Heat/cryo treatment of s4 stat gears?
12-09-2005, 11:20 AM
#41
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 148
Here are some things I was able to find on the web. I cite two cryo companies because they give out alot more info on the suject than the others.
This company claims that NASA is involved in cryo research, and NASA even contracted out some robotic arm pieces to them for use on the space shuttle. http://www.metal-wear.com/More%20Detail.htm
This company has a couple technical articles. One is suposedly from the Fanju MENG, Kohsuke TAGASHIRA, Ryo AZUMA and Hideaki SOHMA Muroran Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mizumoto, Muroran, Hokkaido, 050 Japan.
http://www.cryogenius.co.za/How_It_Works.html
These next few links are from what I believe are unbiased sources.
This web maggazine claims NASA was directly involved in the development of crygenic treatment.http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/cge/cge100.html
These consultants claim that crogenics do offer benefits, and they even claim it benefits something in the rotary engine that I'm sure will start a another big discussion. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mtce/coldinfo.htm
A test of cryo treated trumpets conduted by various members of the TPIN.http://www.whc.net/rjones/jasonb/
And, saving the best for last... RMOTC's very own test of cro treated high-wear well components, which has a lot of testing info. http://rmotc.com/pdfs/020138.pdf
This company claims that NASA is involved in cryo research, and NASA even contracted out some robotic arm pieces to them for use on the space shuttle. http://www.metal-wear.com/More%20Detail.htm
This company has a couple technical articles. One is suposedly from the Fanju MENG, Kohsuke TAGASHIRA, Ryo AZUMA and Hideaki SOHMA Muroran Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mizumoto, Muroran, Hokkaido, 050 Japan.
These next few links are from what I believe are unbiased sources.
This web maggazine claims NASA was directly involved in the development of crygenic treatment.http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/cge/cge100.html
These consultants claim that crogenics do offer benefits, and they even claim it benefits something in the rotary engine that I'm sure will start a another big discussion. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mtce/coldinfo.htm
A test of cryo treated trumpets conduted by various members of the TPIN.http://www.whc.net/rjones/jasonb/
And, saving the best for last... RMOTC's very own test of cro treated high-wear well components, which has a lot of testing info. http://rmotc.com/pdfs/020138.pdf
12-09-2005, 03:57 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by Cheesy' post='784961' date='Dec 9 2005, 12:13 AM
im deffinitly not an advocate of cryo treatments, but it has been proven and it is documented that it does transform 'retained austenite' to martensite. There is generally not a large volume of retained austenite so there is minimal dimensional changes, so it can sometimes be used to increase the dimensional stability of a component. Under high applied stress retained austenite can from 'burst martensite' which can be more brittle than plate or lathe martensite. So cryo treatment may not increase strength as such but could increase fracture toughness, which is potentially a better design parameter than yeild strength. The amount of retained austenite is entirely dependent on the alloy and previous heat treatments.
so what are the final material properties of a peice that has been subjected to cryotreatments?
What are the nominal values for:
Yeild Strength
Tensile Strength
% elongation at break
Rockwell Hardness
what is the method of test to establish these parameters?
12-09-2005, 04:17 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by Newguy707' post='785052' date='Dec 9 2005, 12:20 PM
Here are some things I was able to find on the web. I cite two cryo companies because they give out alot more info on the suject than the others.
This company claims that NASA is involved in cryo research, and NASA even contracted out some robotic arm pieces to them for use on the space shuttle. http://www.metal-wear.com/More%20Detail.htm
That seems kinda sketch. Because i work for http://www.mdrobotics.ca/ and we make the canada arm "robotic arm for space shuttle". http://www.mdrobotics.ca/what_we_do/index.html
Thermal Controlled Products Limited is not our list of approved suppliers, they don't even show up as an unapproved supplier. I'll check with the senior engineers here on Monday, I've only been with this company for 1.5 years, They started designing the Canada Arm back in 1974 so if the senior engineers who say they have never heard of them then it's a false claim.
