Larrin, i sincerely appreciate all the work and effort you’ve put into these articles. I know a lot of research has been done by your effort on our behalf! Thanks so much!
Learning what cryo can or can’t do for knife steels is such a “cool” subject!
Ha ha! I’ll be here all night folks.
But seriously......
So I get the physics behind hardness increase (RA to untempered martensite that gets tempered). Which would be my main goal for cryo (or sub zero) treatment. My goal with cryo would be nothing more than an increase in hardness by the mechanisms you outlined. (If there is more to be gained besides an increase in hardness....awesome).
I understand increased wear resistance with the “eta” carbide precip (or rather n-carbide precip, smaller than eta carbide) upon tempering.
Did you come across anything in your research concerning a better “cohesion” between the carbides and the matrix these carbides reside in?
I think there are claims that “cryo” not only adds to wear resistance by “eta” or “n” carbides, but also a better “cohesion” between carbides and their bond with the surrounding matrix.
Is this something you have come across in your research?
(To recap, my understanding about cryo holds is:
1. Increase in hardness due to more martensite conversion (RA)
2. “Eta” or “n” carbides that precip upon tempering that add wear resistance.
3. A better “cohesion” or maybe to say a “tighter bond”, between the carbides and the matrix that surrounds them. )
I think think the RA conversion is pretty straightforward and understandable, resulting in higher hardness.
I think transition carbides can be fairly easily understood, if indeed that is the mechanism happening.
About the mechanism of the bond between carbides/martensite matrix is what I wonder about. And maybe I am all wet and off base? I defer to your thoughts. (Cryo makes stronger bonds between Aus grain or aus/carbide grain).
Thank you again, Larrin!