Timeline for Estimate the grain size after grain growth
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S May 5, 2016 at 7:23 | history | bounty ended | strateeg32 | ||
| S May 5, 2016 at 7:23 | history | notice removed | strateeg32 | ||
| May 5, 2016 at 7:23 | vote | accept | strateeg32 | ||
| May 3, 2016 at 12:45 | answer | added | RTh | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 30, 2016 at 3:56 | answer | added | Adam Nekimken | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 15:18 | comment | added | do-the-thing-please | ...that allow one to compute final from initial size for this type of problem. With anything like solute, etc, the problem becomes one of kinetics, which typically requires some kind of numerical solution or experimental values. While the graph offers experimental values, your problem appears to have either some typographical errors, or else is making some non-obvious, non-trivial assumption about the data in the graph. | |
| Apr 27, 2016 at 15:17 | comment | added | do-the-thing-please | I've been trying to understand this for awhile, and it is baffling to me. Usually grain growth is taught in an idealized fashion where the material is pure and grain growth follows approximately the same physics as bubbles (i.e. surface tension of the boundaries), yielding $d^2 - d_0^2 = kt$ where $k=k_0 e^{\frac{-Q}{RT}}$ and $k_0$ is a material constant and $Q$ is an activation barrier for boundary motion. However this breaks down in the presence of solute (as in brass), precipitates, volume defects, etc. There are no obvious laws (I am aware of)... | |
| S Apr 27, 2016 at 9:34 | history | bounty started | strateeg32 | ||
| S Apr 27, 2016 at 9:34 | history | notice added | strateeg32 | Draw attention | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 20:55 | history | edited | grfrazee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 18:47 | history | asked | strateeg32 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |