Actually that tester tests the thermal conductivity of the stone. Cubic Zirconia is virtually indistinguishable from diamond. A really well trained gemologist can tell the difference some of the time, but not the people who work in jewelry stores.
OTOH, diamond has a very high thermal conductivity and cubic zirconia does not. When CZ first hit the market, jewelers really flipped out, because people could buy diamond rings, replace the diamond with CZ, and then return the ring with the CZ for full price. At first, the only surefire test was to measure the density, but that required removing the stone from the setting, something that takes some time. The company that created CZ then also produced a tester which at its tip had a small heater and a temperature probe a little ways away. If you touch the tip to a diamond, heat will transfer from the heater to the probe, whereas with a CZ, it will not. The company made more money off the patent for the detector than they ever did off CZ.
Of note, a few years back, a new lab-created diamond alternative hit the market: Moissanite. It is a form of silicon carbide, and it actually has a higher index of refraction than diamond (it sparkles more). It also has a high thermal conductivity, so it would fool the old testers. Moissanite is easier to distinguish from diamond under a loupe, however. It is birefringent.
You must be reading different +5 moderated comments than I am
Yes, there were lots of Apple/iPod bashers in that original discussion, but the comments that got modded up to +5 were mostly the ones that were pointing out the positives of the iPod and how it was actually a pretty good product. CmdrTaco's comment was a matter of the hype surrounding the rumored iWalk product that was going around at the time, and Slashdot had run several stories in the days proceeding the iPod announcement about that.
Go back and read the +4 and +5 comments from that discussion. Even the negative ones are mostly refuted by other +4 and +5 comments.
And yet that pure silicon came from... I dunno... silicon dioxide, maybe?
Steel is made by reduction of iron ore, but that doesn't make steel and iron ore the same material.
And anyway, the polysilicon made from the reduction of SiO2 (quartz) still needs to be purified by zone refining before it can be used in the manufacture of computer chips. Then single crystals of silicon are usually grown using the Czochralski method and sliced into wafers. So beach sand is quite few processing steps away from the silicon used in computer chips.
OK, I'll give you a big chunk of quartz (SiO2), and you make a transitor out of it.
There are a lot of materials that go into a computer chip, and SiO2 plays an important role (mostly as a gate dielectric), though as you say, other materials have started to be substituted in. But to say that SiO2 is the useful part? You can't make a transistor out of SiO2 only, it doesn't conduct electricity.
Take a look at the MOSFET illustrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lateral_mosfet. svg. The oxide is SiO2, the material above that is polysilicon, but everything below that is doped single crystal silicon. You don't want grain boundaries in your transistor mucking up the electrical properties. The transistors are connected with metal interconnects, usually copper these days because it has the second-highest conductivity of all metals (only silver is better, but not by much).
Now, I'll admit that my specialty these days is oxidation of nickel-based superalloys, but I still have a Ph.D. in materials science. I'm sure someone out there knows the details of current transistor design, but I'm sure the core of it is all still silicon. The reason that you don't hear much about the silicon part is that there aren't many opportunities to improve that part of it, whereas there is a significant opportunity to make improvements to the gate dielectric. SiO2 is only used because it is easy to make by oxidizing silicon and it does not react with silicon. For a long time, it was "good enough". Low-k materials would be better, and that is why you hear about them more.
You realise that CPUs user the same material as most beaches
Ummmm.....No. Beach sand is mostly silicon dioxide, whereas computer chips are fabricated starting from wafers of very pure silicon.
Diamond (pure carbon) and carbon dioxide don't have similar properites either.
Sorry to get pedantic, but I'm a materials scientist, and it really pisses me off when people get these things mixed up. It is even worse when people confuse silicon (the base material for computer chips) with silicone (a polymer material used in caulking and breast implants).
One of the ways of selecting materials is to use what is called an Ashby plot. You plot two different properties on the two axes, and then draw blobs where different materials land. So if you plot strength vs density, you could pick which alloys will have a better strength/weight ratio. There are two materials that almost always stand out on these plots: Wood and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP). Pretty much all of the test examples used in Materials Science classes will end up picking CFRP, unless you consider cost. CFRP is very expensive relative to other materials.
So if cost is no object, CFRP is probably a good choice. However, I could see my self shelling out for a nice walnut MacBook Executive.:-)
I had one of those. It was pretty cool. It had a battery that lasted for 24hrs, and recharged to 80% in about 40 minutes. The only problem was that it was a pain to tranfer your work to another computer. If they remade it today, I imagine they could make it smaller, lighter, and more svelte. Data transfer would be trivial by wireless. It would be a great portable for people who write for a living, much like the Radio Shack Model 100 was for a different generation.
