Talk:Stainless steel

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stainless steel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Sheffield High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Metalworking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Epoxy#Adhesivese|epoxies]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Reducing acids

Stating that acids can be either reducing or oxidizing is incompetent! An example of acid, which may act as a reducing agent, is HI. Formic acid can be considered reducing as well. Hydrochloric and dilute sulfuric acid are non-oxidizing, but ARE NOT reducing! Stating that acids can be either oxidizing or non-oxidizing is fine, because a reducing acid is also non-oxidizing. But many non-oxidizing acids ARE NOT reducing.

See Reducing agent. Gradatmit (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had that wording for years. Per WP:BRD it should stay that way until (if) consensus is reached to change it. And the personal attack is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the personal attack!? I did NOT say that you are incompetent! I said that the statement is incompetent! 94.25.177.135 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to quibble about. Please don't make comments like that.

One could just as well say that acids can be reducing and non-reducing. If acids are categorized as "oxidizing" and "non-oxidizing" then let's add a source to that effect. Similarly if they are categorized as "oxidizing" and "reducing" as claimed then let's add a source for that. If that was just an editor's terminology the we should reword it properly. user:Geimoe added this more than 5 years ago [1] and it has not been contested since, but that editor has not [typo corrected 25 September 2023] been active for several years. Meters (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question discusses oxidative corrosion, which is a chemical process. The concepts of oxidation/reduction are taught in high-school chemistry classes. The same applies to basic reactions of mineral acids with metals and other materials. Sources are necessary to support statements about research/technical material, not high-school-level concepts.

In basic terms, a substance is considered a reducer/oxidizer if it can be readily oxidized/reduced by common oxidizers/reducers. In a reaction of common metals (and other reducers) with oxidizing acids, protons are not normally reduced to hydrogen, but the element forming the acid anion is reduced instead. For example, concentrated sulfuric acid reacts with oxidizable materials and may yield a variety of reduced forms of sulfate, such as sulfur dioxide: H₂S^VIO₄->S^IVO₂. When diluted, the basic process H⁺->H₂ normally occurs, if possible. The only element, which can be oxidized in sulfuric acid is oxygen, so someone understanding elementary chemistry would not call sulfuric acid "reducing" regardless of its concentration. The chlorine ion in hydrochloric acid can be oxidized a bit easier, but considering its oxidation potential, again it cannot be called "reducing" either. HI is an example of an acid, which can be considered reducing.

Of course, "neutral" acids can be called as both non-oxidizing and non-reducing. Only in the context in question, oxidative corrosion is discussed, which means talking about reducing/non-reducing acids is pointless. Gradatmit (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that the terminology "reducing/non-reducing" would be of any use here, just that with the current lack of justification in the article one can't tell whether it should be oxidizing/reducing, oxidizing/non-oxidizing or reducing/non-reducing. And the section does seem to

Not all of our readers have a high school chemistry education, and not all of those who have a high school education in chemistry will remember that education. For that matter, I'm not aware of any policy that says that only technical matters beyond high school level require sourcing. Certainly WP:NOTCITE doesn't say that. This is Wikipedia, not a technical research paper. There seems to be a large difference between what "the average adult recognizes as true" (Wikipedia's standard for not needing sourcing) and what you (a PhD in chemistry according to your user page) think everyone should know about chemistry. You are trying to change something that has been in the article (unchallenged) for more than 5 years. Again, if the norm is to refer to acids as "oxidizing" and "non-oxidizing" then just provide a source to that effect and we'll fix it, but right now all we have is your say so.

And your contention that this section is only discussing oxidative corrosion seems at odds with the statement "Increasing chromium and molybdenum content provides increased resistance to reducing acids". Meters (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Availability section is oddly specific to the Netherlands and reads a bit like an advertisement

Should it really be linking to specific businesses like that? Also it seems odd that "maintenance" is a subheading of "availability"; those seem like unrelated topics. 2600:1700:9DA1:1D2F:E47D:8E4E:B8B3:2A54 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removing it. Meters (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was added just a few days ago. Meters (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever 30x alloy Tesla is using?

Tesla claims to have made some modifications to existing 30x stainless steel alloys, with R&D done by their own (apparently, in concert with SpaceX) materials engineering/metalurgy shop, in order to make a new alloy of stainless steel. Apparently, they have recently started calling this particular alloy "HFS" (per this and other sources) and are using it extensively in their new pickup truck EV. They previously just called the alloy 30X.

They don't make the steel. They buy large coils from regular/standard suppliers of stainless steel alloys. I read somewhere it may be similar, or identical?, to the cold-rolled alloy they are using for the new SpaceX huge launch vehicle: Starship. This the the world's largest and most-powerful launch vehicle ever now, larger than the Saturn V, and has made a couple of test flights. But am unsure if the particular alloy for that rocket is confirmed in reliable sources.

Given the number of consumer orders and projected production volume for the new stainless-steel-body Cybertruck, it would appear that this new alloy is an economically-significant, and clearly a notable alloy.

When might we find serious (laboratory? or academic?) analysis of just what this new alloy is? Composition? Properties? etc.? Would be good to add that particular grade/type/formulation to improve the article. N2e (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical contact resistance

In the "Conductivity" section the phrase "non-electrical contact resistance (ECR)" is found. It appears obvious that the "non-" part is incorrect. Evidence: 1) the following acronym, "ECR"; 2) the phrase is linked to the Wikipedia article discussing "electrical contact resistance". 3) the discussion in the paragraph seems to make the "non-" nonsensical. Seems like "non-" is obviously the result of some kind of typo. 2601:405:4180:E9A0:2CC3:8076:89CE:6FB4 (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference [46]

Reference [46] linking to "McGuire, Michael F. (2008) Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of High Performance Austenitic Stainless Steels" is seemingly broken - the link provided does not link to a specific page nor the pdf, but to a generic search field with 'austenitic stainless steel' inputted into the search bar. The archived link is no better, linking to the same search page, which does not even load the search results. The closest work I can find on the website is "Practical guidelines for the fabrication of high performance austenitic stainless steels (16001)", however it is a different work - should the reference be simply relinked to this book? 89.188.39.69 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]