Is this true? set me straight.

jiminy said:
Nor would I expect that a part for a car door would need to be that tight.

Incorrect again. When dealing with Federal Safety Standards (FMVSS) for what cars have to endure in a dynamic situation, you better be sure your processing is tight with little variation. And just for clarification, that company does not use 1095.
 
Maybe I'm just reading the chart wrong ...does the chart allow for differing curves within it's boundaries? Can you draw a curve anywhere within the dark lines for each of the transformations?
 
fitzo said:
Well, I apologize for having deleted my post and making things confusing. :(

You guys can carry it on any way you want. I'll stay completely off this. Sorry.

No problem Fitz, I just thought you had made a very good point. I will discuss more now that I think I understand what the confussion is.
 
jiminy said:
Maybe I'm just reading the chart wrong ...does the chart allow for differing curves within it's boundaries? Can you draw a curve anywhere within the dark lines for each of the transformations?

Yes! Anything below and to the left of the curve in the middle will form martensite. If you cool in the other areas you will form the other microstructures.

You just need to avoid going into that "region" labeled with the A+F+C if you want martensite.
 
When dealing with Federal Safety Standards (FMVSS) for what cars have to endure in a dynamic situation,
I was under the impression that they've been relaxing those standard for years. And once again, I don't believe that tolerances have to be super critical to withstand impact ...In fact I imagine there is a pretty wide margin there ...particularly if they don't test the steel from batch to batch.

What you call 'tight' for a car door part ...I probably dont :)
 
Here is another pic showing the difference between regular quenching and Austempering. I am not sure what alloy it is but the gray section in the middle of each TTT curve can correlate to the A+F+C region in my original TTT for 1095.

The dark black lines show the trace of the cooling and tempering that the steel went through.

cooling.jpg
 
jiminy, unfortunately you remain a nameless, faceless screen name whom I know nothing of. If you've introduced yourself since you joined, I apologize for having missed it.

Could you perhaps tell me a bit about yourself and background, since your profile is essentially empty?

Thanks.
 
jiminy, unfortunately you remain a nameless, faceless screen name whom I know nothing of. If you've introduced yourself since you joined, I apologize for having missed it.

Could you perhaps tell me a bit about yourself and background, since your profile is essentially empty?

No ...you didn't miss anything. I simply wasn't aware that members to these forums were required to introduce themselves. And I'm not exactly an extrovert type personality, either :)
 
jiminy said:
No ...you didn't miss anything. I simply wasn't aware that members to these forums were required to introduce themselves. And I'm not exactly an extrovert type personality, either :)

No, yer not required to identify yourself at all. Not at all. It's just a courtesy some of us like before we enter into any dialogues. :)
 
0.25mm over 1000mm is pretty tight, especially to hold that to a CPK of 1.33.
That's a surface tolerance? I thought we were referring to a 'strength' tolerance.

Cpk = Process Capability Index
Cp = Process Capability
"Cpk measures how close you are to your target and how consistent you are to around your average performance. A person may be performing with minimum variation, but he can be away from his target towards one of the specification limit, which indicates lower Cpk, whereas Cp will be high. On the other hand, a person may be on average exactly at the target, but the variation in performance is high (but still lower than the tolerance band (i.e. specification interval). In such case also Cpk will be lower, but Cp will be high. Cpk will be higher only when you r meeting the target consistently with minimum variation."

And it sounds like a Cpk of 1.33 is the bare minimum. To wit:
"You must have a Cpk of 1.33 [4 sigma] or higher to satisfy most customers."
 
Well, what do I say now? I hate to do it, and say it, but Jiminy you don't know squat. You did not know what normalizing was/is, you don't know how to read a TTT curve, and you don't know the automotive industry, but you try to come across that you do by quoting information that you find on the internet.

You are not as smart as you think you are. That is evident by you continuing to try to argue points that you have no knowledge on. I am not against discussing what you have to say, but I don't want people out there that are trying to learn about heat treating reading your comments and thinking that you are correct when you are wrong.

Plain and simple you are/were wrong about normalizing, about the TTT curves, about the FMVSS requirements, and about statistical reliability.

What you quoted about CPK is correct but you have no idea what it means as with all of the information you have quoted in this and other threads. The God's honest truth is that you don't know what you speak of and my best advice to you is to sit back and learn before you give advice.

No one here wants me to lecture on CP and CPK, but they do want relivant information on how to heat treat steel and that is what I have given. You have given crappy info, here say, and opinions. Back up your information with evidence and emperical knowledge and maybe you can earn some respect.
 
"What he said!"

Sean, I think it must be the fact you're young and vital and I'm 20 years older and burned out. I started to say pretty much what you did, but then shrugged my shoulders and wrote, "Not worth arguing." :D
 
fitzo said:
"What he said!"

Sean, I think it must be the fact you're young and vital and I'm 20 years older and burned out. I started to say pretty much what you did, but then shrugged my shoulders and wrote, "Not worth arguing." :D


Right on, let's fight!

Tongue in check of course. ;)
 
Just so we all know, heat treating is a hot topic. It is not my main objective to denounce anybody, unless of course the info is bull crap.

I do my best to convey what I know.
 
Hi guys,

This is one of the main reasons I go on the forums. To get feedback from people who know more than I do. Good stuff. I'm a finish carpenter with 30 years experience and can tell you most anything you'd want to know about the subject. It was gaining insight into the steel, that was and is the challenge for me. I was fortunate in that I had access to a metallurgist, which many people, starting out, do not have. In the beggining, many form their views about heat treating based on old myths or just out right bogus information.This does not improve their chances of turning out a good knife. So, when people, as in this thread, are willing to take their time to discuss the subject it helps to clear the smoke and break the mirrors. Thanks for shinning some light. Fred
 
Well this is good stuff but I have to say that it's still a bit over my head because I don't have the background to understand specifically what you're talking about. I have only an intuitive idea what the TTT curve represents. Is there a reference online somewhere that I can use to learn how to read the TTT curves, and further what's a good resource for general HT info that I can have nearby?

My heat treating to date has been pretty much a whim and a prayer, backed up by simple testing. But I'm about to want to get very scientific about it so that I can replicate my results reliably from steel to steel. I have a decent oven on the way and need to be able to transfer the TTT timing and temps to the oven's controller and my quenching process.

So what suggestions do you have for me to learn enough to understand the forgoing discussion? Thanks for any input,
 
Laredo7mm said:
Awww, come on Fitzo, it was just getting good. ;)

I would rather discuss this than the thread about that U2 regrind blade from Cliff Stamp. :D

.
hey Hey
everyone needs an excuse to eat pop corn on ocation right? ..
 
Laredo7mm said:
Awww, come on Fitzo, it was just getting good. ;)

I would rather discuss this than the thread about that U2 regrind blade from Cliff Stamp. :D

.
hey Hey Sean
everyone needs an excuse to eat pop corn on ocation right? .. ;)

fitzo said:
No, yer not required to identify yourself at all. Not at all. It's just a courtesy some of us like before we enter into any dialogues. :)


Mikes Right ..MHO
if we have a name and know who we are talking to it makes for a more
valued conversation I think.. if that is the word for it. :D

it's what makes this forum so much differant than others. pal's and buddys live here.. :)
 
Well, what do I say now? I hate to do it, and say it, but Jiminy you don't know squat. You did not know what normalizing was/is, you don't know how to read a TTT curve, and you don't know the automotive industry, but you try to come across that you do by quoting information that you find on the internet.

You are not as smart as you think you are. That is evident by you continuing to try to argue points that you have no knowledge on. I am not against discussing what you have to say, but I don't want people out there that are trying to learn about heat treating reading your comments and thinking that you are correct when you are wrong.

Plain and simple you are/were wrong about normalizing, about the TTT curves, about the FMVSS requirements, and about statistical reliability.

What you quoted about CPK is correct but you have no idea what it means as with all of the information you have quoted in this and other threads. The God's honest truth is that you don't know what you speak of and my best advice to you is to sit back and learn before you give advice.

No one here wants me to lecture on CP and CPK, but they do want relivant information on how to heat treat steel and that is what I have given. You have given crappy info, here say, and opinions. Back up your information with evidence and emperical knowledge and maybe you can earn some respect.

You had the chance to let it rest when I posted:
I was under the impression that they've been relaxing those standard for years. And once again, I don't believe that tolerances have to be super critical to withstand impact ...In fact I imagine there is a pretty wide margin there ...particularly if they don't test the steel from batch to batch.

What you call 'tight' for a car door part ...I probably dont
But no, you've got to continue to attempt to press your point, even when you are, in fact, proven wrong. And when exposed as being wrong, what do you now resort to? Personal attacks.
0.25mm over 1000mm is pretty tight, especially to hold that to a CPK of 1.33.
Again, we were talking 'strength' tolerances ...and all of a sudden you switch to talking about surface tolerance. Then you try to dazzle us with your 'Cpk' number, which turns out to be total bull$%*^. The fact is that a Cpk of 1.33 is the bare minimum and that the statement ""You must have a Cpk of 1.33 [4 sigma] or higher to satisfy most customers." is, in fact, apparently accurate. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
You post TTT charts without explaining what everyone is looking at, claiming that the metal must follow that curve, without explaining that one can plot many curves that can fall within the boundaries of that graph, and result in different hardnesses for different quenching mediums, which was my point in the first place. And so what if I've never seen a TTT chart before? I'm sure many people here haven't. It's not like it's rocket science, after all ...once it's explained to folks what we're looking at ...and if you would have explained yourself better in the first place than the point would have been moot.

As for the 'normalize' statement ....LOL! I believe the conversation went something like ...Mr Wheeler said something to the effect that there were different meanings to the term 'normalize', and my statement in response was that 'normalize' appears to be a fancy term for anneal. Bad choice of words is all, as I should have better phrased my sentence to convey the point I was trying to make, which was that many times I see the terms used interchangeably, or in a confusing manner. I'm well aware of the difference between 'normalizing' and 'annealing', thanks. It just wasn't worth clarifying the point at the time, as it matters little to me what others may think.
People post stuff ...questions, and I try to respond as best I can. If you don't like my answers, then post your own. But when you're caught red-handed arguing a position that suddenly turns to mush, ala "1.33 Cpk", don't attempt to redeem yourself by starting personal attacks, as that only shows that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

about the FMVSS requirements

Refresh my memory, please, as I don't recall what you're referring to.

And yes, I make mistakes, wrong statements, bad wording, misconstrued meanings, etc, as does everyone at one time or another. People are human, they make mistakes ...live with it.
But cripes, argue the point ...don't turn it into a personal attack, as it only makes you look ignorant, and degrades the whole forum experience for everyone.
 
Back
Top