New York Paper - Colloid Chemistry and Metallurgy

It is eight years since I have been connected actively with metallography, but in this time I have been learning something about colloid chemistry, which may be considered as the chemistry of bubbles, drops, grains, filaments, and films, all things in which at least one dimension is very small or in which the surface is large relatively to the mass. Films, of course, suggest to the metallographist Beilby's amorphous film theory, about which I am going to speak for a while, though probably not in the way you expect. I come to bury Beilby, not to praise him. So far as I can judge from looking over the literature hastily, there are two schools in the United States, those who accept Beilby's theory willingly and those who accept it unwillingly. Hoytl says that: At present there seem to be two schools in metallography, one which has adopted the amorphous-phase theory for the explanation of the effect of cold work, mechanical deformation, etc., and one which is not ready at present to adopt this theory. It seems to me that this theory can at least be used as a convenient means of explaining various facts that are demonstrable in the laboratory but the presence of this amorphous material, through our lack of experimental means, we are unable to prove. That we have failed in this direction should not necessarily hinder us from using a theory as workable as this. Mathewson2 says: I have come reluctantly to believe in the amorphous theory, or some theory admitting a modification of the ordinary crystalline phase so as to permit differential properties with temperature, etc. If Mathewson represents one extreme, with Hoyt perhaps occupying a middle ground, H. M. Howe3 may be cited as one of the enthusiastic supporters of Beilby's amorphous theory. It is, says Howe: