Talk:Wear: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
This article does not address material loss and deformation through direct angular impingement of a solid under velocity on to a surface. I believe this would or should be classified as balistic wear? |
This article does not address material loss and deformation through direct angular impingement of a solid under velocity on to a surface. I believe this would or should be classified as balistic wear? |
||
:It is actually termed as erosion by solid particle impingement (see ASTM G76 for more details). Some people (even ASTM) call it erosive wear. The maximum material loss is observed around 20 degrees. There are many forms of erosion like abrasive erosion and cavitation erosion. [[User:Drajput|Drajput]] ([[User talk:Drajput|talk]]) 13:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Fretting Wear== |
==Fretting Wear== |
||
Revision as of 13:55, 14 October 2009
Frog and Railway crossing
The article refers to loss of dimension through processes known as frog and railway crossing. I believe that this included in the article is outright confusing for people as it is unexplained jargon. (I personally was dispelling images of hopping creatures, before checking for vandalism) I have removed it for the moment, but if someone wants to provide an explanation, link or image, that would be great User A1 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Impingment Angle Wear
This article does not address material loss and deformation through direct angular impingement of a solid under velocity on to a surface. I believe this would or should be classified as balistic wear?
- It is actually termed as erosion by solid particle impingement (see ASTM G76 for more details). Some people (even ASTM) call it erosive wear. The maximum material loss is observed around 20 degrees. There are many forms of erosion like abrasive erosion and cavitation erosion. Drajput (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Fretting Wear
Wouldn't fretting wear be considered a wear as well? Fretting doesn't fall into any of the current four catagories of wear though it can be a precursor to Abrasive wear. Lukeseed (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - I would also take out "surface fatigue" and instead have "fretting fatigue". Surface fatigue does not generally involve wear. I can do the necessary edits once I find a valid source. Sigmund (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Number of wear modes
I have reverted a change to the number of wear modes by an anonomous user for the second time, but did not check to see if it was the same IP/subnet -- Am I missing something here? The change was the same, is there a good reason for the change that I don't see? User A1 (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Not that I have changed the section, but in my experience, there are four principle wear modes (see Rabinowicz 1995, ASTM Hanbook, etc.), namely:
- Adhesive Wear
- Abrasive Wear
- Corrosive Wear
- Surface Fatigue Wear
Fretting, galling, erosion, impact, cavitation, etc wear are all sub processes of the four primary wear processes. The sub proccesses describe different manners in which the loads and sliding are introduced but the underlying mechanism is still the same. In this regard it is common to hear of abrasive erosive wear and so on. Obviously there is some contention to the primary wear mechanisms. In this scenario I think we should follow the format of large organisational bodies (ie. ASTM) or the most commonly applied manner represented in literature. Burger86 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Definition of wear
The definition of wear is not appropriate in the opening statement. The word "erosion" should not be there as erosion by itself is a kind of wear. It will be better to use the definition by ASTM. Drajput (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)