Well, it may depend on the specific alloy they use. The Ti-Powerbooks were made using CP-Ti(Commercially Pure). Frankly, that isn't a structural alloy. In fact, it has no alloying elements at all! Now the lay person would say "It's really pure, it must be really strong!". Bzzzzz....Wrong. That makes it fairly soft compared to, say Ti-6Al-4V, which is kind of the standard titanium alloy that is used for most things titanium.
With the Al-books, Apple switched to an "aircraft grade" aluminum alloy. That can mean a lot of things, but generally, aircraft grade aluminum alloys are some of the strongest, lightest alloys on the market. It is also a lot easier to form aluminum. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Al-books were forged, which would increase their strength. There is no way they could have forged the Ti-book parts, forging titanium is a very expensive process. Also, the Al-books were hard anodized, which leaves them with a thin, hard, adherent layer of Al2O3 on the surface. Al2O3 is also known as sapphire, so it adds to the scrach resistance, at least for superficial scraches, anyway.
Now, I am a Ph.D. Materials Scientist, so I would be remiss if I didn't mention that scratch resistance and strength are two entirely different things. Generally, making something scratch resistant will also make it brittle. If you had to choose between your laptop scratching or shattering, I know which one I'd choose.
That is as much insight as I can probably provide. My expertise these days is on the high temperature oxidation of Ni-based superalloys.
And you still suck at math. The 15" MacBook Pro is 2250 cm^3. Still ~10% smaller than your Asus even though it has a bigger screen. And it has a 68 Wh battery.
Lighter, yes. It also comes with a smaller battery (Options of 24 or 42 Wh vs 55Wh). Which probably accounts for much of the weight difference
Smaller? You must have failed math. The W3J is ~2450 cm^3, vs 2050 cm^3 for the MacBook. That is about 20%, and I was being generous by taking the minimum thickness dimension for the Asus.
Whether or not any of the other niceties that come with a Mac are worth it to you are a matter of personal taste (MagSafe, iLife, etc). I'll never claim that Macs are for everyone, but I've yet to see anyone show me a Core Duo Laptop that is smaller AND cheaper. I'm typing this on a MacBook now, so I know how big they are.
And I'd be willing to bet that Compaq is at least 30% bigger than the Macbook. Find one with similar specs and dimensions and you'll find the price will go up. You pay for miniturization.
Odd you picked Compaq. Ususally people find some Dell to compare it to and neglect to point out that the Dell is 70% greater volume.
Although the fusion process itself may not make any alpha or beta radiation the high energy neutron flux will make the metal reactor parts radioactive.
This is an important point. I remember reading some time ago that there was interest in using Vanadium alloys for fusion reactors. I used to wonder why this was. I am a Materials Scientist, and Vanadium is usually used as an alloying element, but not as the basis for an alloy. I think I finally figured it out. The most common isotope of Vanadium is V51. If V51 absorbs a Neutron, it quickly beta-decays into Cr52. From there, Cr52, Cr53, and Cr54 are all stable. Further neutron absorption will eventually convert atoms to Mn, Fe, and eventually get to Co59. All of the beta-decays involved are relatively short lived, IIRC. From a materials science prospective, V, Cr, Mn, and Fe are all Body Centered Cubic (bcc), whereas Co is hexagonal close packed (hcp). If you produce too much Co, you could start getting phase transformations in the alloy, which would probably degrade the strength. Fortunately, if you start with V51, then it can absorb 8 neutrons before it gets to an element that has a high probablity of degrading the alloy strength.
Disclaimer: This is just speculation on my part, but it makes a lot of sense. If anybody knows more than I do, I'd love to hear it. I suspect maybe there are also concerns about the magnetic behavior of Fe and Co in the presence of the high magnetic fields used for fusion.
Remember that Oak Ridge National Lab is where the U235 enrichment was done for the first atomic bomb. Uranium enrichment takes up a lot of energy, and the reason that it was done at ORNL was that it was located in the midst of the Tennesee Valley Authority, a government project that put lots of hydroelectric dams in the Tennessee river valley.
So there is lots of cheap hydroelectric power available in the area, and I'd be willing to bet ORNL still gets their power cheap from the TVA.
