Talk:Fiberglass/Archive 1

Archive 1

Properties

this section has some very misleading information. Thought I'd post a note here before editing the page. This statement "An individual structural glass fiber is both stiff and strong in tension and compression" is incorrect. it's referring to glass fibers. they are not stiff at all. they are floppy. And, they are not strong in compression without the supporting resin matrix. Is there anyone monitoring this page that minds if I make some edits?SunKider (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits to correct glass fiber properties

made several edits to correct information on glass fibers. added clarity to composite structures and included other construction methods, sandwich, etc.SunKider (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a false idea that glass fibers are weak under axial compression; glass is actually stronger with axial compression than tension. Taking a very short fiber and applying compression to it would give a very high pressure indeed before failure (gigapascals). Embedding the fibers in the matrix just stops them buckling and permits the glass to begine to approach a shadow of its natural strength; it's not the matrix that provides the compressive strength; the compressive strength of the matrix is very much weaker than the compressive strength of the final composite; the compressive strength increase when the composite is formed is predominately due to the axial compressive strength of the fibers.GliderMaven (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Glider, it appears that you have an issue with a tiny portion of my edits, but you have reversed all of them. Can you justify that action?. My edits add some clarification and organization to a poorly written and poorly organized article. Let's keep my edits while you and I can discuss the technicalities of compression strength of a glass fiber. I agree that the strength of the final composite is because of the glass fibers. Yes, they are stronger than the resin.

You may be technically correct, however for this article the statement is out of place. You are likely referring to some kind of physics principle. If that's the case, you'll have to explain your position and justify it within this article. We are not dealing with physics at the tiny scale of a short length of a single fiber. For this article, I propose that saying that the glass fiber is strong in compression is misleading. In your statement above you have made the case for my position. "the matrix keeps them from buckling". that's the point. They cannot resist buckling forces without the matrix. Therefore (in this context for fiberglass composite structures) they are weak in compression. That's why we combine them with the resin to produce better physical properties than each of them separately.SunKider (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The concept of weakness you use is non standard and not useful. The compressive strength of steel does not depend on the shape. Similarly the compressive strength of glass is independent of the shape.GliderMaven (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The compressive strength of thin steel fibers IS dependent on the shape. Steel cable does not have good compressive strength because it will buckle just as glass fibers will buckle. That indicates that they have poor compressive strength. And, yes, it's because of their "aspect ratio". It's exactly because they are long and thin that they have poor compressive strength without the matrix to keep them from buckling. We are not discussing the overall compressive strength of glass. We are discussing thin fibers. I still oppose having a statement that the glass fibers are "strong and stiff". SunKider (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that you are contesting material that is referenced. Do you have a counter reference?GliderMaven (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Glider, You have ignored the larger issue of my other (non-contested) edits. My invitation was to retain my other edits while we settle the compression issue. It appears that all it will take to satisfy your concerns and mine is to include words from your non-technical explanation from above-

(Though long glass fibers seem flimsy, a very short glass fiber is very strong in compression. Embedding the long fibers in a resin matrix stops them buckling and permits the glass fibers to demonstrate their compressive strength.)

Can we revert to my edits and include this statement along with your technical statement that they are strong in compression? If I have time I can combine this statement with my previous edits so you can see how the presentation flows. SunKider (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's too difficult to combine my shortened description of fiber strength with yours. I have placed your fiber info into the content with my heading changes. please review it on my talk page and agree to accept the edits. The heading changes are important. They are now descriptive. And fiber information is gathered under one heading. I have removed the text about perfect glass and a bulk piece of glass. It does not belong in this article. Fiberglass composites are about producing light-weight structures. A block of glass has no relevance to this article. If that content is yours and you have strong emotional connection to it, perhaps you should include it in the page on glass fibers where all the technical information about glass fibers should reside.SunKider (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to my talk page so you can view my talk/fiberglass sandbox.SunKider (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Article title

While most fiberglass is apparently used for reinforcing polymer objects, nevertheless it seems to me that in an encyclopedia, the article's present title is more akin to informal brief (and inaccurate) usage. It should be something like "Glass Fiber Reinforced Materials", although that seems somewhat pedantic. If such a title were used, the lead sentence, or the one after it, should explain what the article is about.

I'm far from being an expert, but I do remember household window curtains (1946?) made of fiberglass fabric. Fiberglass textiles must still exist, although they are probably rare. There must be some uses which don't involve bonding all fibers with a polymer. Broken strands from textiles, it seems, would be a problem.

Regards, Nikevich 01:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Titles are here, not to formally name the topic, but to enable users to quickly find the correct topic. Therefore wikipedia uses informal titles for articles if they are the title that the topic is most commonly referred to by. There's links at the top of the article that point to the glass fiber-only materials if you really want that.GliderMaven (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's why redirects are here. Notice most of the animal articles are titled according to their scientific designations rather than their everyday names. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That can't be right as Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names specifically gives examples against that. Common Name in this instance is Fiberglass, and it passes the search engine test too. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose a brief and simple title change that should satisfy both common name and also be more technical (as well as helping guide users to the information they're looking for).

