Billet arm problem- Metallurgist, ethicists please respond
05-21-2004, 04:55 PM
#76
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: menlo park
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ed...i wish i knew the answer to this....
Since other arms from this billet have been succesfully plated without incident, it seems to me there are two possibilities...
1) The billet had a localized flaw which caused the copper to precipitate out of solution in one area, or perhaps accumulate improperly (im guessing here) Like i said the certs are on the way.
or
2) The plater realized when he saw the black come up in the etching tank that he was working with 2024, but it was too late to do anything for that part. 2nd part was plated differently. Once the part is dipped into an incompatible etch, I'm told that there is no fixing the problem.
I think the machining theory is a stretch...heat adequate to alter the intergranular structure at the surface of a material as conductive as this, in sections as thin would cause damge to the inside of the part as well. Further...the speeds and feeds are not altered from one set of arms to the next. Finally there are mill-finished and water cut areas of the part that show the damage as well.
I still think krutschman's idea, of cutting and attempting to replate the part makes sense....but to be sure, i could never satisfy everyone that maching COULD not have had an affect on the outcome.
I dont think we need an abritrator. We just need to make a decision.
I have offered the customer an independent analysis of the part, with a definitive answer to seal the financial responsibility for the costs of the tests, and the burden of the price of the parts,
or
the return of 600 dollars of the purchase price of the part, pursuant to the "if nobody's happy, it must be fair" theory. Im not sure that this is very satidfying because to be honest...if im right...i want to know that...and if im wrong, i want to know why.
There are two alternatives on the table...
an all-or none approach with increased financial risk to both of us...whoever turns out to be wrong is further out of pocket for the testing.
and a compromise to share the loss, and forgo a definitive answer.
Skip is confident in the skill of his plating shop, as i am confident in the material supplier and machinists responsible for producing these arms, and it would be awfully nice to know which one of us should be looking for new vendors.
Skip...im not sure whats going on here...i cant get emails out this morning...i did get your last messages, and i understand your position, but i am sticking with the offer i just reiterated...try my alternative email...i dont know if its my PC or the network im on.
Since other arms from this billet have been succesfully plated without incident, it seems to me there are two possibilities...
1) The billet had a localized flaw which caused the copper to precipitate out of solution in one area, or perhaps accumulate improperly (im guessing here) Like i said the certs are on the way.
or
2) The plater realized when he saw the black come up in the etching tank that he was working with 2024, but it was too late to do anything for that part. 2nd part was plated differently. Once the part is dipped into an incompatible etch, I'm told that there is no fixing the problem.
I think the machining theory is a stretch...heat adequate to alter the intergranular structure at the surface of a material as conductive as this, in sections as thin would cause damge to the inside of the part as well. Further...the speeds and feeds are not altered from one set of arms to the next. Finally there are mill-finished and water cut areas of the part that show the damage as well.
I still think krutschman's idea, of cutting and attempting to replate the part makes sense....but to be sure, i could never satisfy everyone that maching COULD not have had an affect on the outcome.
I dont think we need an abritrator. We just need to make a decision.
I have offered the customer an independent analysis of the part, with a definitive answer to seal the financial responsibility for the costs of the tests, and the burden of the price of the parts,
or
the return of 600 dollars of the purchase price of the part, pursuant to the "if nobody's happy, it must be fair" theory. Im not sure that this is very satidfying because to be honest...if im right...i want to know that...and if im wrong, i want to know why.
There are two alternatives on the table...
an all-or none approach with increased financial risk to both of us...whoever turns out to be wrong is further out of pocket for the testing.
and a compromise to share the loss, and forgo a definitive answer.
Skip is confident in the skill of his plating shop, as i am confident in the material supplier and machinists responsible for producing these arms, and it would be awfully nice to know which one of us should be looking for new vendors.
Skip...im not sure whats going on here...i cant get emails out this morning...i did get your last messages, and i understand your position, but i am sticking with the offer i just reiterated...try my alternative email...i dont know if its my PC or the network im on.
05-21-2004, 05:05 PM
#77
Rennlist Member
Dirk,
Did not realize that I was slinging mud. Sorry that it came off that way. I am used to finding the root cause on problems and it looked like everyone was leaning one way that did not make sense to me.
Yes, I lurk allot and am only sticking my head in because I do work with 2024 and am concerned over the problem.
If I had any vested interest in the outcome (same town as Skip comment) why would I wait 5 days. I see that the first post happened Monday.
Did not realize I was going to get flamed for offering an opinion. Thanks for being unwelcoming to meand reminding me why I do not write much. I do have a metallurgist on staff and it is his comments that I have added to the list. After all, mumzer was asking for metallurgists opinions.
Ed
Did not realize that I was slinging mud. Sorry that it came off that way. I am used to finding the root cause on problems and it looked like everyone was leaning one way that did not make sense to me.
Yes, I lurk allot and am only sticking my head in because I do work with 2024 and am concerned over the problem.
If I had any vested interest in the outcome (same town as Skip comment) why would I wait 5 days. I see that the first post happened Monday.
