edge9001 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 it looks to me like the process of using this stuff just quench hardens the steel. what do you guys think? I mean all comments have to be approved so you cant even bring this to public opinion unless they want you to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Interesting, I have a can of Cherry red and I have no doubt it works... I am kind of surprised they got 55 RC though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Furrer Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Interesting, I have a can of Cherry red and I have no doubt it works... I am kind of surprised they got 55 RC though I would wager that they do not do this, but one can take 1050 and get it to 28RC and then quench to 55 easy....I would think they are using "mild" steel with little carbon to begin with though. I would have used a larger hardness tester. It is a case hardening compound..one of many on the market. They used to contain harmful chemicals, but maybe today they have found a safer way to do this. Ric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thingmaker3 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Diffusion rate of carbon in steel is directly proportional to time, exponentially proportional to temperature, directly proportional to the difference in carbon content at the boundry, and inveseley exponentially proportional to the distance from the boundry. So, yeah, thin steel gets better result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edge9001 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 Interesting, I have a can of Cherry red and I have no doubt it works... I am kind of surprised they got 55 RC though well if you have used it and testify to its validity then i will take you at your word. but it just hit me when i saw this video it seemed a bit fishy. of course at the same time everything has its place if its not a scam, right? thanks for the insight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thingmaker3 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I dug a little... MSDS for ths stuff shows "hazardous" ingredients including potasium salt and chromium oxide. I also found this: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4007302.html Titanium would not have to be listed in the MSDS as it is not hazardous. Larry, can you put some of what you treated under the microscope & see if it has titanium carbides? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forgemaster Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Looks awful similar to some stuff we used to have and which I believe can still be bought, called "Hardite". the main ingredient was I recall cynide, or some compound of it. It will only give a skin a couple of '1000 deep if that. Yeh if would have been interesting to have seen the hardness checked with like a proper Brinell machine. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Furrer Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I dug a little... MSDS for ths stuff shows "hazardous" ingredients including potasium salt and chromium oxide. I also found this: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4007302.html Titanium would not have to be listed in the MSDS as it is not hazardous. Larry, can you put some of what you treated under the microscope & see if it has titanium carbides? I do not think that titanium or Ticarbide would move across the interface and bond with the steel surface given the conditions of the powder/torch method...one needs a bit more technology for that to occur. I do recall my teacher, Paul Marx, saying some 20 years ago that he used such case hardening products and when the "Right to Know" law came out in the 1970's the compound stopped working. It took them a few years to get it to work again....his belief was that they removed the cyanide which was the energizer for the carbon uptake into the steel surface. Without an energizer (barium works as well and perhaps the Potassium salt) the carbon migration is slower so you need more torch time at temp. The difference between this and typical cementation (i.e. blister steel or gas cementation used in industry now with dry cracked ammonia) is the time and complexity of the technique. I would see no reason that this would not work, but as has been stated...the carbon rich layer is very thin due to the short time of heating....if you soak the tool in the powder inside a box in your forge you could get the carbon to go all the way through a 2" square bar...but that is not the point of this powder. All things being equal it may be best to just use better steel for the job to start out and give it a proper heat treatment. I believe that Rob Gunther Super Quench may be a good choice of A36 structural steel for quickie chisels, jigs and such in the shop...though I did quench some higher carbon A36 (one never knows what A36 is chemically as the designation is for PSI yield and not chemistry) in that once and it did not go so well. Ric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old N Rusty Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 a propane torch? or a plumbers acetyleen torch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clinton Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Diffusion rate of carbon in steel is directly proportional to time, exponentially proportional to temperature, directly proportional to the difference in carbon content at the boundry, and inveseley exponentially proportional to the distance from the boundry. So, yeah, thin steel gets better result. And the moon and stars have to be in conjunction with PI-R-SQ or the proportional difference will implode upon fortitude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainely,Bob Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Looks like at least two of the folks here are sleeping with theirs heads on a dictionary instead of a pillow. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchymist Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 If I remember correctly, there was a product called Casenite that did the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thingmaker3 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 And the moon and stars have to be in conjunction with PI-R-SQ or the proportional difference will implode upon fortitude Looks like at least two of the folks here are sleeping with theirs heads on a dictionary instead of a pillow. Perhaps it would help if I spat some chaw on the floor first & stuck my thumbs in my overall straps. Carbon gozinta or comzouta steel twice a much iffin you keep it at temp twice a long, an' trey a much iffin you keep it at temp trey a long - all else what bein' a same. Carbon gozinta or comzouta steel four times a fast when you gotsit twice a hot, & nine times a fast when you gotsit trey a hot. (Gotsta convert to that there Kelvin scale.) Agin all else what bein' a same. Iffin ye got twice a difference atween what's in and what's out, it move twice a fast. Iffin ye got trey a difference atween what's in and what's out, it move trey a fast. Iffin what else are a same fer both, y'know. Now deep inside (an deep fer a whale is more 'n deep for a briar-bush thorn where the sun don't shine) the carbon move slower than at the outside. Twice a fur in mean four times a slow, and trey afar in mean nine time a slow. All else bein held all steady & what not, as per usual. So, yeah, thin stuff'l gid'yup a right finer 'n a big 'ol honk. Any questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Actually, the old cyanide formulas created a hard surface mostly by "nitriding" and partly by carburizing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thingmaker3 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Same rules for diffusion apply to both carbon and nitrogen. Effect of temperature is greater for N than for C. Either way, indentation hardness will read higher on a thin part than a thick one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.