New Title: Fiberglass (composite)

Having a secondary portion of the title within parenthesis is common in other articles where there are several uses of the name (to clarify the use). SunKider (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Fibreglass (composite material)" would make sense to me, but "composite" on its own seems a bit obscure for reducing ambiguity to readers that aren't familiar with the topic-area already. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's confusion over the article name then that's not necessary. Making the article harder to find serves no good to the reader in that case. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you give an example of how a reader would find the page harder to find? Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well other than all the current links hitting the redirect instead and losing the section they apply to (if that function was used), there is also a lengthening and disambiguating of a title which does not require it. How many articles with similar titles are there for Fiberglass? If none, then i don't think the rename isn't required per WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

But Fiber_glass#Chopped_strand_mat works fine even though it is a redirect. (And bots fix missed double-redirects automatically.) Do you still think readers would find the page more difficult to find?

In answer to your new question there's fibre-glass vs. glass-fibre glass fibre confusion (!) and "fibreglass" may also be the most common name for a specific insulation material. Both should've been obvious if you'd noticed the hatnote; issue is whether or not the existing group of hatnotes and leads are sufficient without a disambiguated page-title? Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced yet about the need to disambiguate it. Glass fibre needs to be disambiguated from what you describe, but that doesn't automatically mean fibreglass does too. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Glass Fiber redirect

At the moment Glass Fiber redirects to this article and not to Glass fiber. Several articles link to the redirect, it's unclear to which of the two they refer, like the the one I came across: a table of specific tensile strengths of materials in the article Specific strength. The target of the redirect really needs to be changed (after checking and if appropriate changing the existing incoming links), imo. Ssscienccce (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

See discussion above (Talk:Fiberglass#Article title). Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are hatnotes in each to help the reader get to the "correct" one if landing first at the other. I think a valid concern is why the difference of capitalization for terms in a non-proper-noun topic leads to different articles. DMacks (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like most of them were referring to fiberglass, so I rerouted them to where they should probably be. I also changed the redirect.GliderMaven (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fiber-reinforced plastic?

According to this article [1] there's also a material called FRP (fiber reinforced plastic), which is a superset that includes GRP/GFRP/fiberglass. The only mention of that is the FRP tanks and vessels link, and that article seems to equate the two. Could someone perhaps clear up the difference on Wikipedia? -- intgr [talk] 21:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And then there are articles like Atelier Bow-Wow#Jig house speaking of "fibreglass reinforced plastic (FRP)", which seems to be a contradiction if fiberglass=GRP. I'm really confused. -- intgr [talk] 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean Fibre-reinforced plastic?GliderMaven (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. But my point is that Wikipedia doesn't do a good job of distinguishing between the two and that results in misuse. Why is FRP tanks and vessels mentioned in this article, and why is it linking back to here, if FRP is a different thing? Why is the Fibre-reinforced plastic#History (FRP) article talking about GFRP if that should be here? Due to the similarity and chance of confusion, I think it ought to be clarified in the lead section. -- intgr [talk] 23:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Its not complicated. The fibers in fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) can be anything from carbon to Nomex. When they are glass, the composite is fiberglass, or GFRP. This was the second FRP to be invented. When something other than glass it's called something else.SBHarris 01:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dangers and Drawbacks

The article could be improved with information about the safety and reliability of fiberglass as a construction material (for example the surface of a boat or car). Is it fragile like glass? When broken does it shatter and is it sharp? Does it burn vigorously and if burned does it emit toxic fumes? And so on...129.219.155.89 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fiberglass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204220816/http://www.naima.org/publications/N040.PDF to http://www.naima.org/publications/N040.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ult.de/filebase/whitepaper_1103_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Lazy link" needs repair

The article says:

...Much more reliable tanks are made using woven mat or filament wound fiber, with the fiber orientation at right angles to the hoop stress imposed in the side wall by the contents....

..However, that lazy link leads to waste of time, an arcane jumble of math formulas and Jargon, with no clue which way to lay the glass. I'm guessing a few added words would make that link look unneeded and silly, a case of (lazy) overlinking. I'm thinking something duh..."barrel hoopish," as a correction? People really do need to follow their own links to check if they give a quick, concise answer that's better than a few in-text, in context words from the author.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:48B1:FABE:6C83:FC2F (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Health hazard: Americentrism

I feel the section is a bit biased toward American sources. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, but as someone from [not America] I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a couple WHO sources as well. I'm not going to add anything before asking here first though ,so as to not add redundant information. Sorry for being IP right now, I'll come back with my account later. -83.148.228.27 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)