12-13-2005, 09:27 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,108
ok I got an answer from our senior technical engineers here. We have never used that process before for the Canada Arm or any other peice of hardware ever made by us.
The guys have also never heard of the process being used in anything going into orbit.
The guys have also never heard of the process being used in anything going into orbit.
12-13-2005, 06:36 PM
#45
Fabricator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Ohio (Hebron) Zephyrhills Fla.
Posts: 1,322
Originally Posted by Cheers!' post='786073' date='Dec 13 2005, 07:27 AM
ok I got an answer from our senior technical engineers here. We have never used that process before for the Canada Arm or any other peice of hardware ever made by us.
The guys have also never heard of the process being used in anything going into orbit.
So, how many cryo people did you call? How many sent you their customer lists? How many sent samples?
How many test coupons did you divide and sent half of each for a free process, so that you could fatigue both to death side by side?
I cannot prove a negative.
I can only lead a horse to water.
If I ask 100 people who have never heard of you, if they know you, and they all say no they don't, does that mean you don't exist?
Anything you don't buy with a drawing or spec is outside of your control. There is a MIL for configuration control that adds a bunch of cost. That MIL requires the manufacturer to warn the Government if they plan to change any feature of material of a product under contract. They must submit drawings and specs for approval of the change, or continue to deliver the contracted configuration.
Run a dump of the Cage Code and Part Number buys you make, and run that against a list of the P/N buys wth the Comfiguration control MIL as part of the contract.
What would you find out?
You have configuration control on about 5% of your buys. So that means that 95% of anything you buy is just some companies part number. And that means that you are not specifying anything except the P/N and it isn't your P/N, it's thiers. And that means they can change any feature of that component for any reason, any time they want, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. And that includes changing a feature that may render your end item useless, inoperative or damaged.
And it may include dropping the P/N, never making that item ever again, and destroying the data so nobody else can make it either. This very popular now with all of the bastard lawyers running around.
So, are we learning anything yet?
A large quantity of your parts for your main product, and far more for your support equipment and test equipment is off the shelf stuff, and neither you nor the head engineer has any idea when any particular item was changed in any way by whoever made it.
And that includes valve seats that were cryo soaked for a week, because all of that part number contain cryo soaked valve seats, and it's the best solenoid valve there is, and it is a part number buy, and you don't know **** about it unless you have a catalog from that company, and they actually put the cryo soak in that catalog for that P/N. And they probably won't because that is their little secrete for longest seat life in the industry, and they don't mention it anywhere. And that is why their valve is on the shuttle.
So would you bet your life that nothing that you have seen in you operation, be it end item or support equipment has been cryo treated?
The only absolute accurate statement that will pass logical muster is "I don't know" Because you don't, and the chief engineer dosen't know either.
When you pull up an item description on any NSN (National Stock Number) item there is usually some amount of data available for that item. This might even include heat treat data, specs and standards, materals colors, and so on at great length.
In the case of some items, there is barely enough data to identify the item. There will be a CAGE code for who made it (Commercial And Government Entity) and at least one part number. There may be dozens of cages and P/Ns. All of the RNC/RNVC of 3/2 or 5/2 are good buy numbers. That means that you may be shipped any item from that list, and that means that you don't even have control of the P/N you order in some buys. And you tell me that with no data at all for some items, Canada has never bought (not even) one part that has been cryo treated?
You don't know. You chief engineer doesn't know.
Now get on the horn and convince the NASCAR people there is no advantage to cryo treating their axles.
And get me a big stack of specs for growing nanotubes. (before the 17 years of patent protection runs out)
Lynn E. Hanover
12-13-2005, 07:30 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,108
We are not talking about cage codes and buying catalog standard parts with MIL Spec designation. We are talking about one off custom designed peices that do not have part numbers, nor is used anywhere else other than by us. We want to know what the possible improvements are, or even negetive improvements.
