"And my points are:

1)The Turk is wrong. Doesn't matter what he says, his extimations are not scientifically correct.

2)The hyperalloy they are talking is Ti based for their own admission, therefore its density should variate in the specs of Ti alloys we know. BTW Coltan is much denser than Titanium and larger is its percentage in the melt heavier is the alloy. I agree that it's a plot device to accept how it is."

"Metal is metal, if it's porous, it's a flaw, that usually happens when in the melt there is some gas. When the metal is cooling, the gas becomes vapourus and therefore you have porosity like in some prototypes we were developing at work.

Of course, the knuckles of cast iron that were porous failed, and we had to complain to the supplier.

Just to say."

"An alloy with mechanical characteristics superior to superalloys, of course."

"This is not lack of imagination, it's knowledge of engineering and metallurgy. It's different, if you don't see the difference, sorry I can't help you.

Oh, ANY alloys can be melted, for the simple reason that to combine different elements you have to melt them, that's the definition of "alloy".

For the super light characteristics, I'm fine until they don't become unrealistic, and a hyperalloy whose density is 110% the one of...bones would make any engineer and metallurgist laugh."

"Research and development perhaps? With PhDs in metallurgy? :P

Look, Titanium started to be used industrially just after 1947, and even until recently it was extremely expensive to produce, then in Cambridge people like my ex boss developed a new process to refine it. During the cold war, US and SSSR were stockpiling this metal like...actually the writers showed us in Heavy metal. All the scientific paperwork I had access before the 80s were from military R&D centers, still we don't have complete phase diagrams of this material, and its forging and casting is EXTREMELY complicated, that's the reason why RR was founding my grant to develop a finite element model for isothermal forging.

It's research, baby!"

"The difference betwen good fictional and bad fictional in sci-fi is given by its level of vero-simility: closer a opera of sci-fi is to real science, better it is. That's the definition of SCIENCE-FICTION, you can have higher of lower percentage of fiction, but you need to have SCIENCE.

Now, if somebody invents in a sci-fi book or movie a hyperalloy with realistic charactereistics, it's good sci-fi, if he invents something clearly impossible, it's not. You should read a good from a physician, entitled "The Physics of Star Trek", it's pretty interesting about it.

For your accusation of lack of imagination, for the record I'm writing a book, following these concepts, aka creating vero-simile technology without deux ex machina, hoping to create something that other people may consider "good" sci-fi. If he wasn't dead, you could have aske Arthur Clarke, who was real man of science and wrote good sci-fi."

"Lol, wut? Ivy, he makes a good point, and where does he claim that Terminator isn't a good Science Fiction show? Seriously, where? I've read his post 4 times, and I don't see it.
"

""Now, if somebody invents in a sci-fi book or movie a hyperalloy with realistic charactereistics, it's good sci-fi, if he invents something clearly impossible, it's not."

Is that clear enough for you?

Really, this is pointless. Hyperalloy is hardly less plausible than time travel. CuthbertAllgood is simply showing off how much more he knows about metallurgy than the writers of a TV show. it's pathetic."

""Now, if somebody invents in a sci-fi book or movie a hyperalloy with realistic charactereistics, it's good sci-fi, if he invents something clearly impossible, it's not."

Is that clear enough for you?

Really, this is pointless. Hyperalloy is hardly less plausible than time travel. CuthbertAllgood is simply showing off how much more he knows about metallurgy than the writers of a TV show. it's pathetic."