The Metallography of Tungsten - Discussion (5357db4a-4060-478d-9720-c0072a7179f0)

ZAY JEFFRIES (author's reply to discussion *).-Messrs. Merica's and Humfrey's criticisms of some of my conclusions are rendered in the true scientific spirit by means of which differences of opinion are gradually smoothed out and all participants are benefited. It is true that the statement of generalizations on such a complex subject is hazardous, but I shall endeavor to point out the explanations for the discrepancies noted. Owing to the fact that I am now submitting a long paper on the same general subject to the Institute, my present remarks will be brief. Dr. Meric&s Assumptions' I agree with No. 1 and No. 2, with the modification that the A (amorphous) metal between grains of annealed metal has substantially the same properties as that at slip planes in deformed metal, but the two have different arrangements with reference to C (crystalline) metal and they may be in different conditions as regards internal stress, thickness, and nature of contact with C metal. Assumption 3.-I believe Fig. 1 is wrong. I know of no evidence to substantiate the curves. I believe cc (elongation of C phase) = 0 (approximately) at all temperatures and ?A (elongation of A phase) has finite values at elevated temperatures only; but these play no important direct role in the ordinary deformation of metals at low temperatures. I believe Ec (elastic limit of C phase) = Tc (tensile strength of C phase) because as soon as C metal begins to deform permanently it would rupture were it not for the A metal generated by its breakdown. We know that Ec = Tc in brittle crystals and a crystal cannot be permanently deformed without generation of A metal. Therefore Dr. Merica's