论文部分内容阅读
对于本刊8卷(1957年)5期“试制铝铁锰青铜的经验”一文,我有以下一些意见,今提出商榷如下:(1)原文第三段中所说“一般材料的性能,其抗拉强度和延伸率总是背道而驰的;要提高材料的强度,必然降低其延伸率。然而从锡青铜改变为铝铁锰青铜,它却同时提高了抗拉强度和延伸率……”,这是错误的。作为不同的材料来讲,抗拉强度高的,其延伸率不一定都低;例如钢和球墨铸铁的抗拉强度和延伸率都比铸铁为高。即使是同一种材料,也并不完全如此。通常磷青铜和锡青铜,凡是抗拉强度高的,大多有着较高的延伸率,所以本人认为这种没法是错误的。(2)在原文序言中第(4)点所说“铝的比重甚小,在配料中加入10％的铝,可以代替34％以上的铜的体
I have the following comments on the article entitled “Experience of Trial Production of Aluminum, Iron, Manganese Bronze,” published in Volume 5 (1957) No. 5 of this journal. The following are the points for discussion: (1) The third paragraph of the original text states “ Tensile strength and elongation are always contrary to the; to increase the strength of the material, it is inevitable to reduce its elongation, however, from tin bronze to aluminum-iron-manganese bronze, which at the same time it increases the tensile strength and elongation ... ... it is wrong. As different materials, high tensile strength, the elongation is not necessarily low; such as steel and ductile iron tensile strength and elongation are higher than cast iron. Even the same kind of material is not exactly the case. Usually phosphor bronze and tin bronze, any high tensile strength, mostly with a higher elongation, so I think this is not wrong. (2) In the preamble of the original text, as stated in point (4), ”the proportion of aluminum is very small. Adding 10% aluminum to the ingredients can replace 34% or more of the copper body