Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

I have not had a chance to watch the video, but reading the procedure, there are elements of both. Cooling to just above or close to Ms is a feature of both. Holding there is a characteristic of austempering. Slow cooling to room temperature is typical of marquenching, though this is typically an air cool where yours is much slower. In that sense it is neither, and it is both.
 
It is certainly a marquench. There is no dictated cooling rate in a marquench. You can cool in air or you can cool slower and it is still a marquench. If one were to say that cooling at a certain rate or slower after the initial quench leads to an improvement in mechanical properties that is a hypothesis that can be tested. And it would still be a marquench.
 
You are right, it's a little/tiny bit of both. AQ microstructure is drastically diff with CWF HT - blade is still bendable/straightenable. Basically, built a mart skeleton/frame with change in crystal orientation, then cryo+ 275F to convert trapped aust pockets.

me2 said:
I have not had a chance to watch the video, but reading the procedure, there are elements of both. Cooling to just above or close to Ms is a feature of both. Holding there is a characteristic of austempering. Slow cooling to room temperature is typical of marquenching, though this is typically an air cool where yours is much slower. In that sense it is neither, and it is both.
Click to expand...
 
IME - Cooling rate makes huge different, directly translate into magnitude of aust->mart driving force. Once cooling rate is slow enough, lattice orientation (within grain) will deviate because driving induces pulling force.

CWF ht-ed blade at room temp is soft and still soft (albeit not as much) after cryo+back-to-room-temperature. Perhaps, best to humor my hand-waving-metallurgy by watch the video. It's a much simplified of what I've in mind. As I stated before - it could be that I got good result for wrong reasons (thus lucky me). Hopefully my concept panned out because I see easy evolution of it for everybody to work on.

Larrin said:
It is certainly a marquench. There is no dictated cooling rate in a marquench. You can cool in air or you can cool slower and it is still a marquench. If one were to say that cooling at a certain rate or slower after the initial quench leads to an improvement in mechanical properties that is a hypothesis that can be tested. And it would still be a marquench.
Click to expand...
 
bluntcut said:
IME - Cooling rate makes huge different, directly translate into magnitude of aust->mart driving force. Once cooling rate is slow enough, lattice orientation (within grain) will deviate because driving induces pulling force.

CWF ht-ed blade at room temp is soft and still soft (albeit not as much) after cryo+back-to-room-temperature. Perhaps, best to humor my hand-waving-metallurgy by watch the video. It's a much simplified of what I've in mind. As I stated before - it could be that I got good result for wrong reasons (thus lucky me). Hopefully my concept panned out because I see easy evolution of it for everybody to work on.
Click to expand...
I read the post. I watched the video. Your "metallurgy" doesn't make any sense.
 
With respect, thanks for watching the video.

It would be more constructive and learning experience for myself and others to explain why it doesn't make sense; why it shouldn't worked; etc... or is it because it lacked metallurgical divine intervention ;)

Larrin said:
I read the post. I watched the video. Your "metallurgy" doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
 
bluntcut said:
With respect, thanks for watching the video.

It would be more constructive and learning experience for myself and others to explain why it doesn't make sense; why it shouldn't worked; etc... or is it because it lacked metallurgical divine intervention ;)
Click to expand...
It's like watching a movie where they put "science" terms in the mouth of a scientist. All of the words are real, they mean real things and are used by scientists. They just don't make any sense because they're just using all of those words in nonsensical sentences. It's hard to critique things because it doesn't make sense from the top to the bottom. It would be easier if it made sense until I had a disagreement halfway through, then I could talk about that part. Furthermore, you have a made up microstructure and also a heat treatment. You appear to have invented them independently. There is no reason to think that the two have anything to do with each other.
 
bluntcut said:
Explanation: build the outter structure by minimize fcc phase change to bct driving/pushing force and at the same time induce pulling force, hence change of lattice orientation
Click to expand...
I will use one example because it takes too much time to go over every single sentence.

1) "build the outter (sic) structure by minimize fcc phase change" There is no "outer structure" of martensite. Martensite laths or plates grow from boundary to boundary, not around boundaries.
2) "minimize fcc phase change to bct driving/pushing force" I really don't know what this means. A "driving force" is a real thing. But I don't know what it means to minimize fcc phase change to bct driving force.
3) "and at the same time induce pulling force" I am not aware of "pulling force" as a metallurgical term. I did a google search and didn't find anything. I don't know how one would differentiate between a "pulling" and "pushing" force or what that would be referring to.
4) "hence change of lattice orientation" Nothing described above would lead to a change in lattice orientation. I have to make several assumptions just to know what "lattice orientation" you are referring to. Therefore I have to read several posts and watch several videos just to get an idea. I believe what you are saying is that the later martensite will have a different "lattice orientation" than that initially formed. But there is not reason to think that. Martensite forms with specific orientation relationships to the parent austensite.
 
So, if you don't mind elaborate from a metallurgist expertise viewpoint. What cwf ht (listed above) suppose/should/maybe produce? and due to what metallurgical processes? I would love to learn/adapt ways to make sense.

Oh, have you or know others have done similar ht as cwf ht? <= a slightly loaded question because sometime it takes actual experience to 'see'. I ask the same question about Super Quench 52100/W2/etc... Can't tell me it is impossible in a place, when I am already there.

Larrin said:
It's like watching a movie where they put "science" terms in the mouth of a scientist. All of the words are real, they mean real things and are used by scientists. They just don't make any sense because they're just using all of those words in nonsensical sentences. It's hard to critique things because it doesn't make sense from the top to the bottom. It would be easier if it made sense until I had a disagreement halfway through, then I could talk about that part. Furthermore, you have a made up microstructure and also a heat treatment. You appear to have invented them independently. There is no reason to think that the two have anything to do with each other.
Click to expand...
 
I for one don't care much how it's called or explained. Even if the terms are wrong (an example would be nice)
Also please read bluntcuts posts and you'll see English isn't his native language. It isn't mine either and why I'm good at math and could teach it in my original language I'd be hard pressed to do it in English. The same might apply to Bluntcuts metal science.

What should matter the most here are the results and they can be measured.

However in the long term a better understanding of the underlying physics will help with better replication and even further improvements.

Larrin said:
It's like watching a movie where they put "science" terms in the mouth of a scientist. All of the words are real, they mean real things and are used by scientists. They just don't make any sense because they're just using all of those words in nonsensical sentences. It's hard to critique things because it doesn't make sense from the top to the bottom. It would be easier if it made sense until I had a disagreement halfway through, then I could talk about that part. Furthermore, you have a made up microstructure and also a heat treatment. You appear to have invented them independently. There is no reason to think that the two have anything to do with each other.
Click to expand...
 
Jens Schuetz said:
I for one don't care much how it's called or explained. Even if the terms are wrong (an example would be nice)
Also please read bluntcuts posts and you'll see English isn't his native language. It isn't mine either and why I'm good at math and could teach it in my original language I'd be hard pressed to do it in English. The same might apply to Bluntcuts metal science.

What should matter the most here are the results and they can be measured.

However in the long term a better understanding of the underlying physics will help with better replication and even further improvements.
Click to expand...
These problems are beyond issues with English. The "results" and the metallurgy are separate questions. If the person proposing the heat treatment is willing to make up fake metallurgy to support his claims then I have a hard time taking him seriously. He is proposing a made-up microstructure with literally zero evidence that this microstructure exists. Why not say, "I don't know what the resulting microstructural differences might be but I am very excited about the resulting properties."?
 
Larrin said:
These problems are beyond issues with English. The "results" and the metallurgy are separate questions. If the person proposing the heat treatment is willing to make up fake metallurgy to support his claims then I have a hard time taking him seriously. He is proposing a made-up microstructure with literally zero evidence that this microstructure exists. Why not say, "I don't know what the resulting microstructural differences might be but I am very excited about the resulting properties."?
Click to expand...
I get your reservations and as a scientist I'd also keep things vague which I couldn't explain and suggest further studies. Bluntcut is probably just filling in the blanks with what seems plausible to him. It's most likely not really intentional faking but more the desire to make sense of things.
Maybe its comparable to alchemy. Many wrong assumptions and theories but still trial and error can lead to cool results.

Let's just see where it goes I mean there is no time pressure and once people try to replicate it and get similar results it could be amazing and once somebody correctly explains how it's happening there'll be no stopping it.
 
Thanks for the explanation, Larrin.

1) & 4) sure, based on current metallurgical view. Which translate directly into grain bct triggered elongation mostly in 1 direction, therefore higher dislocation and other malady microstructure due to spatial problem. OK, maybe physics dictate this to be so. However if one wander into thin-film field when layers deposition involved, a different physics rules applied, even though both can involved crystal.

2 & 3) I described what I envision in chem+physics process and conceptual what I try do. Current metallurgical view is very sure how this aust->mart conversion suppose (or the only way) to taken place. I presented (or babbling non-sense) a possible hybrid model.

It would be educational for all of us to discuss merit/mis-guided/etc of cwf ht in context of chem+physics and possibly operational-math. It would save me & others's time not to pursuit 2 steps crystal lattice construction.

Larrin said:
I will use one example because it takes too much time to go over every single sentence.

1) "build the outter (sic) structure by minimize fcc phase change" There is no "outer structure" of martensite. Martensite laths or plates grow from boundary to boundary, not around boundaries.
2) "minimize fcc phase change to bct driving/pushing force" I really don't know what this means. A "driving force" is a real thing. But I don't know what it means to minimize fcc phase change to bct driving force.
3) "and at the same time induce pulling force" I am not aware of "pulling force" as a metallurgical term. I did a google search and didn't find anything. I don't know how one would differentiate between a "pulling" and "pushing" force or what that would be referring to.
4) "hence change of lattice orientation" Nothing described above would lead to a change in lattice orientation. I have to make several assumptions just to know what "lattice orientation" you are referring to. Therefore I have to read several posts and watch several videos just to get an idea. I believe what you are saying is that the later martensite will have a different "lattice orientation" than that initially formed. But there is not reason to think that. Martensite forms with specific orientation relationships to the parent austensite.
Click to expand...

For those have time to waste - please read & wonder: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/topological-crystals-part-3/
 
By your own admission you've hypothesized a theoretically impossible microstructure and then for some reason believe that the heat treatment you're performing also happens to be forming this microstructure. But you have no way of observing the microstructure so you just go on faith that your hypotheses and heat treatments have magically aligned. I don't see why I even need to point out the problems here.
 
Larrin, I appreciate of your input/comments. Per OP - I generated good (ok maybe not magical) results, now finally shared the 'how' to replicate. I envisioned/hypothesized/conjectured 'why' it worked but would be delighted for someone to show us reality of metallurgical 'why' it works.

Larrin said:
By your own admission you've hypothesized a theoretically impossible microstructure and then for some reason believe that the heat treatment you're performing also happens to be forming this microstructure. But you have no way of observing the microstructure so you just go on faith that your hypotheses and heat treatments have magically aligned. I don't see why I even need to point out the problems here.
Click to expand...
 
Larrin said:
These problems are beyond issues with English. The "results" and the metallurgy are separate questions. If the person proposing the heat treatment is willing to make up fake metallurgy to support his claims then I have a hard time taking him seriously. He is proposing a made-up microstructure with literally zero evidence that this microstructure exists. Why not say, "I don't know what the resulting microstructural differences might be but I am very excited about the resulting properties."?
Click to expand...

Firstly excuse me to barge in discussion .I will lie if I say that I understand what you and bluntcut are saying .Since the bluntcut process for HT now is known , what do you think ? What has happened in steel , why Bluntcut get so remarkable results from any steel he HT in this very high HRC hardness??
 
I don't believe in innovation via random trials & errors. To string a bunch of lucky steps together to formed cwf ht, random it's not. I could be using wrong reasons but please share if you do know the right reasons.

Larrin said:
These problems are beyond issues with English. The "results" and the metallurgy are separate questions. If the person proposing the heat treatment is willing to make up fake metallurgy to support his claims then I have a hard time taking him seriously. He is proposing a made-up microstructure with literally zero evidence that this microstructure exists. Why not say, "I don't know what the resulting microstructural differences might be but I am very excited about the resulting properties."?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top