Jump to content

Talk:Stainless steel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Unispehere largest globe shaped structure... No

The Stockholm Globe arena is 110 meters in diameter rather than the ~37 meters of the Unisphere, therefor the argument previously posted that the Unisphere should be the worlds largest globe shaped structure is not true. I deleted this info and added info about the Unisphere's size instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.106.53.11 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Again: How is Stainless Steel Made?

This article contains lots of information about various alloys, but NOTHING about how stainless steel is cast, poured, machined, whatever. It's only half the story!

How is the chromium added to the iron? Can it be cooled in the open air? Remelted?

Come on, guys!68.111.71.197 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's made just like any other steel. Stainless steel is essentially just a special type of alloy steel. 131.151.161.156 (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Melting temperatures and electrical conductivity

Please add melting temperatures and electrical conductivity. -71.174.182.182 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

give the types of ss and melting points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.17.10.66 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding such basic information as the melting temperature in any article on a metal is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.255.47 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Remarks on entry

First, Leon Guillet from what I read, is the first person to make detailed studies of both the 400 and the 300 series steels, and is considered the "father" of stainless steels. Thus he should get more mention in this entry.

Additionally, it is written that in 1912, the Krupp company patented the first 300 series steel, under the name Nirosta. I checked the reference, and it only mentions they had some stainless steel, not necessarily the 300 series austentic steel. And this demands proper referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.180.107 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Reference 1 on this page does not open the proper PDF. It appears the hosting site has changed the location and content somewhat. The correct pointer is http://www.worldstainless.org/news/show/90 Drrichs (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Applications for Ferritic Stainless Steel

This article omits to tell us what uses are made of Ferritic Stainless Steel. It would be useful if someone in the know would add this missing information. Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Error in navbox: "Iron-carbon alloy phases"

"Graphite (allotrope of carbon)" is an erroneous element of the navbox in the article:

The element is totally incorrect in the navbox called "Iron-carbon alloy phases", i.e.: "Graphite (allotrope of carbon)" is wrong because Graphite (formula = C) is not a phase of steel alloy, as graphite is pure carbon, not of any relevance to stainless steel. Garshepp (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Chemical composition %ages

Noted value of 13% Chromium content for stainless steel. I've formed martinsitic specimens with the addition of only 10.5% Cr and up to 1%C, ferritic specimens can form at 11-27% Cr., 0.2%C maximum.

Suggest range value from 10.5% to 25%+ (or the value at which it is considered high alloy stainless) and explanation of range and alloying contents for different specimens (ie ferritic, martinsitic, austenitic). not my goal to start an argument, just desire to set a range rather than a single value and misdirect people into believing 13% is the low end.

Displaying compositions with a table would probably be the most expedient.

sources: ASM/AWS materials handbooks, (most available for viewing via google scholar if you don't believe me) and my instructor who is a 20 year metallurgical engineer, also a 2nd year materials engineer. 70.72.163.161 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Natural stainless steel"?

It is apparently "almost impossible" to tell the fall date of a Nickel_iron_meteorite from the meteorite itself because it is very resistant to atmospheric corrosion. Could this, therefore, reasonably be called a "natural" form of stainless steel? IF not, why not? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that the answer depends on who you ask, because it depends on their judgment of "reasonably". If you ask me, yup, it's reasonable. BTW, one thing this makes me wonder is where is the dividing line of iron content where nickel alloys cease being considered "nickel-alloy steel" and are not "steel" anymore, even if they do contain some iron (but not "enough" to be called "alloy steel"). I'd bet that materials-sci-&-engr type people have a good, quantitative, arbitrary, operational answer to that (>X% Fe vs <X% Fe). Anyone here know? — ¾-10 00:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
If it can be cited that someone calls meteorites "natural stainless steel", then we can cite it. I suspect the nickel content is too high and the carbon content too low to be considered a "steel" of any kind. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like one fore and one against LOL. Wtshymanski, where I am coming from is this. Nickel-Iron meteorites are found literally lying all over the world. Many of them have lain there for hundreds or thousands (or even hundreds of thousands of years), yet many of them are still shiny and unrusted, or, at worst, have only a thin rust coating. They have outlasted all and any man-made stainless steels. So irrespective of any formal definition of "stainless" or even "steel", I feel that they are worth mentioning. The entire point here is that a nickel-iron alloy, even if not man-made under controlled conditions and to a precise recipe, can resist corrosion (rusting) for timeframes in the geological scale.