Actually, you can take it as a sign that the story originated several centuries after Archimedes.
Syracuse had weapons designed by Archimedes that were very effective, but the death ray is a complete fabrication.
I think it is the fact they have a four-letter domain that is the stopper. Finding a short domain name is tough, or in the case of four letters, impossible.
Hey, lkdw.com is available. Linux Kernel DishWasher anyone?
As far as I understand it, European prices usually include VAT, whereas American prices do not include sales tax (the closest equivelent we have to VAT).
So to do a direct comparison, you need to factor in that most Americans will pay additional sales tax (6-8% is typical), though sales taxes are all at the state or local level in the US, and some states have no sales tax.
You also need to account for the fact that most of these items are made in China or Taiwan and are shipped by sea. The shipping distance is greater to Europe than to the US, and that adds to the cost.
So don't just convert currency and say you're getting ripped off, I'd be willing to bet that it evens out.
Actually, I think that a PPC version of XP and an x86 version of MacOS X do exist, and in part it is a way of finding bugs.
When you develop for multiple platforms, it will often allow you to find bugs that are hardware specific more easily. Hmmmmm..... This doesn't work right. Let me see if it works on another architecture. If something works on x86, but not PPC, or vice versa, then it is a sign that *something* is wrong.
By similar reasoning, it is also good to be able to compile with more than one compiler.
For those who don't get the reference: Snow Crash, by Neil Stephenson. BTW: the audiobook version from Audible.com is excellent. The narrator has just the right attitude and vocalization for that book.
It is difficult to forge and machine due to the oxide layer - which is very hard and one of the reasons we use it in the first place (it's mostly used in chemical plants). It isn't really a good choice for a laptop since it costs so much to make and is very difficult to do anything with - and aluminium conducts heat better and can be formed while soft for the aircraft grades - the stuff the early 20th century airships were made out of.
This really is not true. TiO2 (rutile) has nothing to do with how hard it is to forge titanium. If that were true, then it would be really hard to forge aluminum, because it forms Al2O3, aka sapphire on its surface. Al2O3 is used as a structural ceramic, TiO2 is not. Al2O3 is substantially harder than TiO2. TiO2 is a nice white pigment. It has other uses. It has nothing to do with how hard it is to forge titanium, except insofar as that in order to get Titanium to deform, you have to heat it up so high it starts to form other Ti-oxides (like Ti2O5) that don't stick to the surface and flake off right away. But the reason you have to heat it up to forge it is because, as I said before, it has a hexagonal crystal structure, and you have to heat it to a significant fraction of the melting temperature (which is high for Ti, > 1600C) in order to allow dislocation motion.
Also, how hard TiN is has nothing to do with the metal. It doesn't form normally during processing of titanium metal, so it is no more important to the properties of metallic titanium than titanium chloride, titanium carbide, titanium bromide, or any other titanium compound.
FWIW, I study the oxidation of Ni-based superalloys, like those used in jet engines. I really do know what I'm talking about here.
Oh, and the other important thing about aluminum alloys, especially "aircraft grade" aluminum alloys, is that they can be heat-treated so that they are very soft when you forge them, and then once they've been forged, you can apply a different heat-treatment to strengthen them further. There are aluminum alloys that are stronger than most titanium alloy. The best Ti alloys will win on a strength to weight ratio, but a good aluminum alloy will beat crappy titanium any day.
IIRC, the problem with titanium is not so much that the raw material is expensive. The problem is not even so much that it oxidizes readily (aluminum does too). The problem is that it has a high melting point, and is very difficult to forge and to machine.
Pure Ti-metal has a hexagonal close packed microstructure (HCP). Most other metals have a cubic structure (either face centered cubic:FCC or body centered cubic:BCC). FCC and HCP have the same packing effficincy, but it is much easier to form and move dislocations in a lot of different directions in either FCC or BCC than for HCP. Dislocations are necessary for forging, and forging creates such a tangle of dislocations that it actually strengthens the material.
That is why Apple moved away from Ti for Powerbooks, IMHO. It impossible to economically bend the titanium to form the laptop shell without making the metal so thin that it is way to flexible. So the old Ti-Powerbooks had a Ti top and bottom, with Ti-painted plastic in between. This paint invariably started to flake, which led to lots of complaints. Apple wisely switched to an aircraft grade of aluminum, which can be sufficiently bent and machined to form the entire shell of the laptop, not just the top and bottom.
