So the biologists have #MarchMammalMadness and @AmerChemSociety is running #PeriodicPlayoff. How can us #materials people get in on this fun #scicomm? Should we just join the chemists? I really love the idea of an alliterative #MarchMaterialsMadness.— Matthew (@MatSciMatt) March 8, 2019
But this means we need materials to put in a bracket. I have some ideas below. If we want to really this be materials and not just chemicals, we probably need to specify structure/processing in addition to composition. So I say Czochralski silicon instead of just “silicon” because that process makes the silicon used in modern electronics. However, I’m not sure if we need to split up related categories of materials more. On the other hand, I’m fine with not 100% specifying composition if changing the elements may be part of processing/design, which comes up a lot with transition metal dichalcogenices and perovskites. But do we need to specify those more into sub-groups that have more consistent crystal structures? (See this recent paper on what exactly IS a perovskite?)
Maybe we don’t need 64 for a first attempt, but 32 might nice. I would love to hear more ideas from people on WordPress and Twitter!
- Gold nanoparticles
- Transition metal dichalcogenides
- Metallic glass
- Silver nanoparticles
- Mesoporous metals
- Carbon nanotubes
- Perovskites – does this need to be split out more?
- Czochralski silicon
- hexagonal boron nitride
- Antimicrobial copper-alloy touch surfaces
- Cadmium telluride
- Stainless steel
- Neodymium magnets (Nd2Fe14B)