I don't think this conversation is about the improvements in cryotreating anymore but rather a pissing contest between you and I.
I'm not talking about traceability of miltary hardware, or any other hardware for that matter. I'm interested in what cyrotreating can do. What are the actual improvements. Does tensile strength go up significantly while yield strengh improvements show little gains? Is the peice more brittle? Do I need account for that in the design of the part? It costs money to do testing, money I don't have from my own pockets, and money can be better spent on using better designed parts or materials that don't call for undocumented or unproven processes.
The robotic arm is all custom made one of peices. The joint housings, the gears, the shafts, everything mechanical is one off except for the fasteners. The only thing not is electrical hardware such as IC chips, harness connecotrs and such. And you dont need to care about. The company only has 600 people, with less than 20 of them who actually designed the mechanical system of the arm back in the 70s. If the guys who did the calcs, did the drawings and supervised the manufacture of the parts shoudl know whether or not cryotreating was used or not.
I don't think this conversation is about the improvements in cryotreating anymore but rather a pissing contest between you and I.
I'm not talking about traceability of miltary hardware, or any other hardware for that matter. I'm interested in what cyrotreating can do. What are the actual improvements. Does tensile strength go up significantly while yield strengh improvements show little gains? Is the peice more brittle? Do I need account for that in the design of the part? It costs money to do testing, money I don't have from my own pockets, and money can be better spent on using better designed parts or materials that don't call for undocumented or unproven processes.
The robotic arm is all custom made one of peices. The joint housings, the gears, the shafts, everything mechanical is one off except for the fasteners. The only thing not is electrical hardware such as IC chips, harness connecotrs and such. And you dont need to care about. The company only has 600 people, with less than 20 of them who actually designed the mechanical system of the arm back in the 70s. If the guys who did the calcs, did the drawings and supervised the manufacture of the parts shoudl know whether or not cryotreating was used or not.
12-13-2005, 07:36 PM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,108
I don't know why we keep on going back to this configuration control buisness, i'm not looking for traceability or what not. I want to know what the final improvement is after cyrotreating. I need the information to design the part, to know what wall thickenss, the max length I can have a beam, the shape factor I should consider. Stuff like that. What is the expected surface hardness. What good is cryotreating when I can't even know the final performance of the treated part? I might as well design the part that does not require cryotreating.
12-13-2005, 07:51 PM
#48
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 93
I had a discussion about cryotreatment with a friend yesterday. He owns and operates a cnc lathe and for one of his customers he makes drilling heads for oil exploration. They're made of 4140 and would usually break through the thread after a certain amount of use so he suggested cryo treatment. They are now lasting atleast 3 times as long, needless to say his customer is rapt. The process increases strength and hardness.
I think the trick is finding someone who knows what they're doing rather than the treatment itself.
I might get an old crank done and get a lab to do some tests on it. The process itself is cheap enough.
I think the trick is finding someone who knows what they're doing rather than the treatment itself.
I might get an old crank done and get a lab to do some tests on it. The process itself is cheap enough.
12-13-2005, 11:56 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 10,906
I had considered cryo treating the stat gears for a few high hp motor buildups and decided on a surface treatment process that we've had success with in the shop. Evidently it decreases parasidic drag enough to show measureable gains on the dyno, and lower operated temperatures by as much as 30+ degrees when done on ring and pinions, and or transmissions gears/shafts. I have seen bad wear patters removed on both of the mentioned applications, and both ran noticeable quieter and smoother, however I don't know about any of the mentioned claims. In terms of material failure, its suppose to increase the metals ability to resist deformation under load. I thought what the hell I'd give it a shot. And before anyone asks, I don't know the techincal information about the process, if after having the process done and I never break a stat gear, then thats all the information that I will ever care about...
12-14-2005, 05:25 PM
#50
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: GA
Posts: 148
I guess some day the details of cryogenic treatment will be reasearched and written down in text books. Progress can be very slow sometimes...and hampered intentionally.