Did not realize I was going to get flamed for offering an opinion. Thanks for being unwelcoming to meand reminding me why I do not write much. I do have a metallurgist on staff and it is his comments that I have added to the list. After all, mumzer was asking for metallurgists opinions.
Ed
05-21-2004, 05:06 PM
#78
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: menlo park
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
911 racer
...what im saying is the damage appears in areas that are water cut, and as delivered from the Mill as well as areas that featured significant removal of material.
If anything, the damage appears to be worst in a few spots where limited cutting actually occured, but it really does appear to be fairly random.
Im all for finding out what the specific baths were...i have been asking that since the problem occurred. I think Skip wants to avoid bugging the plater any more.
Sending them another piece of 2024 isnt gonna do anything for us...IF it was there process, they know what they did wrong by now. If not, the material will plate fine...that doesnt tell us anything about what happened ot the one bad arm.
We would need to test that piece of material...which is what i have been proposing.
disagree simply on 2024 as a suitable alloy...that's all.
...what im saying is the damage appears in areas that are water cut, and as delivered from the Mill as well as areas that featured significant removal of material.
If anything, the damage appears to be worst in a few spots where limited cutting actually occured, but it really does appear to be fairly random.
Im all for finding out what the specific baths were...i have been asking that since the problem occurred. I think Skip wants to avoid bugging the plater any more.
Sending them another piece of 2024 isnt gonna do anything for us...IF it was there process, they know what they did wrong by now. If not, the material will plate fine...that doesnt tell us anything about what happened ot the one bad arm.
We would need to test that piece of material...which is what i have been proposing.
disagree simply on 2024 as a suitable alloy...that's all.
05-21-2004, 05:09 PM
#79
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: menlo park
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dirk....you have been spanked on the peepee by ED.
hang your head in shame...and go have a sandwich.
so there.
ps...for your impertinence, im gonna make a set of arms for you out of leaded 1015.
kidding of course.
hang your head in shame...and go have a sandwich.
so there.
ps...for your impertinence, im gonna make a set of arms for you out of leaded 1015.
kidding of course.
05-21-2004, 05:10 PM
#80
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 911racer
Did not realize I was going to get flamed for offering an opinion. Thanks for being unwelcoming to meand reminding me why I do not write much. I do have a metallurgist on staff and it is his comments that I have added to the list. After all, mumzer was asking for metallurgists opinions.
Did not realize I was going to get flamed for offering an opinion. Thanks for being unwelcoming to meand reminding me why I do not write much. I do have a metallurgist on staff and it is his comments that I have added to the list. After all, mumzer was asking for metallurgists opinions.
I was under the impression that you had a intent other than finding out what happened.
dirk....you have been spanked on the peepee by ED.
I'm near tears on this one.
05-21-2004, 05:13 PM
#81
Rennlist Member
Mumzer.
I am with you on the machining being the culprit. Would really need to be some aggressive feeds and speeds to change the state of the al. Would be great to see what the etch bath is made up of.
I know that 3rd party analysis is WAY EXPENSIVE and you could spend more than the cost of the arms just finding out.
Ed
I am with you on the machining being the culprit. Would really need to be some aggressive feeds and speeds to change the state of the al. Would be great to see what the etch bath is made up of.
I know that 3rd party analysis is WAY EXPENSIVE and you could spend more than the cost of the arms just finding out.
Ed
05-21-2004, 05:16 PM
#82
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: menlo park
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 911racer
Mumzer.
I am with you on the machining being the culprit. Would really need to be some aggressive feeds and speeds to change the state of the al. Would be great to see what the etch bath is made up of.
I know that 3rd party analysis is WAY EXPENSIVE and you could spend more than the cost of the arms just finding out.
Ed
Mumzer.
I am with you on the machining being the culprit. Would really need to be some aggressive feeds and speeds to change the state of the al. Would be great to see what the etch bath is made up of.
I know that 3rd party analysis is WAY EXPENSIVE and you could spend more than the cost of the arms just finding out.
Ed
ps...id go wash my hands...i have met dirk and he looks dirty....plus he spent last week in tijuana.
05-21-2004, 05:31 PM
#84
Drifting
Mumzer - last you said you wanted to get a price for a failure analysis, where you able to get one? The one I got was $1,000 at a minimum and the metallurgist said that it would be cost prohibitive to do this since in all likelihood the price for the analysis would be quite a bit higher than the costs in dispute. Don't you think spending more on the analysis than what the parts are worth is loosing sight of the big picture. I offered to split your cost of $800 which I think is equitable. That way we would both be out of pocket the exact same amount - $400. If we split the whole amount then the you are using the $400 profit to offset your out of pocket expense. I would be out $600 and you would be out $200 - doesn't really seem fair. Since you aren't a business that has marketing, overhead, etc then the $400 is pure profit and not gross margin that would cover overhead, and should therefore be taken out of the picture. The most equitable solution is that where we are both out of pocket the same amount.