How about we change tack on the whole matter? I have a proposed paragraph for inclusion. Rather than have an abstract debate, we can concentrate on whether to include it at all, and if so, in what form. So here we go:

Iron meteorites, which are made almost entirely of nickel-iron alloy, are found almost completely unrusted, despite having lain out in the open for, in some cases, many thousands of years (for example, the Hoba meteorite). This is far longer than any man-made stainless steels have survived. Whilst they are a naturally occurring nickel-iron alloy, whether they can be formally considered as a "natural stainless steel" is, however, open to debate.

Please attack at will. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a pointless diversion to add to this article unless we can find reliable sources calling meteorites "natural stainless steel". The analysis of a meteorite does not resemble that of steel. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The Hoba meteorite article doesn't say it has any carbon content at all. "No carbon" excludes this substance from the class of steels. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, we are not seeing each other's POV at all, so it is pointless to continue. Old_Wombat (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think speaking about certain facts of nickel iron meteorites to illustrate the corrosion resistant ability of nickel alloying could be an asset to a nickel or iron-nickel alloy page (it's also just generally interesting.). I wouldn't go so far as to classify it as a 'stainless' steel, unless we can verify specifics on chemical composition.70.72.163.161 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Antibacterial properties?

Under the 'Applications' section there is the sentence: "Storage tanks and tankers used to transport orange juice and other food are often made of stainless steel, because of its corrosion resistance and antibacterial properties." -- I didn't think stainless steel had much if any antibacterial properties per the article on the Oligodynamic Effect [[1]] where it states: "Certain metals, such as silver, copper and copper alloys, are known to be far more poisonous to bacteria than others, such as stainless steel and aluminium, which is why they are used in mineral sanitizers for swimming pools and spas. Many infections can be spread by doorknobs. Brass doorknobs disinfect themselves in about eight hours, while stainless steel and aluminium knobs never do." Therefore I'm inclined to remove the last part of the sentence in question from this article so that it just ends with 'corrosion resistance'. Any objections?Quarky Gluon (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Inox" etymology

At the head of the article the following derivation is given for the term "inox": "also known as inox steel or inox from French "inoxydable", coming from the Latin words in and obsidium (siege, blockade)". I wonder what the source is for this. I have always understood "inoxydable" to mean "unable to be oxidised", or in the case of iron or steel, "unable to rust". The term would have been coined by a chemist or a metallurgist, and, as a description of stainless steel, I would have expected it to have been directly from the French term for oxidation. Does anyone know why the derivation above was given instead? AFBankier (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I just read this comment (2011-12-16), and I note that the article no longer talks about any siege/blockade etymology. Which is good, because I agree that it sounds mistaken. No one ever told me that "inox" means "not oxidizable", but I figured it out on my own, and I suspect that lots of other people have, too. I strongly doubt that the true etymology is anything more fanciful than in- ["not"] + oxy ["oxygen", "oxidation"]. Prove me wrong, world. — ¾-10 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't come from French. It comes from latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.102.103 (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

W2, W3, W4 explanation?

I cannot find any explanations in the article of the terms W2, W3, W4, etc commonly used to describe grades of stainless steel in sales adverts. This is the reason I looked up the Wikipedia article, so I think a description of the meaning of these grading terms could usefully be added to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.209.237 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Architectural Steel

The link to "Architectural Steel" redirects to a page on beams. This seems counter intuitive, as the section is primarily concerned with the aesthetic, rather than structural properties of stainless steel. Unless anyone objects, I'll be deleting the link.

Hguant (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Density?

It would be nice if some of the basic properties of stainless steel were mentioned in this article. Rwflammang (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplex stainless under Bridges topic - why?

Under the Bridges topic here there is a bullet discussing Duplex stainless, with no reference to use in bridge construction. Shouldn't this be put elsewhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.124.115 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Health effects?

I didn't see any mention of adverse effects of the large chromium content.

