts as sublimation or from solid to liquid. You would think you could get an atom on some billionth of a degree to sort of hover in the middle right?

 

I think I sort of grasp the physics perspective of matter, but I think a lot of it leaves way to much room for interpretation, and not just from a standpoint of being ignorant of physics in general. I mean the whole uncertainty principle, more so applied to subatomic behavior, it sort of sounds like metaphysics if you ask me, or really something propped up to make the math look better.