Anyway, that is the basics. IAAMSBTDNCMA (I am a materials scientist, but this does not constitute materials advice)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that tester tests the thermal conductivity of the stone. Cubic Zirconia is virtually indistinguishable from diamond. A really well trained gemologist can tell the difference some of the time, but not the people who work in jewelry stores.
OTOH, diamond has a very high thermal conductivity and cubic zirconia does not. When CZ first hit the market, jewelers really flipped out, because people could buy diamond rings, replace the diamond with CZ, and then return the ring with the CZ for full price. At first, the only surefire test was to measure the density, but that required removing the stone from the setting, something that takes some time. The company that created CZ then also produced a tester which at its tip had a small heater and a temperature probe a little ways away. If you touch the tip to a diamond, heat will transfer from the heater to the probe, whereas with a CZ, it will not. The company made more money off the patent for the detector than they ever did off CZ.
Of note, a few years back, a new lab-created diamond alternative hit the market: Moissanite. It is a form of silicon carbide, and it actually has a higher index of refraction than diamond (it sparkles more). It also has a high thermal conductivity, so it would fool the old testers. Moissanite is easier to distinguish from diamond under a loupe, however. It is birefringent.
You must be reading different +5 moderated comments than I am
Yes, there were lots of Apple/iPod bashers in that original discussion, but the comments that got modded up to +5 were mostly the ones that were pointing out the positives of the iPod and how it was actually a pretty good product. CmdrTaco's comment was a matter of the hype surrounding the rumored iWalk product that was going around at the time, and Slashdot had run several stories in the days proceeding the iPod announcement about that.
Go back and read the +4 and +5 comments from that discussion. Even the negative ones are mostly refuted by other +4 and +5 comments.
Steel is made by reduction of iron ore, but that doesn't make steel and iron ore the same material.
And anyway, the polysilicon made from the reduction of SiO2 (quartz) still needs to be purified by zone refining before it can be used in the manufacture of computer chips. Then single crystals of silicon are usually grown using the Czochralski method and sliced into wafers. So beach sand is quite few processing steps away from the silicon used in computer chips.
OK, I'll give you a big chunk of quartz (SiO2), and you make a transitor out of it.
There are a lot of materials that go into a computer chip, and SiO2 plays an important role (mostly as a gate dielectric), though as you say, other materials have started to be substituted in. But to say that SiO2 is the useful part? You can't make a transistor out of SiO2 only, it doesn't conduct electricity.
Take a look at the MOSFET illustrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lateral_mosfet. svg. The oxide is SiO2, the material above that is polysilicon, but everything below that is doped single crystal silicon. You don't want grain boundaries in your transistor mucking up the electrical properties. The transistors are connected with metal interconnects, usually copper these days because it has the second-highest conductivity of all metals (only silver is better, but not by much).
Now, I'll admit that my specialty these days is oxidation of nickel-based superalloys, but I still have a Ph.D. in materials science. I'm sure someone out there knows the details of current transistor design, but I'm sure the core of it is all still silicon. The reason that you don't hear much about the silicon part is that there aren't many opportunities to improve that part of it, whereas there is a significant opportunity to make improvements to the gate dielectric. SiO2 is only used because it is easy to make by oxidizing silicon and it does not react with silicon. For a long time, it was "good enough". Low-k materials would be better, and that is why you hear about them more.
Ummmm.....No. Beach sand is mostly silicon dioxide, whereas computer chips are fabricated starting from wafers of very pure silicon.
Diamond (pure carbon) and carbon dioxide don't have similar properites either.
Sorry to get pedantic, but I'm a materials scientist, and it really pisses me off when people get these things mixed up. It is even worse when people confuse silicon (the base material for computer chips) with silicone (a polymer material used in caulking and breast implants).
Heh, funny you should ask....
One of the ways of selecting materials is to use what is called an Ashby plot. You plot two different properties on the two axes, and then draw blobs where different materials land. So if you plot strength vs density, you could pick which alloys will have a better strength/weight ratio. There are two materials that almost always stand out on these plots: Wood and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP). Pretty much all of the test examples used in Materials Science classes will end up picking CFRP, unless you consider cost. CFRP is very expensive relative to other materials.
So if cost is no object, CFRP is probably a good choice. However, I could see my self shelling out for a nice walnut MacBook Executive. :-)
Huh? I'm studying the materials used to make the turbines in jet engines.
