Why Things Break: Understanding the World by the Way it Comes Apart by Mark E. Eberhart

by Mark Eberhart

Did you know— It took more than an iceberg to sink the Titanic. The Challenger disaster was predicted. Unbreakable glass dinnerware had its origin in railroad lanterns. A football team cannot lose momentum. Mercury thermometers are prohibited on airplanes for a crucial reason. Kryptonite bicycle locks are easily broken.“Things fall apart” is more than a poetic insight—it is a fundamental property of the physical world. Why Things Break explores the fascinating question of what holds things together (for a while), what breaks them apart, and why the answers have a direct bearing on our everyday lives.When Mark Eberhart was growing up in the 1960s, he learned that splitting an atom leads to a terrible explosion—which prompted him to worry that when he cut into a stick of butter, he would inadvertently unleash a nuclear cataclysm. Years later, as a chemistry professor, he remembered this childhood fear when he began to ponder the fact that we know more about how to split an atom than we do about how a pane of glass breaks.In Why Things Break, Eberhart leads us on a remarkable and entertaining exploration of all the cracks, clefts, fissures, and faults examined in the field of materials science and the many astonishing discoveries that have been made about everything from the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger to the crashing of your hard drive. Understanding why things break is crucial to modern life on every level, from personal safety to macroeconomics, but as Eberhart reveals here, it is also an area of cutting-edge science that is as provocative as it is illuminating.From the Hardcover edition.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Engineering, History, Technology, Physics, Popular Science

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is – hands down – the most atrocious book I’ve read so far this year, and probably within the last three years. I’m sure the author is technically competent in his field, whatever it is, but his reasons for writing this particular book are a complete mystery. I suspect he believes he has written something that is accessible to the general reader. To the contrary, this book is an incomprehensible, indigestible mess, in which all he does is manage to display his singular pedagogical ineptness. Mark Eberhart is the insufferable nerd relatives scatter to get away from at family gatherings. The kind of guy you just pray you're never stuck next to on a transatlantic flight. The kind of guy you hope you, or your kids, never have as a professor. This may seem harsh. If so, put it down to my frustration at having slogged through 250 pages of meandering text without ever having come across a coherent summation of what the book is really about.

Unless you consider this kind of thing coherent. In a chapter where he is explaining to the reader that he likes to play games with anyone unfortunate enough to ask him what he does for a living:

When I want to have fun, however, I say, ‘My research is concerned with the study of why things break.’ Usually a look of satisfaction appears in the questioner’s eyes as he says, ‘Oh, so you are a mechanical engineer (metallurgist, ceramist, or materials scientist).’
Now the fun begins as I say, ‘No, I study why things break, not when.’
The questioner is now doubtful. I sometimes break down at this point and explain my research in detail, but I have been known to milk the when/why distinction until my questioner is just fed up and moves on. ...
It is a common misunderstanding, confusing when with why. What people really understand is when things break. Fracture, as with almost every other phenomenon, is composed of two parts, cause and effect. The question of when deals with the cause, while that of why deals with the effect.

Yeah. And I am Marie of Roumania.

You may not have a problem with this kind of stuff, but I do. There’s his juvenile satisfaction in somehow outsmarting the misfortunate soul who just asked him a polite question, the smug superiority about his sacred when/why distinction. Followed by a completely batshit crazy ‘elucidation’ of said distinction. One which divorces ‘why’ from cause. Humpty Dumpty has nothing on this guy.

And it doesn’t get any better. In fact, it gets infinitely worse. You might get an inkling of how much worse if I tell you that, despite the technical nature of the subject matter, the book contains not a single formula, equation, graph, or diagram. Think about that. One can admire the bravery of trying to write a book which eschews the use of equations. But only a fool would choose not to include charts, diagrams or pictures. There were at least a dozen places in the book where a simple diagram might actually have made the point clearly and spared the reader several paragraphs of tortuous, confusing prose.

Chapter 5 –- Shocking, Simply Shocking – exemplifies what a sorry mess this book is. Opening with some pointless bitching about how fracture mechanics didn’t make anyone’s list of top accomplishments of the millennium, he segues into a pedantic discussion about how people misuse the term ‘quantum leap’. There follows a two-page account of the hearings following sinking of the Titanic, ten-pages about the Challenger (including a ridiculous mile-by-mile account of where exactly the author was on his commute during the countdown), four pages on a lawsuit against GM for safety issues with the Chevy Malibu fuel tank placement, and six pages about an industrial accident where the author was called as an expert witness. It all seems to lead nowhere in particular. But I’m stubborn, so I read the chapter twice more. Eventually I figured out that he was trying to make a point, namely that public attitudes about how to react to such highly publicized cases of failure have evolved from “failure is inevitable, avoid circumstances likely to produce it” to “improve design to the point where the risk of failure is essentially negligible”. An evolution he characterizes as a ‘quantum change’. At which point you just want to strangle the bastard. By his own admission, this is a characterization that is confusing to most people, but rather than seek out simpler, less ambiguous language, instead he adds a page and a half of bitching about how everyone else in the world misuses the term (which does nothing to eliminate the potential for confusion) and goes ahead and uses it anyway. What a sanctimonious dickhead!

I think Eberhart is constitutionally incapable of correctly gauging the actual level of his audience's understanding. So, about three lines into any of his explanations, he and the reader part company - he continues obliviously (after all, it's all obvious to him), leaving the reader to seethe in a muddle of incomprehension. Some readers might be tempted to blame deficiencies in their own technical background, effectively giving Eberhart a pass on the wretchedness of this effort. Don’t. The only person who deserves excoriation for this appalling dog’s breakfast of a book is Mark E. Eberhart. And possibly his editor, though it’s hard for me to believe he really had one.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the most interesting books I have read in a long time.

It is definitely a science book (specifically, it is about "fracture mechanics" according to the Library of Congress cataloging data and about "molecular physics" according to the ISBN box on the back cover). However, if all of the science books and classes I took in high school presented their information like the author does in this book, I would have found those subjects a lot more interesting.

I will be re-reading this again soon, and adding more to this review as I do that. But briefly, here is what I liked about this book so much:

1) The author includes autobiographical and historical examples in the text along with scientific explanations and examples for the topics he is covering. Being a big history/biography guy, I found the book fairly easy reading knowing that the author would be tying the theoretical science (which I often couldn't understand very well) back into real life.

2) The book is written pretty much as an autobiography, and thus was generally easy to follow. The author starts with his interest as a kid as to why his marbles broke under certain conditions. From there he describes various experiments with the marbles and other items to see how those things broke, and under what conditions. I especially enjoyed his early chapter about his efforts to figure out to destroy the supposedly unbreakable Corelle dinnerware (as soon as he finds some in a Goodwill store, he buys it, then takes it home and immediately starts figuring out to destroy it. Cool!) The author goes on to do undergrad work at the University of COlorado at Boulder, grad work at MIT, and then on to a first job at the Los Alamos National Laboratories. He is currently an instructor at the Colorado School of Mines. Throughout the book, the author's enthusiasm for the people and places he works at is apparent and fun to read about, even as he pursues specific and detailed answers to the question that has always inspired him: Why do things break?

3) Throughout the book, the author points out some serious challenges to how we do scientific research in the country. These brief passages read like the current events books that describe all of the detailed problems of a specific issue in society. However, I found these parts to be very interesting and thought-provoking, in that the specific issues he raises had never occurred to me. The best example of this is his discussion as to why his area of research, "fracture mechanics," is an important yet neglected area of science. The author claims that most researchers working on aspects of this problem over the last hundred years or so are seeking predictions as to WHEN things will likely break, and under what conditions. this is a very different question as to WHY they break. The answers to the first question are concerned with minimizing the effects of eventual structural failure, but the author in trying to answer the second question may be able to someday identify better materials and design methods so that the things we use every day are less likely to fail as frequently as they do.

As I said at the start of this review, I want to elaborate on much more about this great book after I re-read it and take some notes. I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in any area of science, technology, and general non-fiction. It's a fun read.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

Supposedly a study about the recent discoveries concerning why materials break, this book is actually 50% about the author's personal and professional life (consisting mostly of academic slights he has suffered), 3/8 about lawsuits and society's changing attitude to broken things, and 1/8 about why things actually break. If you had a material science course in college you know the technology stuff already, and if you didn't there have got to be better places to find out about it than this book. Don't read it even though it is short.

[Punk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Non-fiction. This is one of those science books that purports to be written for the common reader, full of easy to understand physics and a catchy cover that doesn't look anything like a textbook. They were half right. The author obviously loves talking about materials science and why things break, and he has a certain geeky sense of humor about it too, but I phased in and out of this book like a hologram on the blink. One moment things would make perfect sense, and the next I found myself cross-eyed in confusion. Part of this is due to baroque examples like, "Imagine this projectile as squeezing a tube of toothpaste, where instead of toothpaste you have copper and the squeeze is an explosion!" That's not a direct quote, but you can see how all I got out of that was a tube of exploding Aquafresh, missing the point entirely.

The toothpaste analogy made sense later. He just made the mistake of introducing it too early, before I knew why we were squeezing hot copper with an explosion, and I think that's the main problem with the book. Eberhart doesn't succeed in balancing the easy to understand with the physics and he ends up with something that waffles between being too conversational or too technical. Just when you get comfortable with his friendly anecdotes about shoveling snow in Boston, he slaps you upside the head with a section on grain-boundary fractures.

I didn't come away from this book with a big understanding of why things break, but I did learn a lot of little things, like how Kevlar works and why the Liberty Boats needed steel belts. The first two chapters were a great overview of civilization's move from the stone age to the bronze, iron, and steel ages. If the rest of the book had been as well-written, I'd be a lot happier, but I realize quantum mechanics isn't as accessible as the invention of the rock.

For those of you interested in knowing why things break, the short answer is charge density structure. The long answer has something to do with Christmas tree farms, crystalline structure, boron, sulfur, the Titanic and cubic zirconium. And toothpaste. Don't forget toothpaste.

Three stars, because -- despite my complaining -- it's a pretty good introduction to materials science and Eberhart is a friendly guide.

[Dani · Rating 3 out of 5]

The beginning of this book grabbed my interest, unfortunately the end of the book did not. I felt the end of the book strayed away from the them off this book - why things break to what is wrong with research or more what is wrong with research in the US. Although I agree with many of the writers points since my job supports many research efforts,I feel it would have been better to keep with the theme of the book.

[Daniel Widrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good science and some bad science. Some effective explanations and some incoherent explanations. All framed by a boring narrative of the author's career course. A relatively lame pop science book, but 3 stars for it giving me some good insight into things I hadn't understood and/or considered before.

[Doug · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much about the author's personal work and not enough general theory or real-world applications (in a book about fracture and failure there shoulda been some of that), although if you are a chemistry/science nerd there are some cool nuggets in here...

[Mariana Delalibera · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was really in between 3 and 4 stars for this book because he talked about “why things break” and a lot of things that just relate to the scientific community’s approach to research, which he didn’t mention would be a main part of the book. At the end of the book he did mention that’s what the book was about, so I’m settling for four stars here. Really interesting explanations as to why things break, but he said some really random things sometimes? There was this whole page or two that was just bragging. Aside from that, though, I think it was really nice and interesting to read :)) I have many questions for my chemistry teacher now haha

[Thom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Part memoire, part exploration of physical and chemical science, this book could be a great popular science book with some editing, pictures & diagrams. Instead, it is a mish-mash, equal parts interesting ideas and anecdotes.

