Semester One Project: Chemistry of Materials
My Letter
Fender Musical Instruments Corporation
Research and Design Division
December 13, 2013
I have always been a huge fan of Fender products. They are all quality products, and relatively affordable. I also really like your guitar picks.Today, there are many different styles of guitar picks. There are picks that are thicker, better for playing electric guitar, and picks that are thinner, and more flexible. These are ideal for acoustic guitar, or strumming multiple strings at once. However, these flexible picks wear down very quickly. How can this problem be solved? Can we make a single “ideal” guitar pick, that works for all styles of guitar? Or at least a more sturdy pick? I suggest picks that have a metal core made of Invar. Using Invar would allow for the pick to be both thick, and flexible.
I stated above, Invar would be an ideal metal to use as a core for a guitar pick. Invar is a metallically bonded compound. This is what makes the metal flexible, because all of the atoms share all of the electrons in the area. Because of this, the atoms can be moved with ease, because they can pick up an electron from somewhere else. Invar is a 36% nickel to iron alloy, and is very ductile, or malleable, and can be made thin enough to be the desired thickness of guitar picks.This alloy is strong, and will not wear down very fast. Invar is also unique because it does not expand very much when in warmer temperatures, also known as thermal expansion. In other words, it shows stability in all types of temperatures. This will help reduce any morphing in the picks core. This way there could be thick picks that still have some flexibility, and be great for playing any style of guitar.
Invar is also a relatively cheap product to use in your picks. A one inch round of Invar can be found for as low as $19 a pound. Considering how little the average heavy gauge guitar pick weighs, about .025 grams. If you do the math, you would get 10 guitar picks to every penny you spend on Invar. Invar really is that cheap, especially when using it in such small amounts.
The most common issue people have with using traditional metal guitar picks is that they are very hard on the strings and pick guard. There is a relatively easy fix for this however.If this core is coated with a polymer on the outside, this will solve many problems with the traditional metal pick. Many picks today are already made of polymers such as polyethylene. Polyethylene is a polymer, which basically means that individual monomers are “polymerized” and form long chains of monomers. If you make a pick with a core of Invar and coating of something like polyethylene, you can have a pick that is on the heavier side, but still has flexibility. This will make them something that is actually useable for guitar players in comparison with the traditional metal pick.They would also be easy to grip. These picks would produce not only an ideal sound, but they would also be very durable, compared to picks made of other materials. Polyethylene is also very inexpensive as well. Polyethylene can be found for $0.85 per pound, which is extremely cheap. Since many picks are already made of polyethylene, you can be absolutely sure that it is a good material to come into contact with the strings.
So, in recap, I think that a pick should be made that has a metal core, coated in a polymer such as polyethylene. This metal core would be ideal, as Invar is very flexible, and can be made very thin. This can produce a very cheap and durable pick that will be able to withstand the wear and tear of being used to play guitar. I appreciate your time, and thank you for considering my idea. If you have any further questions on this idea, or any suggestions on how to improve it, feel free to contact me at the address on the letterhead above, or at: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dalton Millonzi
Student, Animas High School
Reflection
How has the chemistry of materials shaped our past, present and how may it shape our future?
The chemistry of materials is what allows us to understand how we can improve objects in life. For example, understanding how atoms bond and what characteristics result allows us to create materials that are better suited for our task. For example, knowing that gold in it’s pure form is very soft, we can find ways to make it harder. We can bond it to form an alloy, and that is very common. It is still mostly gold, but it is more durable. We can shape our future in a good way when it comes to technological advancement if we continue researching the chemistry of materials. The more we know about the atomic level, the better we understand how to create materials.
How does the structure of matter on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic
levels determine a material’s properties?
The structure of matter on the atomic level effects a lot of properties. It primarily determines how the object will bond, based on its shells of electrons. The molecular effects physical properties a lot. A good example of this is with polymers. The different length of monomer strands on the molecular level effects things such as it flexibility and strength. Crystal structure is microscopic. Different structures also affect things like brittleness and strength. The macroscopic level involves things like rigidness. Things like this on the microscopic level also affects things like strength and flexibility.
Energy and Place
Energy and Place
Joint Scientific Statement
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ayWscEZCM05WhIFVDjPB5jbj_famgcWqwquxzNbJKpM/edit?usp=sharing
Opening Statement
Nuclear powered energy is beneficial for the U.S. society in many ways. First, the need for energy in the United States can be met in a much more efficient way if more nuclear power plants are built. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. used 3,856,000,000,000 kilowatt hours in 2011. This is projected to increase over the next 30 years. Fossil fuels are going to run out. We use over 11 billion tonnes of fossil fuels globally every year. Reserves are disappearing at a rate of 4 billion tonnes a year. This leaves us projected to run out of fossil fuels by 2052. Methods like wind or solar energy will not provide the U.S. with enough power to fuel our needs as a society. The 100 nuclear power generators in the U.S. produced about 807,000,000,000 kilowatt hours a year. This averages 8,070,000,000 kwh per generator every year. This form of energy is also very reliable, as Uranium is abundant. Uranium is very commonly found, and only a small amount of it is required to produce energy. According to the NEA, there are 5.5 million metric tons of uranium discovered, with another 10.5 million metric tons of uranium just waiting to be discovered. At current usage rates, this is about a 230 year supply. These nuclear power plants are the only way to meet our society's energy need once we run out of fossil fuels. This form of power is very reliable, and will last for hundreds of years.
Closing Statement
Our world today uses a ton of power, which is largely supported by fossil fuels. The U.S. alone used 3,856,000,000,000 kilowatt hours in 2011. However, when we run out of fossil fuels, nuclear powered energy is the only way we can meet our need for power. Each nuclear power plant produces an average of 8,070,000,000 kwh over the course of a year. All of this is done on just one pellet of fuel, which can be used for up to 18 months. This source of power is very reliable, and is projected to last for over 200 years. Why not take full advantage of nuclear power’s potential for supplying the world with electricity for years to come?
Reflection
I was debating the motion of increasing the amount of nuclear power plants in the four corners area. At first, I was undecided. However, as I researched for the debate, I found myself being for the motion. The only fact that caused me to question my stance on nuclear power was the radioactive waste. However, the amount of power that nuclear plants produce with such a small amount of fuel impressed me. To me, the benefits outweigh the risks. The strongest evidence for the motion was the efficiency of nuclear power. The strongest evidence against the motion was definitely the waste it leaves behind. I would be interested in digging deeper into the safety technology found in power plants to help avoid meltdowns. Since I was arguing what I found to be my own opinion, it was very interesting to hear what the other team had to say. My opinion was semi-biased, as I was only researching in depth on one side of the debate. It was really cool to get a bigger picture view on the whole motion. The environmental ethic and sense of place I have did not affect which side I chose in this debate. I think I did fairly well in the debate. However, I wish I had talked a little bit more. I also think that I should have asked the other team a leading question, and make them answer, instead of playing defense the whole time. I feel like the arguments I did make did go well during the debate. One fact that was stated in the debate that I checked up on was how much of a carbon footprint there is in the mining in Uranium. It is true that the mining of uranium has a lot of carbon emissions. The other fact I checked up on was my own statement about having about 200 years of nuclear power available. This too was correct, so I felt good about having said that in the debate.
My Letter
Fender Musical Instruments Corporation
Research and Design Division
December 13, 2013
I have always been a huge fan of Fender products. They are all quality products, and relatively affordable. I also really like your guitar picks.Today, there are many different styles of guitar picks. There are picks that are thicker, better for playing electric guitar, and picks that are thinner, and more flexible. These are ideal for acoustic guitar, or strumming multiple strings at once. However, these flexible picks wear down very quickly. How can this problem be solved? Can we make a single “ideal” guitar pick, that works for all styles of guitar? Or at least a more sturdy pick? I suggest picks that have a metal core made of Invar. Using Invar would allow for the pick to be both thick, and flexible.
I stated above, Invar would be an ideal metal to use as a core for a guitar pick. Invar is a metallically bonded compound. This is what makes the metal flexible, because all of the atoms share all of the electrons in the area. Because of this, the atoms can be moved with ease, because they can pick up an electron from somewhere else. Invar is a 36% nickel to iron alloy, and is very ductile, or malleable, and can be made thin enough to be the desired thickness of guitar picks.This alloy is strong, and will not wear down very fast. Invar is also unique because it does not expand very much when in warmer temperatures, also known as thermal expansion. In other words, it shows stability in all types of temperatures. This will help reduce any morphing in the picks core. This way there could be thick picks that still have some flexibility, and be great for playing any style of guitar.
Invar is also a relatively cheap product to use in your picks. A one inch round of Invar can be found for as low as $19 a pound. Considering how little the average heavy gauge guitar pick weighs, about .025 grams. If you do the math, you would get 10 guitar picks to every penny you spend on Invar. Invar really is that cheap, especially when using it in such small amounts.
The most common issue people have with using traditional metal guitar picks is that they are very hard on the strings and pick guard. There is a relatively easy fix for this however.If this core is coated with a polymer on the outside, this will solve many problems with the traditional metal pick. Many picks today are already made of polymers such as polyethylene. Polyethylene is a polymer, which basically means that individual monomers are “polymerized” and form long chains of monomers. If you make a pick with a core of Invar and coating of something like polyethylene, you can have a pick that is on the heavier side, but still has flexibility. This will make them something that is actually useable for guitar players in comparison with the traditional metal pick.They would also be easy to grip. These picks would produce not only an ideal sound, but they would also be very durable, compared to picks made of other materials. Polyethylene is also very inexpensive as well. Polyethylene can be found for $0.85 per pound, which is extremely cheap. Since many picks are already made of polyethylene, you can be absolutely sure that it is a good material to come into contact with the strings.
So, in recap, I think that a pick should be made that has a metal core, coated in a polymer such as polyethylene. This metal core would be ideal, as Invar is very flexible, and can be made very thin. This can produce a very cheap and durable pick that will be able to withstand the wear and tear of being used to play guitar. I appreciate your time, and thank you for considering my idea. If you have any further questions on this idea, or any suggestions on how to improve it, feel free to contact me at the address on the letterhead above, or at: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dalton Millonzi
Student, Animas High School
Reflection
How has the chemistry of materials shaped our past, present and how may it shape our future?
The chemistry of materials is what allows us to understand how we can improve objects in life. For example, understanding how atoms bond and what characteristics result allows us to create materials that are better suited for our task. For example, knowing that gold in it’s pure form is very soft, we can find ways to make it harder. We can bond it to form an alloy, and that is very common. It is still mostly gold, but it is more durable. We can shape our future in a good way when it comes to technological advancement if we continue researching the chemistry of materials. The more we know about the atomic level, the better we understand how to create materials.
How does the structure of matter on the atomic, molecular, microscopic and macroscopic
levels determine a material’s properties?
The structure of matter on the atomic level effects a lot of properties. It primarily determines how the object will bond, based on its shells of electrons. The molecular effects physical properties a lot. A good example of this is with polymers. The different length of monomer strands on the molecular level effects things such as it flexibility and strength. Crystal structure is microscopic. Different structures also affect things like brittleness and strength. The macroscopic level involves things like rigidness. Things like this on the microscopic level also affects things like strength and flexibility.
Energy and Place
Energy and Place
Joint Scientific Statement
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ayWscEZCM05WhIFVDjPB5jbj_famgcWqwquxzNbJKpM/edit?usp=sharing
Opening Statement
Nuclear powered energy is beneficial for the U.S. society in many ways. First, the need for energy in the United States can be met in a much more efficient way if more nuclear power plants are built. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. used 3,856,000,000,000 kilowatt hours in 2011. This is projected to increase over the next 30 years. Fossil fuels are going to run out. We use over 11 billion tonnes of fossil fuels globally every year. Reserves are disappearing at a rate of 4 billion tonnes a year. This leaves us projected to run out of fossil fuels by 2052. Methods like wind or solar energy will not provide the U.S. with enough power to fuel our needs as a society. The 100 nuclear power generators in the U.S. produced about 807,000,000,000 kilowatt hours a year. This averages 8,070,000,000 kwh per generator every year. This form of energy is also very reliable, as Uranium is abundant. Uranium is very commonly found, and only a small amount of it is required to produce energy. According to the NEA, there are 5.5 million metric tons of uranium discovered, with another 10.5 million metric tons of uranium just waiting to be discovered. At current usage rates, this is about a 230 year supply. These nuclear power plants are the only way to meet our society's energy need once we run out of fossil fuels. This form of power is very reliable, and will last for hundreds of years.
Closing Statement
Our world today uses a ton of power, which is largely supported by fossil fuels. The U.S. alone used 3,856,000,000,000 kilowatt hours in 2011. However, when we run out of fossil fuels, nuclear powered energy is the only way we can meet our need for power. Each nuclear power plant produces an average of 8,070,000,000 kwh over the course of a year. All of this is done on just one pellet of fuel, which can be used for up to 18 months. This source of power is very reliable, and is projected to last for over 200 years. Why not take full advantage of nuclear power’s potential for supplying the world with electricity for years to come?
Reflection
I was debating the motion of increasing the amount of nuclear power plants in the four corners area. At first, I was undecided. However, as I researched for the debate, I found myself being for the motion. The only fact that caused me to question my stance on nuclear power was the radioactive waste. However, the amount of power that nuclear plants produce with such a small amount of fuel impressed me. To me, the benefits outweigh the risks. The strongest evidence for the motion was the efficiency of nuclear power. The strongest evidence against the motion was definitely the waste it leaves behind. I would be interested in digging deeper into the safety technology found in power plants to help avoid meltdowns. Since I was arguing what I found to be my own opinion, it was very interesting to hear what the other team had to say. My opinion was semi-biased, as I was only researching in depth on one side of the debate. It was really cool to get a bigger picture view on the whole motion. The environmental ethic and sense of place I have did not affect which side I chose in this debate. I think I did fairly well in the debate. However, I wish I had talked a little bit more. I also think that I should have asked the other team a leading question, and make them answer, instead of playing defense the whole time. I feel like the arguments I did make did go well during the debate. One fact that was stated in the debate that I checked up on was how much of a carbon footprint there is in the mining in Uranium. It is true that the mining of uranium has a lot of carbon emissions. The other fact I checked up on was my own statement about having about 200 years of nuclear power available. This too was correct, so I felt good about having said that in the debate.