While chromium oxide is obviously inert and therefore non-harmful, the same cannot be said of chromium salts, which are all far more poisonous (especially in its hexavalent form) than those of iron. If cooking in stainless steel cookware can disturb the protective coating (such as by those foods which are acidic), wouldn't it be possible for chromium chloride, chromium acetate chromium carbonate, chromium sulfate, and other such soluble salts to form and dissolve in the cooking water? Note that there seem to be no published studies on the health effects of chromium compounds on children. Hot stainless steel (such as occurs during its manufacture and during welding and brazing operations probably releases fumes that are not very healthful. The salts of nickel are also not the happiest to ingest. I'm just raising these questions so they can be used by someone in the future who would like to do some research. Web searching seems to raise questions like these, but not to present real evidence of harmlessness. David Spector (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The chromium on the surface is caught up in an oxide, not a soluble salt - if the chromium dissolved in any significant way, it wouldn't be much good for protecting steel. It's also in the +3 state - the toxic form is hexavalent (+6) chromium, so even if some got chipped off and ended up in food it wouldn't be an issue. The nickel isn't any more toxic than nickel jewelry, especially since it's only around 8% of the material (and only austenitic ones) - I doubt even those allergic to nickel would notice, since the nickel doesn't participate in the formation of the passivation layer.131.151.161.156 (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this anonymous comment as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. Stainless steel is an alloy, not a compound. What I mean is that most of the chromium in stainless steel is present as its harmless oxide, but is elemental. It is not present in ionic homogeneous form, but in crystalline form within the alloy structure. The chromium oxide that forms is only on the surface, where the alloy is exposed to oxygen from the atmosphere. Just under this microscopically thin surface of a stainless steel pot or spoon, the chromium atoms are ready to react with chloride (from salt) and other ions present in foods being cooked. All that they need for exposure and reaction is a surface scratch, caused by stirring, or atomic displacement, caused by heat. Perhaps the anonymous editor would want to respond that chromium atoms don't react with salts in this way, but this would be wrong. Chromium is roughly just as reactive as iron (and you know how easily bare iron rusts). In fact, its high reactivity is the reason that the passivation layer of chromium oxide in stainless steel forms so quickly. The analogy with aluminum is interesting: it is easy to solder to aluminum if you simply brush the surface with a wire brush while soldering. The brushing easily removes large amounts of the aluminum oxide layer, allowing the aluminum and solder to mix well enough to form a good joint, both physically and electrically. The remaining question is whether any of the many chromium chlorides, in particular, are poisonous. This appears not to be a simple question. Wikipedia states (Chromium(III) chloride), "Although trivalent chromium is far less poisonous than hexavalent, chromium salts are generally considered toxic.". A study on rats (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9176835), however, shows that as a food additive trivalent chromium (the chromic ion) is not poisonous. David Spector (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Oxidation Process in Stainless Steels

What is the Oxidation Process in Stainless Steel please give me the scientific explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.182.4.178 (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The normal oxidation process in steel (rusting) is prevented by a microscopically thin layer of chromium oxide in stainless steel. This process is discussed in more detail in the article. David Spector (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Taken down

Anyone knows why the link to www.renaissancegroup.co.in was taken down? Is there a rule against sites like mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.31.59 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about your case, but in general, off-topic, advertising, or non-reliable references are not permitted in Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia. David Spector (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Stainless chair

I would like to commend whomever it was that found/posted that chair photo on the beach showing that magnificent specimen in demonstration of the corrosion resistance of stainless steel. Subjecting that specimen to a wet and salty enviroment is a perfect illustration of an environment in which you would very much prefer to have stainless steel. Is there some way to move that the author be credited with some kind of wiki award? 63.71.19.253 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Koozie, Chemical and Materials Specialist.

Thanks too much by the praise. Its our work. Made in Brazil. You know... Beautifull places, amazing woman here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Rio Brazil (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the picture isn't suitable to demonstrate the subject matter - the focus is not on the chair but on the model. Alex, feel free to take another photo of the chair without the model posing on it, as this would be great material for the article. If people feel an image of a Stainless Steel chair is really necessary for the article, a suitable one can be found - in the meantime i see no reason to make an encyclopaedic article into content that would often be considered "not safe for work". Also, addidng random examples of things that can be or are made of stainless steel adds nothing, the article already makes it clear that it's a useful metal. Image removed on that basis. Provider uk (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Not safe for work" ? Where? What kind of workplace is *that* uptight, yet still has the Internet (and electricity)? Wikipedia is not censored, and the picture depicts someone appropriately dressed for the seashore using a stainless-steel object especialy adapted to that corrosive environment. I think the picture is completely fit and appropriate for the topic,but I have seen other cases where perfectly suitable pictures have been tossed out of articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
What chair? ... oh, there is a chair in that pic! :) Vsmith (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The model provides scale, to clarify how large the furniture is in relation to a typical human. Without the model, something like a meter stick would be required, and might be harder to find at the beach. The site helps to emphasize the corrosion resistant properties of stainless steel. In what sort of workplaces are images of females prohibited? Edison (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In most workplaces i've been in, wikipedia would construe reasonable reference material, but any image like the one used would immediately cause anyone looking to assume it was not reference material being consulted. Given that this doesn't have to be the case (there are many other images that would suffice that would not arouse the same controversy) I really don't see why it needs to be here. If i can find another picture that shows the relative scale of a person and a chair (really? This seems a little facetious to me - the article isn't about chairs or the scale thereof but if that's what it takes then so be it...) would the change be accepted? An encyclopedia wouldn't use an image like this, we don't need to either. I also refer you to Queued_images#Content "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." This image would appear not to fall into this category. It's also very low resolution and the chair is somewhat out of focus. Vsmith's comment above, tongue in cheek or not, makes it obvious that this image does a poor job of representing the (article's) subject matter. Provider uk (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, it's actually just (badly) concealed advertising for the company that makes the chairs, which is what i picked up on in the first place. Provider uk (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I gotta say I see people DRESSED less "work appropirate" than that at work nvm looking at pictures, and I work in locations that have dress codes.--174.45.157.36 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Any magazine of general circulation, like Time or Newsweek regularly includes women in swimwear. This is not Conservapedia. Arguing that the photo promotes a particular manufacturer of chairs is an argument that makes more sense, but it would equally rule out other photos of things made by some company, thereby eliminating a large portion of the illustrations. No name brand is visible on the chair, so it does not appear promotional. It shows a stainless chair in a setting where a tubular steel chair would quickly oxidize (not sure about aluminum) and a wood chair would be likely to rot. Wikipedia is not censored to prevent someone seeing you looking at an article on stainless which includes a model in a swimsuit sitting in a chair with a stainless frame. It illustrates that tubular stainless is ductile, strong, and attractive and suggests that it is corrosion resistant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which has a great many articles which would not be safe for your workplace. If you find it generally unacceptable on grounds of being titillating, I suggest you try adding [[File:Stainless Steel chair with yellow plastic in Rio de Janeiro Sea.jpg]]to the "bad image list" found at MediaWiki:Bad image list. (Do not under any circumstances look at any of those images at your workplace.) Edison (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in no way suggesting it needs to be censored, simply that it's not a good image to illustrate the point, due to the fact that there's a person obscuring the chair, and taking up a large portion of the photo. It also appears to have distracted the photographer from his task - as i mentioned above the woman in better focus than the chair is. This is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper - they include such images due to the commercial reality of having to appeal to as wide an audience as possible - we are not subject to such unpleasant constraints. An encyclopaedia would not use such an image to illustrate an article on stainless steel. My point about workplaces is that someone coming here for reference would be forced to scroll the image off the page if a supervisor approached - looking at such images in work time is not normally considered acceptable. Much like reading the newspaper or magazine - it's a recreational activity, no? Provider uk (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also point out that as far as i can ascertain the "ANSI 304" stainless steel referred to is standard grade stainless, and completely unsuitable for long-term salt-water use. Regarding advertising - what we have here is a promotional shot of a model posing next to a chair, with a link to the company that produces the chair on the image page. It's advertising of a fairly blatant nature that also misrepresents the capabilities of the product Provider uk (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Marine_grade_stainless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Provider uk (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... No one is saying that AISI 304 is for long term salt usage. Its just saying that you can get it into the beach with no harm to the material. If you think that the sentence is ambigous feel free to do an improvement. I think that this is not conservapedia and we must make the articles atractive for people in general, i must make knowlegde an interested thing capable to atrack more people and not only a few initiated ones. This picture, as the others, make the text more brillant. People like practical use like this, like me