Eberhart does do a good job leading you from the what to the how to the why. At the end of the book, he notes he was documenting the scientific thinking process as much as the actual results, and maybe there is a book or article there also. I just think this would have been a better work had it concentrated on one of those goals.

All that said, it was pretty interesting stuff, if devoid of illustrations. I added this to my reading list six years ago; I forget where I originally heard about it. No library had it, no nearby bookstore had it, and I refuse to go the Amazon route. Last year I found it at Powell's, and my quest was at an end. The book also contains a short bibliography, so perhaps a new quest awaits.

[Lucas · Rating 2 out of 5]

There is a really solid quarter or third of this book where the author talks about their research into the molecular explanation of the deformation and breaking of materials, and gives valuable insight into historical cases of broken things. Outside of that it falls apart.

The book seems like it was intended to be a fun romp through science and industry and history, where every chapter jumps into something new while keeping to a common thread. A few chapters accomplish that but a science journalist would have done it better, they would have gone to greater ends to research what they didn't already know about, and would have visited interesting locations and interviewed a variety of experts to broaden and flesh out the book.

The 'stealth autobiography' portions are frequently my least favorite but here they aren't that bad (see How to Make a Spaceship), and mostly serve the point of the book.

The worst parts are where:

* The author's advisor deserved a Nobel Prize.
* The author's research deserves more funding.
* The research journals and colleagues of the author are doing it wrong when they don't publish or respect the research of the author.
* The students at the college the author went to are more inquisitive and mischievous than any other. (I couldn't help laughing out loud reading this section)
* Opinions are offered on some other topics that the author may have read a magazine article about.
* There isn't a single illustration for anything, the complex explanations of the arrangement of atoms within a material and how they move under stress really needed some.
* The one picture the book does have is on the cover, which shows a picture of a broken bridge (or aqueduct?) but breaking bridges aren't covered in the book.

There's a certain arrogant 'splanation tone that doesn't work, especially in combination with the personal narrative and because the author isn't a popular figure. They may have wanted to write a book like their favorite famous scientist did, but the approach has to be more humble: the trust of the reader has to be earned within the book because it wasn't built in the media outside of it.

Several times the holy grail capability of being able to specify material properties then generate a material that meets the specification is mentioned, but little is offered on how to get there other than a lot more work is needed, and the computer simulation approaches of competing scientists isn't the best.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started out well with some great anecdotes and explanations but it felt as the book wore on, the author ran out of good examples to use. Overall an ok read

[Ella · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book on why things break (not when things break like the expertise of an engineer) explores Mr. Eberhart’s discovery of a field of study that he is truly passionate about. He talks about how he had always been fascinated by the reason behind the failure of any object, particularly household ones. The progression of the book moves from an explanation of his discovery of his passion and realization of its unique nature, to an explanation of why any individual should care about this as well.

The progression of the story is moved along by personal anecdotes on why a certain event or discovery led him to a certain conclusion. He brings up his first encounter with this question of ‘why’ as a young child, playing with his marbles. Then he moves to tell the reader about how his progression of education at MIT helped him further his research in his field of study, while providing more personal anecdotes to progress the story and educate the reader on his passion. He introduces a concept central to his field called embrittlement by the explanation of the failing of two essentially parallel disasters, the Titanic and the Challenger explosion, by identifying the roots of these problems and explaining the way in which they could and should have been avoided.

I would give this book a five out of five stars because Mark Eberhart is clearly passionate about learning and was able to convey this passion through text. The way in which the story was told, through the use of personal experiences and stories of his own life to demonstrate his field’s practical application, made the story flow in which the reader could easily feel as though they were having a conversation with the author. The point of the book is clearly to share his passion for bonds, fractures, and structures while also appreciating the passions of those that inspire him. The short stories do not overwhelm his point, but guide the line of reasoning of the reader so that the conclusion reached is exactly as he intended. This book was a very professional yet personal presentation of information.

