----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: MP35N
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dendriite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: MP35N
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ronn Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 12:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: MP35N
> >
> >
> > > At 12:25 AM 5/20/01 -0500, Dan wrote:
> > > >Alloy.
> > >
> > > Oops. I nearly didn't scroll to the end. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Given the venue, though, don't you think you should have included the
> > > hardness on the Brinnell scale? <g>
> > >
> > Even Rockwell hardness would be usefull. This alloy sounds like a
> substitute
> > for stainless steel in a corrosive enviroment. Is it classed as a
> stainless?
>
> No, it is not, it is not iron based. It is a substitute for stainless.
It
> is stronger and more ductile than stainless too. Hardness is not its best
> feature, but it doesn't have to be.
>
> Well, I looked some more and found at
> http://rockgateco.com/products/MP35N.html
>
> That the hardness of the best cold worked MP35N was 50 in Rockwell C
>
IIRC 50C was considered good for stainless. Any harder and it began to get
brittle and more subject to corrosion in high sulpher conditions.
Of course since this is a different material with different properties, the
similarities in hardness is likely coincidental.
xponent
rob