It is pretty clear Cryogenics has been in use a long time. (just like many things we consider to be new) It's a no brainer how certain rocket fuels of yesterday and today are contained. NASA has an extensive testing facillity and laboratory for cryogenic research; however, none of their papers that I have found so far have said anything about the treatment of metals to enhance their properties.(other than superconductors)
Link Link
As stated before, having no "scientific" documented proof does not mean something does not exist.
The evidence is pretty obvious when treated parts outlast untreated parts. We just don't have a good enough explaination yet.
I recomend people to check out the CSA's Website for more info. In their latest issue of their Cold Facts magazine they had some pretty good responses on the topic of cryo treatment from their spring issue.(which I hope I can get a hold of) I quote a part of a response here as it is from someone from metal-wear.com, and he makes some good points. When I get around to it I might contact them to find out which space shuttle arm they were talking about, and if they have documented proof.
Well, I'd have to say thats my two cents worth on the subject. I have no hard feelings or bitternes against anyone who has posted here; only respect for each of your views and gratitude for taking the time and effort to provide information and take part in this debate.
You deserve my most sincere nopistons salute...
It is pretty clear Cryogenics has been in use a long time. (just like many things we consider to be new) It's a no brainer how certain rocket fuels of yesterday and today are contained. NASA has an extensive testing facillity and laboratory for cryogenic research; however, none of their papers that I have found so far have said anything about the treatment of metals to enhance their properties.(other than superconductors)
Link Link
As stated before, having no "scientific" documented proof does not mean something does not exist.
The evidence is pretty obvious when treated parts outlast untreated parts. We just don't have a good enough explaination yet.
I recomend people to check out the CSA's Website for more info. In their latest issue of their Cold Facts magazine they had some pretty good responses on the topic of cryo treatment from their spring issue.(which I hope I can get a hold of) I quote a part of a response here as it is from someone from metal-wear.com, and he makes some good points. When I get around to it I might contact them to find out which space shuttle arm they were talking about, and if they have documented proof.
It is a shame that conditions are such that people try to use hype to sell this process. It is so good that it needs no hype. Although there is a fair body of research about the process, much of it is useless because researchers are looking in the wrong place. They look to measure tensile strength, hardness, and changes in microstructure. I am convinced that the mechanism of cryogenic processing goes deeper. I believe that beyond the obvious austenite to martensite transformation, and the formation of carbides, there is something happening in the crystal lattice structure. This would explain why cryogenic processing works on aluminum, brass, copper, etc. I believe that cryogenic processing will enjoy a general upswing in the near future. This is because industry is starting to use it more and more. The use of cryogenics on brake rotors and brake drums is saving fleets tremendous amounts of money. It is this type of economic use that will provide the push to do the research into why the process works. It has taken a long time to get past the “scientists” who demand to see the research and understand everything about the process before it can be considered. This is a pretty silly concept. For instance, the martensitic transformation is arguably the phenomenon that enabled the development of our industrial society; yet this mechanism was not fully quantified until the first half of the twentieth century, long after we had created, for example, the internal combustion engine and flying machines. Speaking of flying machines, it was over twenty-five years after its first flight before Orville Wright knew precisely why his invention flew. Yet in that twenty-five years, the spawn of his invention were fighting wars and flying non-stop from New York to Paris. Technological progress does not flow unidirectionally from the research laboratory to the production floor and then to the public. Random processes coupled with chance observation often play a role of alerting the research community to areas of inquiry. In fact, it is often the commercial worth of a process that creates the need to research it. Regards, F. J. (Rick) Diekman, Controlled Thermal Processing, Chairman, ASM Cryogenic Processing Sub Committee, info@metal-wear.com.
Well, I'd have to say thats my two cents worth on the subject. I have no hard feelings or bitternes against anyone who has posted here; only respect for each of your views and gratitude for taking the time and effort to provide information and take part in this debate.
You deserve my most sincere nopistons salute...