[earthshattering · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is important to go out on a high note, and this book sort of trails off into the author not being able to find someone's number. Overall, I think the editor needed to be more harsh with the author and say, "Look. Nobody cares about your PhD thesis. Really. This isn't about you, this is about why and when things break." The parts that really shine are the discussions of isolated incidents and catastrophes where the author explains when and why things broke. The Challenger is an interesting read, but my favorite is the development of armored aircraft and the use of ceramics in conjunction with metals in defense applications. The recounting of the ill-fated Aloha Airlines flight is also fascinating. I wish the book had been a series of these stories with some text added for flow in between incidents. Nobody needs to hear about stuck-up academics, how little the author liked his postdoc, and why his paper didn't get cited. Also not interested in how smart people from MIT are. Why would I buy a book to read that? I bought this book probably 14 years ago in China and just finished it now. This book was published 17 years ago! Also, if you are going to suggest change to anything (like the system of funding for science), you had better have some suggestions for how to improve things.

[Joe Q. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this book on a whim at the library. I work in a related field, so had some background that was relevant to the subject.

This book seems intended to be a popular-science treatment of materials science and metallurgy, as told through the lens of the author's career. This approach works well in some cases, especially at the beginning of the book, where he outlines some of the fundamental concepts in the field through references to a home-made kayak, the Titanic, the Challenger disaster, and various other engineering mishaps.

As the story wears on, though, it gets increasingly more difficult to tell in layman's terms. The intricacy of the subject matter doesn't lend itself in a meaningful way to a pure prose, analogy-based approach, and I frequently found myself desperately wishing for a figure, illustration, or photograph that would help illuminate the subject (there are none at all in the book). To top things off, the book contains some cultural references that haven't aged well since its publication.

Overall the book is an interesting approach to materials science for the layman, but probably would have worked better as an illustrated lecture than it does as a book.

[juLiA · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ok, would have liked a bit more science in it but I guess the author is just helping readers from any background understand his academic journey - is quite an inspiring one.
A few major takeaways:
- people use trial and error / experiments to generalise trends but sometimes that is not sufficient, understanding the fundamental why helps reduce the chances of errors that could be detrimental
- John Slater - I really would love to meet him!

"My suspicion is that he was dogmatic in his desire to make quantum mechanics useful, and in this regard he relied heavily on intuition. I believe he had little tolerance for those who would plod through a calculation and then garner little useful information... he was isolated from the practitioners of the very discipline he founded."
"Slater died in 1976. In that year he had been selected to win the Nobel Prize for his quantum mechanical investigations of magnetism, but he died before the announcement... he did not receive the award."

- Embrittlement!

[Pietro Coso · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone trying to get back into reading, I chose this book as I feel like I could relate to, or at least understand, what the author was talking about, since I went to school for engineering.
What I found was an insightful and elaborate way to describe technical terms and happenings, keeping the reader interested. I enjoyed the author’s analogies and connections between materials science and real world happenings, such as the Titanic, Pyrex, and others.
Sometimes it was hard to follow due to the nature of the subject, but reading the pages once or twice (or having a readily available piece of paper and pen for sketches) certainly helped.

[Kathrin Passig · Rating 2 out of 5]

(Aus Arbeitsgründen gelesen; wenn es zum Spaß gewesen wäre, hätte ich nur den Anfang gelesen und dann aufgehört.) Es fängt schlecht an, wirr, im "Alter Mann hört sich gerne reden"-Stil. Aber nach ein paar Kapiteln kommt etwas Kohärenz in die Sache und es wird klarer, dass es um spezifische Fortschritte in der Materialwissenschaft geht, aufgehängt an einer autobiografischen Erzählung. Das ist stellenweise ganz interessant und man erahnt, dass die Vorlesungen des Autors (falls er welche gehalten hat) vielleicht gut waren. Aber zu viele Abschweifungen, zu wenig strenges Lektorat, irreführender Titel.

[Carol · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did not address the basic question of what causes breakage. But it does explain the author's view about what happens at the microscopic level when something breaks. He talks about the trade-off between making it harder to bread something vs. letting the something fail without breaking (bending, basically).

Interesting. I learned a few things. I've put it on the shelf for my husband to look at, since he expressed some interest in it.

[Flyin'Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Picked it up for a few dollars from a small bookstore in Chicago while on vacation. Was pleasantly surprised how the author shared his perspective as a PhD; someone who is highly educated and experienced. Yes he does hop around a bit, but the topics he chose to write about are like gems to a young student such as myself. If anything, it was informative and thought provoking.

[Jeremy Hornik · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting topic, scattered book. At its most lucid, delightful, but these bits were too far between.

[severyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Underwhelming and humourless account of something that ought to have been a little more interesting.

[Jonathan Bechtel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The guy makes fracture mechanics understandable and interesting.

[Jim White · Rating 4 out of 5]

I recall enjoying this.

[Roddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good on the science but I wasn’t so keen on the last few chapters where it got more self-indulgent.

[Don · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't finish. Stopped around page 80... Just too meandering. Author introduces some really interesting science, then drifts off in the personal anecdotes, never returning to the interesting bit.

[Pat Cummings · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this delightful treatise, materials theorist Eberhart explores the whys of the ways in which materials fail. This is not like the engineering question, "what cross-sectional area of substance x is required to sustain stresses of force y for a time period of z, under given environmental conditions." Eberhart explains:

I usually say, "I am a quantum chemist"... [T]o have fun, however, I say, "My research is concerned with the study of why things break." Usually a look of satisfaction appears on the questioner's eyes as he says, "Oh, so you are a mechanical engineer...." Now the fun begins, as I say, "No, I study why things break, not when."

Eberhart's decision to go into the field of quantum chemistry rose out of a childhood fascination with cracks and fractures in his marble collection. Why, he wondered, were the marbles that actually entered play so ugly and pitted? Why was the beautifully crazed baked marble (a fad when he was a child) so fragile? At college in Colorado, Eberhart lost his skis to a fracture and his Kevlar kayak to disastrous delamination in a single season, and this solidified his decision to change schools.

Did you know—
It took more than an iceberg to sink the Titanic.
The Challenger disaster was predicted.
Unbreakable glass dinnerware had its origin in railroad lanterns.
A football team cannot lose momentum.
Mercury thermometers are prohibited on airplanes for a crucial reason.
Kryptonite bicycle locks are easily broken.—from the publisher's product description.

At MIT, Eberhart would delve into the basic causes for fracture, working with Nobel-level luminaries in the new field of quantum chemistry—because we know more about what happens after materials break than we do about what happens just before they fracture. These studies would examine such disparate topics as why beating bronze and copper hardens them, why Japanese samurai swords could be hard on the edge and flexible in the shaft, what adding carbon to iron does that makes steel both harder and less brittle than wrought iron, and why the Titanic failed despite a design that should have made her able to stay afloat after the collision.

Graphite is made from carbon atoms tightly bound together into two-dimensional sheets; these sheets are then loosely bound together to form a two-dimensional crystal... graphite is said to be anisotropic, meaning it has very different properties depending on the direction in which it is "cut." When pulled in a direction that lies in the carbon sheets, graphite is very strong, making it an ideal substance from which to make tennis rackets, golf clubs and bicycles. At the other extreme, graphite is used as a lubricant because the weakly-bound sheets of atoms shear so easily.

Mark Eberhart also explores the toughness of materials, looking at where the energy of fracture goes when something breaks, at the historical quest for tougher, more-resilient materials, and the way entire scientific philosophies have grown around (and been broken by) discoveries of tougher substances. Along the way, he explains several puzzling catastrophes (the Challenger disaster and the in-flight fracture of an Aloha Airlines plane among them), and gives us some solid cause for worry whenever a man-made structure is used in a new or radically-extended way (as with hundreds-of-miles-long oil pipelines or bungee-jumping stunts.)

