Institute of Metals Division - Magnesium-lithium Base Alloys-Preparation, Fabrication, and General Characteristics - Discussion

R. S. BUSK*—I wish first to congratulate the authors of this paper both for the work done and the presentation of that work. We have also been working on this type of alloy development, but any technical contribution I might have is better reserved for a separate paper which is planned in the near future. However, I would like to insert a word of caution. The alloys described in this paper are still very much in the laboratory stage. There still remains the quite vexing problem of property stability at slightly elevated temperatures which must be solved before the properties quoted can be effectively utilized. These alloys are extremely interesting and I am confident that the problems can be solved. However, the present existence of those problems must not be overlooked. I have one question with regard to the work-hardening test. If the work harden-ability of magnesium is compared to aluminum using a more standard test such as the Meyer Analysis the magnesium is found to work harden the more rapidly. Is the test developed for this work truly a work-hardening test or a measure of something else ? J. H. JACKSON (authors' reply)—I am sure we appreciate the comments of Mr. Busk and we are pleased that the Dow Chemical Co. has also undertaken work in this field. It is a big field. We, of course, are continuing our research for the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics, since, as clearly shown in the paper, the alloys are not completely developed. With regard to Mr. Busk's comments on the relative work-hardenability of aluminum and magnesium, the comparison we cited in the paper was intended merely to show that the results obtained by our method of testing were independent of the yield strength of the materials. We believe that this test method afforded a rough indication of the work-hardenability of the magnesium-lithium base alloys. It is not known whether this method affords greater or less accuracy than the Meyer Process, which is based upon a hardness-test impression. It is quite possible, since work-hardenability is a function of metal purity, that our results, obtained for commercial aluminum and magnesium, would be different if high-purity metals had been used. A. C. LOONAM—Lithium has some very interesting effects on magnesium. The paper showed that even small percentages increased ductility. These small amounts changed the axial ratio of the hexagonal magnesium from 1.624 in the pure metal to 1.606 in the saturated alpha solution, a value close to that of titanium, which has a ratio of 1.601. You will recall an article in the January, 1949, issue of the Journal of Metals where it was stated that titanium can be cold-rolled over 90 pct without any significant edge cracking. At 4.9 or 5 pct lithium, a change begins in crystal structure—from a hexagonal close packed to body centered cubic. There are two phases over a short range of lithium content, but at 10 pct the structure becomes completely cubic. The melting points of alloys in this range of lithium content are relatively high. Alloys even up to the six ratio have melting points above 500°C; this represents a relatively small reduction in melting point from pure magnesium itself. The magnesium-lithium system has a number of very interesting characteristics. This is only a very small part of the story. J. H. JACKSON—I would like to remind you that Mr. Loonam is one of the authors of this paper, and the fact is that this work is based on many of his ideas. I am sure we appreciate his additional comments in this discussion. R. LEITER*—I am interested in Fig 19 in which Mr. Jackson compares