I had one of those. It was pretty cool. It had a battery that lasted for 24hrs, and recharged to 80% in about 40 minutes. The only problem was that it was a pain to tranfer your work to another computer. If they remade it today, I imagine they could make it smaller, lighter, and more svelte. Data transfer would be trivial by wireless. It would be a great portable for people who write for a living, much like the Radio Shack Model 100 was for a different generation.
Well, it may depend on the specific alloy they use. The Ti-Powerbooks were made using CP-Ti(Commercially Pure). Frankly, that isn't a structural alloy. In fact, it has no alloying elements at all! Now the lay person would say "It's really pure, it must be really strong!". Bzzzzz....Wrong. That makes it fairly soft compared to, say Ti-6Al-4V, which is kind of the standard titanium alloy that is used for most things titanium.
With the Al-books, Apple switched to an "aircraft grade" aluminum alloy. That can mean a lot of things, but generally, aircraft grade aluminum alloys are some of the strongest, lightest alloys on the market. It is also a lot easier to form aluminum. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Al-books were forged, which would increase their strength. There is no way they could have forged the Ti-book parts, forging titanium is a very expensive process. Also, the Al-books were hard anodized, which leaves them with a thin, hard, adherent layer of Al2O3 on the surface. Al2O3 is also known as sapphire, so it adds to the scrach resistance, at least for superficial scraches, anyway.
Now, I am a Ph.D. Materials Scientist, so I would be remiss if I didn't mention that scratch resistance and strength are two entirely different things. Generally, making something scratch resistant will also make it brittle. If you had to choose between your laptop scratching or shattering, I know which one I'd choose.
That is as much insight as I can probably provide. My expertise these days is on the high temperature oxidation of Ni-based superalloys.
And I said Macbook to begin with.
And you still suck at math. The 15" MacBook Pro is 2250 cm^3. Still ~10% smaller than your Asus even though it has a bigger screen. And it has a 68 Wh battery.
Lighter, yes. It also comes with a smaller battery (Options of 24 or 42 Wh vs 55Wh). Which probably accounts for much of the weight difference
Smaller? You must have failed math. The W3J is ~2450 cm^3, vs 2050 cm^3 for the MacBook. That is about 20%, and I was being generous by taking the minimum thickness dimension for the Asus.
Whether or not any of the other niceties that come with a Mac are worth it to you are a matter of personal taste (MagSafe, iLife, etc). I'll never claim that Macs are for everyone, but I've yet to see anyone show me a Core Duo Laptop that is smaller AND cheaper. I'm typing this on a MacBook now, so I know how big they are.
And I'd be willing to bet that Compaq is at least 30% bigger than the Macbook. Find one with similar specs and dimensions and you'll find the price will go up. You pay for miniturization.
Odd you picked Compaq. Ususally people find some Dell to compare it to and neglect to point out that the Dell is 70% greater volume.
This is an important point. I remember reading some time ago that there was interest in using Vanadium alloys for fusion reactors. I used to wonder why this was. I am a Materials Scientist, and Vanadium is usually used as an alloying element, but not as the basis for an alloy. I think I finally figured it out. The most common isotope of Vanadium is V51. If V51 absorbs a Neutron, it quickly beta-decays into Cr52. From there, Cr52, Cr53, and Cr54 are all stable. Further neutron absorption will eventually convert atoms to Mn, Fe, and eventually get to Co59. All of the beta-decays involved are relatively short lived, IIRC. From a materials science prospective, V, Cr, Mn, and Fe are all Body Centered Cubic (bcc), whereas Co is hexagonal close packed (hcp). If you produce too much Co, you could start getting phase transformations in the alloy, which would probably degrade the strength. Fortunately, if you start with V51, then it can absorb 8 neutrons before it gets to an element that has a high probablity of degrading the alloy strength.
Disclaimer: This is just speculation on my part, but it makes a lot of sense. If anybody knows more than I do, I'd love to hear it. I suspect maybe there are also concerns about the magnetic behavior of Fe and Co in the presence of the high magnetic fields used for fusion.
Remember that Oak Ridge National Lab is where the U235 enrichment was done for the first atomic bomb. Uranium enrichment takes up a lot of energy, and the reason that it was done at ORNL was that it was located in the midst of the Tennesee Valley Authority, a government project that put lots of hydroelectric dams in the Tennessee river valley. So there is lots of cheap hydroelectric power available in the area, and I'd be willing to bet ORNL still gets their power cheap from the TVA.
