Ferroic Transition M B Bever (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Materials Science and Engineering, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1986. R E Newnham, Structure-Property Relations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Clark ◽  
J. W. Hastie ◽  
L. H. E. Kihlborg ◽  
R. Metselaar ◽  
M. M. Thackeray
MRS Bulletin ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merton C. Flemings ◽  
Klavs F. Jensen ◽  
Andreas Mortensen

In the early 1950s when “materials science” was beginning to take shape in the minds of educators in materials departments, discussions were heated on the subject of how (and whether) intellectually rich courses could be developed with such broad coverage. It was argued by many that materials are too complex and vary too greatly from one another in their properties and in their applications to be treated in a single course. These individuals argued that if “materials” was to be taught, then it would have to be in courses or segments of courses broken down by materials classes-metals, ceramic, polymers, semiconductors.A full generation of faculty has passed through our ranks since those days, and the arguments regarding teaching of at least the beginning materials science subjects are now muted and perhaps moot. Few materials departments begin today with a materials-specific subject (e.g., metallurgy, ceramics) for either their own students or as a service subject for other engineering departments. Most begin with a subject in materials science or materials science and engineering that deals generically with all materials for at least a major portion of the subject. Examples are drawn from individual materials classes, and emphasis may shift to individual materials classes as the subject progresses.The key to development of these subjects, and the intellectual foundation on which they rest, is structure and structure-property relations. We can understand, and teach, how the building blocks of materials (atoms, molecules, grains, amorphous phases, etc.) fit together to build macroscopic structures.


MRS Bulletin ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 30-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.W. Readey

Forty years ago there were essentially no academic departments with titles of “Materials Science” or “Materials Engineering.” There were, of course, many materials departments. They were called “Metallurgy,” “Metallurgical Engineering,” “Mining and Metallurgy,” and other permutations and combinations. There were also a small number of “Ceramic” or “Ceramic Engineering” departments. Essentially none included “polymers.” Over the years titles have evolved via a route that frequently followed “Mining and Metallurgy,” to “Metallurgical Engineering,” to “Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering,” and finally to “Materials Science and Engineering.” The evolution was driven by recognition of the commonality of material structure-property correlations and the concomitant broadening of faculty interests to include other materials. However, the issue is not department titles but whether a single degree option in materials science and engineering best serves the needs of students.Few proponents of materials science and engineering dispute the necessity for understanding the relationships between processing (including synthesis), structure, and properties (including performance) of materials. However, can a single BS degree in materials science and engineering provide the background in these relationships for all materials and satisfy the entire market now served by several different materials degrees?The issue is not whether “Materials Science and Engineering” departments or some other academic grouping of individuals with common interests should or should not exist.


MRS Bulletin ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 28-29
Author(s):  
G.J. Abbaschian ◽  
P.H. Hollow

Educational programs in materials science and engineering (MSE) departments must be comprehensive, addressing the main theme of structure-property-processing-application relationships in all materials. In addition, the programs must be dynamic in order to improve materials according to the requirements of our society. Dynamic materials limits and societal needs require the materials field to change constantly over relatively short times. In this respect, education in MSE differs substantially from that in traditional departments such as chemistry, physics, mechanical and chemical engineering, and even the more narrow fields of metallurgical, ceramics and polymer engineering.It may be argued that all departments, scientific or engineering, are dynamic because they are constantly changing and maturing. Obviously, though, departments close to maturity change less rapidly than young departments. MSE, a young department, is changing rapidly from both steady evolutionary growth as well as quantum changes in scope (e.g., electronic materials). In fact, advances in MSE have necessitated a redefinition of scope for other fields. A good example is the field of computers and communication, which is directly tied to the growth, processing, and characterization of high purity semiconductor materials. The opposite is true as well (e.g., high transition temperature superconducting materials). The old adage of “a good design will be limited by the materials available” is true. As such, MSE plays a dual role—simultaneously advancing and impeding progress in other areas of science and engineering.


1985 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn J. Ebert ◽  
Gary M. Michal

ABSTRACTMost sports equipment in common use today represents highly developed engineering structures. Many of the equipment items have evolved empirically, but nonetheless can be used to illustrate basic principles of materials engineering, applied mechanics and kinetics. Using the most common items of sports equipment (footballs, tennis racquets, vaulting poles, etc.), a new course has been developed which introduces first year science and engineering students to materials science and engineering, as well as basic engineering, using a medium they can relate to personally—sports. Emphasis is placed upon the factors which make the equipment functional. These factors include both the basic materials from which the equipment is made and its fundamental design. Detailed treatment is given to the origin of the various species of materials. The processing used to produce the full spectrum of properties required of the various equipment items and the important structure-property relations in the equipment's use are presented. “Hands-on” experiments, guest lectures by world authorities in several fields of sporting activities and equipment use demonstrations compliment the lecture-recitations of the course.


2000 ◽  
Vol 632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Werwa

ABSTRACTA review of the educational literature on naive concepts about principles of chemistry and physics and surveys of science museum visitors reveal that people of all ages have robust alternative notions about the nature of atoms, matter, and bonding that persist despite formal science education experiences. Some confusion arises from the profound differences in the way that scientists and the lay public use terms such as materials, metals, liquids, models, function, matter, and bonding. Many models that eloquently articulate arrangements of atoms and molecules to informed scientists are not widely understood by lay people and may promote naive notions among the public. Shifts from one type of atomic model to another and changes in size scales are particularly confusing to learners. People's abilities to describe and understand the properties of materials are largely based on tangible experiences, and much of what students learn in school does not help them interpret their encounters with materials and phenomena in everyday life. Identification of these challenges will help educators better convey the principles of materials science and engineering to students, and will be particularly beneficial in the design of the Materials MicroWorld traveling museum exhibit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document