Eberhart makes this exploration almost painless, except the winces we share as we read of someone else's painful discovery. (His tale of a five-man bungee jump that drastically overloaded the tensile strength of the cable comes to mind.) Ranging from atomic-physics concepts to the studied attempt to break a Corelle dinner plate, this book is delightful, enlightening, and very intriguing.

[Bill Mutch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's a book that lands happily in the huge gap between 'Dick & Jane Science,' and totally technical review of a field aimed at professionals. There used to be considerable market for science non-fiction aimed at reasonably well educated, reasonably intelligent lay people who simply want to be better informed about current understanding of the world in science. I like to think of myself that way, and consequently enjoyed this narrative of one scientists journey from curious child, then undergraduate, to mature researcher. I particularly enjoyed that the narrative includes description of how factors in 'outside, real life' affected his evolution as a scientist. To satisfy his fascination with the process of self-destruction of materials he had to cross many disciplinary boundaries and in a sense invent his own field of inquiry. I understand that this is a common and often fruitful approach to some scientific puzzles. By the time he reaches the closing chapters of the book he has gone way past where my educational background and conceptual thinking could fully understand. That's a way of saying "over my head." He lost me. Never the less, the narrative, as far as I could follow it left me with some mental gain and admiration for the process.
It occurred to me that it would be interesting to compare Eberhart's "Why Things Break" with "Things Fall Apart" a celebrated novel by African writer Chinua Achebe. Turns out, this was not a fruitful line of thought. The comparison fell apart...Why did it break ?

[Forrest · Rating 2 out of 5]

A friend recommended this book, so I bought it and gave it a read.

It's a fast read, and the topic is fracture. The author is a professor at Colorado School of Mines, and the book is a summation of his career as well as his field of study.

The apparent upshot of it all is that the concept of materials "DESIGN", meaning the intentional creation of materials (mostly metals) with specific properties has been a Holy Grail of metallurgists for a long time, and he explores why this has been complicated. For someone with no metallurgy exposure, it might be a lot more fascinating than it was for me. It does have its humourous points regarding experimental, personal and professional bias, government funding of research, academia, and science and for a science book, it's kind of cute. He draws a great distinction repeatedly about the when-verus-why of fracture and failure, and brings in both quantum mechanics and topology to the discussion with illuminating, non-technical metaphor, but there is no meat behind his descriptions. It's like reading the ingredients on the potato chip package as opposed to eating the chips. Interesting, but not as filling.

There are better books on the "when" of structural failure, all of which seem more relevant to everyday life and most of which are better reads.

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite simply I never thought I'd describe a book on material science as "gripping". The first 150 pages are simply a compendium of amazing facts ranging from when airplanes break to history from the viewpoint of materials science to how resilient Radio-isotope Thermoelectric Generators are.

Very early, the author grabs your attention by differentiating between asking "when" things break and "why" things break. This question is captivating as he runs through why the area of research was ignored for so long. The author answers questions like "why are our engines only so efficient?" and "what does a forensic physicist do?". The last 50 pages drag as the author talks about computer modeling and deflection angles but even this is made relatively interesting as the author has a refined discussion on the relationship between computer modeling and computer simulating.

If you have ever found a general science book interesting, I think you will enjoy this.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book! I guess I hadn't really thought about why ceramics are hard or what exactly makes them ceramics, nor the different ways the steel can be tempered and what was so neat about how the samurais would harden their blades. I am interested in the topic because of what it might show me about the non-reducibility of some properties in higher-level sciences. The explanations that material scientists give for the strength or viscosity of materials often apply to large classes of materials with similar structural properties but made of very different atomic constituents. This becomes very obvious over the course of this book.

The one thing that this book really need is diagrams. There are NONE, which is absurd for a text constantly discussing different kinds of crystal structures. If you read this, I'd recommend also having a material science text handy.