Actually, you can take it as a sign that the story originated several centuries after Archimedes. Syracuse had weapons designed by Archimedes that were very effective, but the death ray is a complete fabrication.
As far as I understand it, European prices usually include VAT, whereas American prices do not include sales tax (the closest equivelent we have to VAT).
So to do a direct comparison, you need to factor in that most Americans will pay additional sales tax (6-8% is typical), though sales taxes are all at the state or local level in the US, and some states have no sales tax.
You also need to account for the fact that most of these items are made in China or Taiwan and are shipped by sea. The shipping distance is greater to Europe than to the US, and that adds to the cost.
So don't just convert currency and say you're getting ripped off, I'd be willing to bet that it evens out.
Actually, I think that a PPC version of XP and an x86 version of MacOS X do exist, and in part it is a way of finding bugs.
When you develop for multiple platforms, it will often allow you to find bugs that are hardware specific more easily. Hmmmmm..... This doesn't work right. Let me see if it works on another architecture. If something works on x86, but not PPC, or vice versa, then it is a sign that *something* is wrong.
By similar reasoning, it is also good to be able to compile with more than one compiler.
Yeah, just like Apple has sued Mac Warehouse, MacMall, Club Mac, and all those other Apple retailers.
Oh...... Wait......
Never mind.
You owe me a new keyboard.
For those who don't get the reference: Snow Crash, by Neil Stephenson. BTW: the audiobook version from Audible.com is excellent. The narrator has just the right attitude and vocalization for that book.
This really is not true. TiO2 (rutile) has nothing to do with how hard it is to forge titanium. If that were true, then it would be really hard to forge aluminum, because it forms Al2O3, aka sapphire on its surface. Al2O3 is used as a structural ceramic, TiO2 is not. Al2O3 is substantially harder than TiO2. TiO2 is a nice white pigment. It has other uses. It has nothing to do with how hard it is to forge titanium, except insofar as that in order to get Titanium to deform, you have to heat it up so high it starts to form other Ti-oxides (like Ti2O5) that don't stick to the surface and flake off right away. But the reason you have to heat it up to forge it is because, as I said before, it has a hexagonal crystal structure, and you have to heat it to a significant fraction of the melting temperature (which is high for Ti, > 1600C) in order to allow dislocation motion.
Also, how hard TiN is has nothing to do with the metal. It doesn't form normally during processing of titanium metal, so it is no more important to the properties of metallic titanium than titanium chloride, titanium carbide, titanium bromide, or any other titanium compound.
FWIW, I study the oxidation of Ni-based superalloys, like those used in jet engines. I really do know what I'm talking about here.
Oh, and the other important thing about aluminum alloys, especially "aircraft grade" aluminum alloys, is that they can be heat-treated so that they are very soft when you forge them, and then once they've been forged, you can apply a different heat-treatment to strengthen them further. There are aluminum alloys that are stronger than most titanium alloy. The best Ti alloys will win on a strength to weight ratio, but a good aluminum alloy will beat crappy titanium any day.
IIRC, the problem with titanium is not so much that the raw material is expensive. The problem is not even so much that it oxidizes readily (aluminum does too). The problem is that it has a high melting point, and is very difficult to forge and to machine.
Pure Ti-metal has a hexagonal close packed microstructure (HCP). Most other metals have a cubic structure (either face centered cubic:FCC or body centered cubic:BCC). FCC and HCP have the same packing effficincy, but it is much easier to form and move dislocations in a lot of different directions in either FCC or BCC than for HCP. Dislocations are necessary for forging, and forging creates such a tangle of dislocations that it actually strengthens the material.
That is why Apple moved away from Ti for Powerbooks, IMHO. It impossible to economically bend the titanium to form the laptop shell without making the metal so thin that it is way to flexible. So the old Ti-Powerbooks had a Ti top and bottom, with Ti-painted plastic in between. This paint invariably started to flake, which led to lots of complaints. Apple wisely switched to an aircraft grade of aluminum, which can be sufficiently bent and machined to form the entire shell of the laptop, not just the top and bottom.
Anyway, that is the basics. IAAMSBTDNCMA (I am a materials scientist, but this does not constitute materials advice)
You do know that under the old "SimpleText" app from the System 7 days would speak text for you.
"vi" was actually pronounced as "six".
Terra is the SI prefix for one trillion.
Terrabits refers to the number of router bits owned by Norm Abram.
Considering the WVU system started construction in 1971 and began operating in 1975, he's apparently been dead a long time.