Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

Thanks, marthinus & Jens & Chris!

Chris, you are a great friend. You certainly have participated in shaping the outcome of CWF. At time, you are the only one willing to listened to my "I've ideas" and then provided encouragement on "HT Params Tuning" via numerous ht attermpts. Since friendship (started with sharpening-nut to metallurgy), you are my sounding board, that wouldn't hesitate to echo/call what they are rather than what I want to hear :thumbup:

*****all

How did I come up with CWF? Feel free to label/name the process.

My thinking process/idea behind CWF

Given Fe/C Crystal and energy/thermal -> let build an ideal structure using chemistry & physics (mainly spatial).

This is a similar process in comp sci - build a base class in OO paradigm. This approach free me from false-limitations; field authoritative all-knowing. Surely, crystal has no human emotion.

*note: I've limited (vague value - haha) knowledge in chem & phys.

So what are main variables/things involve - well, my main focus/consideration

Chemistry: activation and de-activation, potential, atomic radius, bond (structural/lattice and covalent)

Physics: BCC, FCC, BCT - spatial/dimensional from a single crystal to whole structure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure
* whole structure in context = a grain or the whole blade if it's mono(aka no) grain like those used in turbine blade.

Ideal structure in my mind = weaved lattice. Thus orientation/vector(i.e. has direction) must change but most likely be orthogonal.

... CWF ...

It could be (most likely) that i got good results via wrong reasons. I will glad to learn the actual reason/theory.
 
Last edited:
Luong,

It is said that it takes two to make friends or enemies, and we did make friends ;). Your openness and willingness to share ideas and sometimes test objects, made it all possible. :thumbup:

If memory serves me correctly, it started with balance strop and the layered stacked compound particles theory. :)
 
Last edited:
Due to the more homogeneous(?) structuring and resulted stability at higher hrc, would failure be innately more prone to being catastrophic, as opposed to the standard damages sustained (micro/macro chipping and elastic deformation/rolling)?

Once the failure threshold is met, wouldn't the CWT also act as a detriment?
I am curious if there is a noticed lowering of Young's Modulus (please pardon my lack of eloquence or incorrect terminology, as I am not a materials engineer or a metalurgist).

While the design may be more stable and wear resistant, would it not be at some cost? I am curious as to what unforseen tradeoff may be, if any.
 
You are right if without the 'weaved' part, then force will propagate along lattice plane = catastrophic. 'Weaved' disperse energy in smallest impact crater radius, so damages would confine to radius/perimeter of destruction(where force exceeded uts). It's not that hard to cleave diamond. So if an asteroid is gunning toward earth, it would be great for us if earth has strong-kevlar-like crust.

Yes, CWF will cost slightly higher than plain'old dunk -> done ht. If I can CWF ht myself, so could any of you. Of course be cake for big companies.

Sure, post-ht grind will be much more challenging - even for simple carbon. Higher strength matrix will resist wear/cutting/plowing from shaping mechanisms (belt, sand paper, stone, etc..).

Young Modulus - I've brought up a few times about structure congruence. Where hopefully it enhance stretch & compress properties, translate to wider elastic region. To me, I put a low value for plasticity - unless spec required failure mode to be so. In edge tools common usage - Plastic/ductility is one of those compromises/work-arounds invented to bandage a poor matrix foundation.

NJBillK said:
Due to the more homogeneous(?) structuring and resulted stability at higher hrc, would failure be innately more prone to being catastrophic, as opposed to the standard damages sustained (micro/macro chipping and elastic deformation/rolling)?

Once the failure threshold is met, wouldn't the CWT also act as a detriment?
I am curious if there is a noticed lowering of Young's Modulus?

While the design may be more stable and wear resistant, would it not be at some cost? I am curious as to what unforseen tradeoff may be, if any.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So coming from your perspective, plasticity and non-elastic deformation is essentially a "perceived" benefit and more accurately a negative attribute conveniently shown as a positive characteristic?
 
I just watched the video. Shaving black bamboo like soft pine :eek:
And the crunchy wood (argentin?).

I did cut some bamboo long time back and it's an edge killer.

Even with all the CWF shared, I'm still shocked & impressed... to say the least.
 
To me Yes. Plastic/ductility is good when you want/make it so, otherwise a bandage is a bandage.
NJBillK said:
So coming from your perspective, plasticity and non-elastic deformation is essentially a "perceived" benefit and more accurately a negative attribute conveniently shown as a positive characteristic?
Click to expand...
 
I'm excited to see where you are going with this. Perhaps I could send you a blade or two for HT and compare with a conservative, tested HT from Peter's or similar.

I think I get the basic concept... Could you elaborate on expected limitations of CWF comparatively between different alloys and/or carbon %?
 
bluntcut said:
You are right if without the 'weaved' part, then force will propagate along lattice plane = catastrophic. 'Weaved' disperse energy in smallest impact crater radius, so damages would confine to radius/perimeter of destruction(where force exceeded uts). It's not that hard to cleave diamond. So if an asteroid is gunning toward earth, it would be great for us if earth has strong-kevlar-like crust.

Yes, CWF will cost slightly higher than plain'old dunk -> done ht. If I can CWF ht myself, so could any of you. Of course be cake for big companies.

Sure, post-ht grind will be much more challenging - even for simple carbon. Higher strength matrix will resist wear/cutting/plowing from shaping mechanisms (belt, sand paper, stone, etc..).

Young Modulus - I've brought up a few times about structure congruence. Where hopefully it enhance stretch & compress properties, translate to wider elastic region. To me, I put a low value for plasticity - unless spec required failure mode to be so. In edge tools common usage - Plastic/ductility is one of those compromises/work-arounds invented to bandage a poor matrix foundation.
Click to expand...
So your claim is that you have increased young's modulus through heat treatment?
 
What method do you find works best for maintenance of blades made in this method? What abrasives are you using, with what progression and what techniques, both for heavy damage repair and for routine maintenance?
 
Larrin - you are on my list of top 3 respected metallurgists. Your question is loaded, so I'll defer answer to you - I can't dance w/o legs.

Best regards,
==Luong

Larrin said:
So your claim is that you have increased young's modulus through heat treatment?
Click to expand...
 
Same old abrasives, except wear/abrade rate is slower on high strength matrix.

FortyTwoBlades said:
What method do you find works best for maintenance of blades made in this method? What abrasives are you using, with what progression and what techniques, both for heavy damage repair and for routine maintenance?
Click to expand...
 
I think, it's better, once disclose 'how' - just ht yourself & compare.

Free elements & particles (carbide/nitride) are just padding and objects embedded in matrix. Type & volume% will affect activation/de-activation/potential in phase changes. The 'why' part of this CWF is breathlessly long & will get complicated quick. If my 'why' is incorrect, better wait for metallurgist to provide better/correct 'why'.

Park Swan said:
I'm excited to see where you are going with this. Perhaps I could send you a blade or two for HT and compare with a conservative, tested HT from Peter's or similar.

I think I get the basic concept... Could you elaborate on expected limitations of CWF comparatively between different alloys and/or carbon %?
Click to expand...
 
Larrin said:
So your claim is that you have increased young's modulus through heat treatment?
Click to expand...
I dont think he is claiming that he has increased the modulus, or changed it at all.

I read his statements as the following, We take Young's Modulus as accepted and as a standard scale, but that being said we don't have to accept our heat treatment procedures as they currently stand and that we can get more from our alloys.

While Young's Modulus will still stand and be applicable, we will just be further up the scale and have a higher level of general performance.

I know that You (Larrin) understand the following (much better than I), but this is to help Wens and others less informed along.
wensynch said:
^ Heat treatment with crystals. I think.
Click to expand...
As far as doing it "with crystals", this is incorrect.
He was speaking about the crystalline structure within the alloy, while in reference to the elements contained within prior to or after being in solution (heated to a certain degree to allow the carbon and other elements to be diffused)

At this point, all of the heat energy is used to cause the crystal change, so the temperature stops rising for a short time (arrests) and then continues climbing once the change is complete. Therefore, the alloy must be heated above the critical temperature for a transformation to occur. The alloy will usually be held at this temperature long enough for the heat to completely penetrate the alloy, thereby bringing it into a complete solid solution.

From here the alloy is quenched, which in essence "locks everything in place". This usually results in a brittle state of the alloy, but this is where "CWF" is causing some ripples since the blades are not tempered and used in the "as quenched" state while maintaining a higher toughness, abrasion resistance, and other appreciable benefits that I seem to be missing the information of.
 
Last edited:
Sort of a hint: I've avoided the term "As Quenched" for a while now - but most people probably didn't caught that. "As Transformation Completed" would be a more accurate term. Since the matrix hasn't precipitate - therefore at liberty I used "Untempered" term.
 
Does every 150 lbs person has the same strength? If not, we shouldn't think/look at - every 60rc equate to the same strength.

Does a swimming pool filled with big rocks has the same strength as a block swimming pool size concrete? Well, both will support 1T (HRC) car drives across it.

Thus far, I pointed out about HRC as a quantifier/indicator but it's a little deeper than that - maybe CWF matrix is more resemblance a swimming pool size concrete ;)
 
My guess is that you are doing some grain refining before quenching from higher than normal aus temps, using shorter soak times to prevent grain growth.

Hoss
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top