As far as the incompatible etch solution - I am still having problems with a couple of key features of the damage. First the damaged part has very localized damage. I would think the damage would be fairly uniform. Instead there are parts, such as the webbing that have virtually no damage. Also the second part does have a little bit of damage just much less, and we all know my feeling on the plater conspiracy theory so I won't go on about that anymore. Second, the plater ran the part through the anodizing line after the damage during the desmutt and the badly damaged part took zero anodizing while the lightly damaged part took some light anodizing. neither part was further damaged in the anodizing baths and they were racked up right next to one another - saw it with my own beady little eyes.
I have resisted posting any pictures on the list to avoid the "my brother friends, sister's boyfriend, once knew a guy who had a part get damaged exactly like that from anodizing" speculative comments that I have seen from time to time on the list, and I sent them to Mumzer who I felt was the one who was relevant, but I guess this thread keeps going so its probably time.
As far as the incompatible etch solution - I am still having problems with a couple of key features of the damage. First the damaged part has very localized damage. I would think the damage would be fairly uniform. Instead there are parts, such as the webbing that have virtually no damage. Also the second part does have a little bit of damage just much less, and we all know my feeling on the plater conspiracy theory so I won't go on about that anymore. Second, the plater ran the part through the anodizing line after the damage during the desmutt and the badly damaged part took zero anodizing while the lightly damaged part took some light anodizing. neither part was further damaged in the anodizing baths and they were racked up right next to one another - saw it with my own beady little eyes.
I have resisted posting any pictures on the list to avoid the "my brother friends, sister's boyfriend, once knew a guy who had a part get damaged exactly like that from anodizing" speculative comments that I have seen from time to time on the list, and I sent them to Mumzer who I felt was the one who was relevant, but I guess this thread keeps going so its probably time.
Last edited by Skip Wolfe; 05-21-2004 at 05:46 PM.
05-21-2004, 09:37 PM
#85
Race Director
"Don't you think spending more on the analysis than what the parts are worth is loosing sight of the big picture."
It may be worth it to prevent future occurances of this incident. Such as if the analysis found that the billet was faulty or some such.
It may be worth it to prevent future occurances of this incident. Such as if the analysis found that the billet was faulty or some such.
Last edited by Danno; 05-21-2004 at 10:46 PM.
05-21-2004, 11:55 PM
#86
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hotlanta - NE of the Perimeter
Posts: 12,269
Received 266 Likes
on
153 Posts
Maybe it ought to be called a draw.
I've watched this from the 'cheap seats' so to speak and it appears to me that neither party is willing or financially able to 'eat' any costs associated with the faulty parts/billet/machine process/anodize process/insert problem here.
While I admire the true level of civility expressed by both parties, but it would appear that neither party can agree to disagree as to the root cause. Getting to the root cause may cost $$$$ to determine - but at who's expense???
If no one cannot afford to determine the root cause of the problem - then the 'blame' cannot be assigned.
As far as I am concerned, I would rather read an update to this topic once the 'root cause' has been identified, or a reasonable and mature agreement has been reached by the 2 parties instead of the public debates on what to do by the major parties involved.
I've watched this from the 'cheap seats' so to speak and it appears to me that neither party is willing or financially able to 'eat' any costs associated with the faulty parts/billet/machine process/anodize process/insert problem here.
While I admire the true level of civility expressed by both parties, but it would appear that neither party can agree to disagree as to the root cause. Getting to the root cause may cost $$$$ to determine - but at who's expense???
If no one cannot afford to determine the root cause of the problem - then the 'blame' cannot be assigned.
As far as I am concerned, I would rather read an update to this topic once the 'root cause' has been identified, or a reasonable and mature agreement has been reached by the 2 parties instead of the public debates on what to do by the major parties involved.
05-22-2004, 03:35 AM
#87
Rennlist Member
Originally posted by Jay Wellwood
Maybe it ought to be called a draw.
I've watched this from the 'cheap seats' so to speak and it appears to me that neither party is willing or financially able to 'eat' any costs associated with the faulty parts/billet/machine process/anodize process/insert problem here.
While I admire the true level of civility expressed by both parties, but it would appear that neither party can agree to disagree as to the root cause. Getting to the root cause may cost $$$$ to determine - but at who's expense???
If no one cannot afford to determine the root cause of the problem - then the 'blame' cannot be assigned.
As far as I am concerned, I would rather read an update to this topic once the 'root cause' has been identified, or a reasonable and mature agreement has been reached by the 2 parties instead of the public debates on what to do by the major parties involved.
Maybe it ought to be called a draw.
I've watched this from the 'cheap seats' so to speak and it appears to me that neither party is willing or financially able to 'eat' any costs associated with the faulty parts/billet/machine process/anodize process/insert problem here.
While I admire the true level of civility expressed by both parties, but it would appear that neither party can agree to disagree as to the root cause. Getting to the root cause may cost $$$$ to determine - but at who's expense???
If no one cannot afford to determine the root cause of the problem - then the 'blame' cannot be assigned.
As far as I am concerned, I would rather read an update to this topic once the 'root cause' has been identified, or a reasonable and mature agreement has been reached by the 2 parties instead of the public debates on what to do by the major parties involved.
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot about plating aluminum from this thread. Tell you what, send me a bad arm and I'll get an unbiased opinon.
