[AR] Re: Astraseals vs. welding
- From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:22:45 -0700
Soft anodizing may increase galling depending on the alloy. Hard will
work but it's more expensive.
Too much heat will remove your T rating anything annealed will need to
be retreated.
If you have backgears on your lathe it may turn slow enough depending
on your diameter you need somewhere on the order of 3mm/second so it's
pretty slow. (for tig at 20 pluses per second newer tigs with faster
pulse rate would be slightly faster) mig I don't know but it would be
slightly faster than that. Steel quite a bit faster.
COVER YOUR LATHE WAYS with something!
Adding fuel to N2O would be complicated I would think that at the
mixing interface you would have a potential problem. Suspension would be
another issue. I wouldn't go there.
The fella was right about sanding and wire brushing that does work.
There are lots of different thread approaches it might behoove you to
consider an alternative thread profile if it's that important to you.
(it can be that simple)
Antigalling compound works very well but I don't know about
compatibility issues any thread sealer would likely perform the same
purpose except something like red locktite (or whatever # or color they
are using now for the thread locker stuff)
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: Astraseals vs. welding
> From: Jonathan Goff <jongoff@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, February 26, 2014 1:18 pm
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> The Type II anodizing you usually see on fittings is typically less than
> .0005in thick, and with anodization thicknesses, half of that goes down
> into the base aluminum and half grows out of it, so you're only gaining
> ~.00025in thick of thickness per side. My experience (which may not be 100%
> representative) was that in most cases you didn't have to modify dimensions
> of the part for Type II anodizing--probably still worth checking to make
> sure it doesn't cut too far into your tolerances, but in most cases we ran
> into you didn't need to adjust the dimensions to compensate.
>
> Type III (hard coat) anodizing, on the other hand, is typically more in the
> .002-.003in thick range (and can go up to .006-.010 in some exceptional
> circustances with certain aluminum alloys), so for hardcoat you pretty much
> always need to adjust the dimensions to compensate, because most well-fit
> medium or small parts have tolerances tight enough that that matters.
> Remember each side gets half of that .002-.003in increase in actual
> thickness gain, so it adds up, particularly with threads.
>
> ~Jon
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Paul Mueller
> <paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> > Yeah, maybe the Parker O-Ring Handbook is too generic. I suppose the folks
> > who have the most experience with nitrous are the ones who produce
> > (including compressing and liquefying) it. Does anyone have an "in" to that
> > industry to know what their best practices are? For example, do their
> > compressors have dynamic seals and if so, what are they made of?
> >
> > Anodizing--yeah, seems to work with all those blue aircraft fittings. Good
> > point. Does it significantly change any dimensions (i.e. do you need to
> > undersize fittings by any amount before sending them off for anodizing)?
> >
> > Paul M
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Mark C Spiegl
> > <mark.spiegl@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> >
> >> Norman Yarvin wrote:
> >> >> but away from stoichiometry it's harder to get an explosive.
> >>
> >> On a related subject:
> >>
> >> Does anyone have an opinion about adding a small amount of an
> >> organic fuel or a hydrocarbon to N2O to increase its sensitivity??
> >> Im not talking about creating a monopropellant. Im thinking
> >> about a few percent only to increase ignition sensitivity.
> >>
> >> -->MCS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
Other related posts:
