Recent content by pedrof

Does anyone have experience of assessing noise from a machine? We had a 12100 risk assesment done and it lists ISO/TR 11688-1 as the reference. What are the limits of exposure/levels etc.? Thanks

I'll mention that one too. Sounds like the easiest one for them to try is going to be Bohler N695 extra or 1.4125. They are being told locally the heat treatment/hardening reduces the corrosion resistnace but I'm told by other sources if it is tempered correctly this shouldn't knock it down too...

Thanks for the responses, that's given me something my contact can look into. I have also heard Stavax may work.

I have an application for a tool where the corrosion resistance of D2 steel is proving a problem. A hardenable stainless such as 420 should be hard enough and at least let us avoid plating. The environment is industrial, humid and mildly corrosive (China). A supplier put me on to the crucible...

Thanks for the feedback. I think we are going to investigate the cause further before changing material. I see the D2 already has a high chromium content so should be fairly good if kept clean and dry. The only option after that is to try 440C or something like 154CM with extra moly.

Yes we have, we can go that route but would rather reduce the chances of it occuring. We suspect it is moisture left from cleaning after manufacturing test and then a long shipping time. We just need a less susceptible alternative to D2, some of the surfaces are aesthetically important. Would...

We are having some rust issues with D2 steel. It is 58-60 HRC. I was looking at 440C as a possible alternative to this tool steel since it can be hardened. Are there are major downsides to using this instead?

It does seem to be vendor driven, they will steer to what they are certified too. I think I'll go B733. Also, hasn't AMS-C-26074 now been superceded by AMS2404?

I have a steel part I want to plate made from 12L14 carbon steel. Medium wear and mild service. Suppliers have varying standards listed on their websites, are there any reasons to use one of these standards over another? I think I need Grade B Class 1, if I go 26074 or Class 1 Type 4 SC2 under B733

I think it's clear that datum H as a stop for the part in the chuck doesn't affect the diameter runouts. We have a culture here of labelling not just the diameters but also the faces parallel to H with the same sequence in the frame. i.e. all frames basically read runout to G and H. My second...

Having said that though, a similar example Fig 9.5 in ASME shows all surfaces referenced to G and H (or D and C in the example) and says "at any measuring position each circular element and each surface must be within specified runout tolerance when part is mounted on datum surface C and rotated...

not sure if it attached.....http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=b2530847-0b44-4f6a-bc33-2cfa819431ae&file=runout.JPG

Simple one for you gurus out there. Is the perpendicularity of datum G to datum H implied by the total run out ( the 0.02 would not be achieveable if the surfaces were not perpendicular)? OR does the H datum need to be controlled to datum G with its own geometric tolerance? I have attached a jpg.

OK, just to clarify then can you tell me what would happen to the double acting cylinder in the following scenarios: 1) in a power cut 2) in losing the air supply 3) in a valve malfunction - I was also looking at the Festo VOFA range, festo number 569819. Would this be suitable? Thanks for...

I have a vertical double acting cylinder which is actuated using a 5/3 normally closed valve (festo part number 170248) (full description: 3 position, 5 ported, 4 way, Single Solenoid Air Pilot Actuated,Spring Centered). The user regularly puts their hands underneath this ram. As I understand...