spectacular_coitus t1_iuajz6t wrote
So when they refer to "Cosmic Magnets" they refer to rare earths. So is this just another way to manufacture neodymium or samarium–cobalt magnets?
Rzah t1_iuautfk wrote
The material is roughly 65%* magnetic strength of Neodymium, it is found in meteorites that had just the right composition and spent millions of years cooling down, now we can simply cast it. It will likely replace rare earths for a lot of applications.
* article says theoretical max of 335 kJ/m^3 for Tetrataenite vs 512 kJ/m^3 for Neodymium
/edit, not an expert, just was curious how it compared and went looking, your comment seemed best place to dump what I found.
SemanticTriangle t1_iucdtpa wrote
We generally use NdFeB magnets or similar alloys, which have magnetic energy products comparable to this specific NiFe based mineral.
FUZxxl OP t1_iuakiuc wrote
These “cosmic magnets” are nickel-iron magnets. The key promising thing is that they can be made without any rare earth elements.
John_Hasler t1_iuaphjm wrote
>So when they refer to "Cosmic Magnets" they refer to rare earths.
No. Meteorites.
>So is this just another way to manufacture neodymium or samarium–cobalt magnets?
No. These materials consist of iron, nickel, and phosphorus. Read the article.
spectacular_coitus t1_iub66ua wrote
I did read the article, but thanks for a condescending remark to somebody looking for some clarification. You're doing a real credit to the sciences with that kind of attitude. Really makes me want to be more curious and ask questions about science.
John_Hasler t1_iubfj6h wrote
This assertion
> So when they refer to "Cosmic Magnets" they refer to rare earths.
directly contradicts the article. This led me to believe that you had not read it. It's quite common for people to post comments here without having done so.
DadOfFan t1_iubkano wrote
What was condescending about his reply? Has he edited it?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments