Material's Scienc

What are you looking for exactly? I'm a Chem student and I've been learning about polymers and metals/corrosion lately, nothing too deep though obviously

>>8977289
I'm just fascinated in what factors are used in determining what materials to use when building/manufacturing, as well as the actual production of materials themselves.

Alloys specifically are mysterious to me, because it seems difficult for me to tell from a glance what mixture of metal would produce the type of strength/flexibility that would be required for a certain use. I know there are various tables that can be used with values of how brittle a material is, how much force it can withstand, etc. but I'm more interested in why that's the case.

Materials Science is a very, very broad field. For starters, you can look into crystallography and defects - that alone covers a lot of ground regarding alloys and their characteristics. If you're more interested in optics and electrical applications, you can delve into solid state physics. Then there's polymers, too, and composites...

I wouldn't recommend any specific book, because none covers all aspects well enough. Browse some university homepages - many of them have lots of teaching materials open to the public.

>>8977323
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into them.

Do you have any experience in materials science?

PhD in mat. chem. here, I think you're looking too broadly. A materials chemist will care about what they can do synthetically to create "desirable" (whatever the fuck that means to the PI/researcher) from an atomic scale, e.g. how can i make more monodisperse samples, how can i get certain types of crystal packing. A materials physicist (also often called solid state physics) will worry about (most often) electronic structure, responses and interactions with light/magentic field/other matter. A materials engineer will do nothing but twiddle their thumbs until someone gives them something, and then they will still do nothing, except probably be a further suck on society

>>8977394
Yeah, I'm looking broadly because I'm not quite sure what all's out there in terms of the study of materials, physically and chemically. Going the biochemistry route, I feel like one of the things I know tangentially, but would like to know more about is macroscopic effects of electron orbital sharing, crystal structure, etc. Kind of a bummer there aren't any good 'overview' texts that go into how we study, classify, and produce material, but you've given me a couple of good things to look into.

I've heard the same thing from others about materials engineers though, what's wrong with them?

>>8977361
BSc and MSc in Materials Science and Engineering

File: srep09111-f5.jpg (228KB, 926x929px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 926x929px

>>8977273
I'm going to be a 4th year undergrad next year majoring in chemistry and with a mat sci focus, so basically a normal chem degree with some materials classes thrown in for fun. MSE is underrated imo, since half of the chem undergrads are premed and then the other ones are biochem. There's only one other person in my class also taking MSE classes. Lab work is also way cooler imo since I get to do SEM and XRD.

PChem has been my favorite chem class so far and MSE has a lot of cool crossover (crystallography, chemical bonds, stat mech, thermo and kinetics). I recommend McQuarrie & Simon for PChem; my favorite text I've used for a course. Shackleford and/or Callister are good introductions to materials.

>>8977273
Avoid Shackleford. Callister is the best. Carter & Norton, or Richerson, is good for ceramics. Shelby or Varshneya is good for glass. Lines & Glass is good for electrical materials. I'd recommend looking for course syllabi at a good MSE/MME university and seeing what books they'd require/recommend. Try to avoid a metallurgy or metals-heavy program unless that's really what you want to do. A good mat sci program should cover metals and ceramics in depth, and glass, polymers, and composites a little bit.

>>8977858
Is that a MOF anon? Please tell me it's a MOF anon?

MOFs
O
F
s

>>8977273
MOFS ARE FUCKING AWESOME! Just google scholar anything that cites Yaghi, bam instant MOF expert.

>>8978292
Dude thanks, as a biochem fag, I've always loved the versatility of organometallics, and how crazy they act because of the way metallic complexes can either cause some extreme reactivity, or fine-tune it, so MOFs look cool as shit.
>>8978276
I'm not looking to get into a program, happy with bio/biochem, but for interest those look good. Thanks, saved!

>>8977394
So would it be far to describe materials chemistry as methodology and procedure, material physics is about how these materials work, interact, and why (disregarding thinking of how to create them), and an engineer is a bitch to both of them.

Long story short, P-Chem is 100% physics, but watered down. Calling it chem is a misnomer.

>>8977394
>A materials engineer will do nothing but twiddle their thumbs until someone gives them something

L-O-FUCKING-L

Im also a PhD student in chemistry doing somewhat of a interdisciplinary project in organometallics / materials for batteries. You hit the nail on the head. My collaborator from the engineering department doesnt do a fucking thing unless he has materials from me. I even remarked on it one day...

"yeah man, sorry im behind on getting you this stuff. i sort of have a vision in my head that you dont really do anything without this material"

his response: "that's pretty much true"

>>8978487
not the same anon, but PChem doesn't have to be watered down. it's as rigorous as you make it in practice. the PChem classes are just baby quantum mechanics since chem majors suck at math and then a basic course in thermodynamics with some applications to chemistry and kinetics. quantum chemists probably know their shit.

>>8978502
Leave it to the fabricators to not do their job and blame the real scientists who test the material for not having any material to test. Give a materials scientist a crucible and they'll make any non-organic material in the world. Give a chemist a pair of calipers or an Instron frame or an SEM and they'll throw beakers at it trying to make the real science go away.

>>8978744
My experience with pchem was throwing maxwell equations on paper at warp speed until the chemists cried and everyone else got bored. Only applied thing we ever did was joule-thomson.

>>8978481
Have you graduated already? Is biochem as saturated as people say it is?

>>8979137
as much ethanol as you need to finish biochem, i'd say it's pretty well saturated.

>>8979137
I'm finishing up my undergrad this coming year. It really does depend on what you want to do, because a fuckhuge proportion of the people in biochem are doing it for a premed sort of deal.

I'm in a weird position, because I'm applying to Law school this year, since I did biochem not for a career but because it was interesting to me, so I haven't really kept my eye on the job market, but I think the fields of biochem and biology are due to expand rapidly because of some of the technologies coming out (CRISPR, connectome, etc.)

>>8979120
ah, you are mistaking a materials scientist for a materials engineer, friend. I am the materials scientist.

>>8980368
Materials engineering and science are the same program at most universities.

>>8977273
We used "solid state chemistry and its applications" by West.
Even though it's an american book (read: LOTS of unnecessary info - all american books have this, DO NOT DENY IT!!) I quite liked the book :)

>>8978744
>chem majors suck at math

>math majors suck at chemistry

anybody who isnt doing a math major wont be as good as a math major at math

>>8979340
>I'm applying to Law school this year
>I did biochem

i will never understand why amerilards do this

>>8980707
>biotech don't need lawyers
ok brainlet

>>8980740
i forgot you lardies are always driven by money

>>8980704
who was comparing them to math majors?

barely any of my classmates know linear, ODe, and half of them stopped after calc 2. this is concerning for people who want a career in the physical sciences.