or you do in our daily life, not any piece of metal, but a recognizable one.Alex Rio Brazil (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the picture has been recently removed by an anonymous user (not me). --92.81.3.135 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there is someone who is adamant about keeping this useless picture on the page. It adds no value to the discussion of stainless steel, and to use it as an attention grabber is not only misguided but an example of sexist motivation in advertising. Alex Rio argues that the picture makes the article more attractive; this is an encyclopedia article, not USA Today. Who does it make it attractive to? Not any women reading the article, that's for sure. And there's already pictures of some fabulous stainless steel art on the page. Irregardless, this article doesn't strive to attract random and numerous viewers, it is here as an educational resource. A woman in a bikini is not informative or educational, just another attempt by a man to objectify women in whatever context possible. Leave this picture out of the article and let those who want to see those kind of images go to the porn star pages on Wikipedia or other sites entirely. There is absolutely no essential purpose it fulfills, and the article loses nothing when it's removed. By the way, I have no Wikipedia account but my name is Stefan and I'm an adult male in Minnesota, USA. 69.54.33.62 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You consistently restore this image because of "consensus" on the talk page? I see no consensus. It seems more people are attempting to remove it than restore it. My issue with the picture is it is about 3% stainless steel and 97% woman. When I saw the picture, I thought "why is a woman in a bikini on this article? Oh, she is sitting on a chair with some stainless steel on it." It is distracting, and takes away from the point of the picture and the article. She is even posing; the emphasis is clearly on her, not the chair. I will not remove the picture immediately, but I strongly recommend doing so. I see no good reason why it should be included in this article.Enigmocracy (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's incredible how quickly an argument will be dismissed by a male-dominated population when it includes mentions of sexual objectification. Give me a real reason that this picture, out of all the picture of stainless steel art and products, should continue to exist on this page. Why not a picture of a steel dildo or steel genital piercing? How about a male model instead? Does the article suffer without this random picture of a random female model of a random chair? My personal aversion to sex in advertising does not justify the continued inclusion of this picture; it is only being re-posted in defiance by someone who is unwilling to argue for why it should exist. It has no purpose in this page, and distracts significantly from the actual subject matter. Just look at the beginning of this discussion page. There's no one saying "what a great make of chair, what a fantastic example of steel construction." The focus is on the woman, some men celebrating her and some saying it's pointless. Obviously the picture has nothing to do with stainless steel. 69.54.33.62 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
But it's a stainless steel chair? Oh my. I had no idea a picture of a pretty girl in a chair lead inexorably to steel dildoes and genital piercing; certainly not on the same track as my train of thought, anyway. Wikipedia content discussions sometimes give a fascinating glimpse of how others think. We should perhaps remove all people pictures from the Wikipedia for safety, since at least one major world religion prohibits making of human likenesses, and we dare not offend anyone. One can "defy" authority; one only reverts edits on the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me provide a few examples. Look at the article for chair. In not one of those pictures is a person spotted. That's because it isn't an article about people, it's an article about chairs, and too many pictures of people would distract from the point, unless it was an object whose understanding relies on a person being in it, e.g. baseball bat. This isn't about sexism or objectification, it's a very simple matter of Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement For other examples of articles on plain objects, look at Desk, Pencil, Table, Couch, and so on. It is *clearly* the accepted convention, for the same reasons I have explained, to use pictures of objects where the *object* is the focus, not a person next to it. I am surprised this picture has remained for so long.Enigmocracy (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Showing human artifacts in use by humans would seem to be appropriate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
By your logic, *all* objects should have pictures of people using them, which is *clearly* A. Distracting and B. against Wikipedian standards.Enigmocracy (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing my two cents in, but I think the image ought to go, because the focus is wrong. Wizard191 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've consulted the talk page again, I remain unimpressed by the argument for deletion of the picture, and I look forward to its restoration. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I gathered that from your restoration of the image. Do you mind explaining why you insist on having this picture in this article despite the fact that:

1. The chair is *clearly* not the focus of the image. I encourage you to show that picture to anyone (and not just those who would find her attractive) and ask whether the first thing and the primary thing they notice is the stainless steel chair is the focus of the image. She is a model, she is *posing* for the camera. This isn't about the chair, it is about her. Per Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement, images should focus *on* the object in question, not on anything else. 2. This is not a precedent set *anywhere* in Wikipedia articles, for the reasons I explained above. Point to one article, or one encyclopedic-quality source which uses a posing model in a bathing suit to emphasize the object in question.

I have currently replaced the picture with a more generic picture of a stainless steel chair. I will not make any further edits until a consensus has been reached, but this seems like a fair compromise to me.Enigmocracy (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've consulted the talk page again, I remain unimpressed by the argument for deletion of the picture. We have to put more content, insted of deleting it. There is no profit in it. 187.13.112.5 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

More content is not always better, especially when the content is unhelpful and distracting.Enigmocracy (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful and distracting is your oppinnion that is not shared by people involved here. If there is no clear rule saying that the girl's picture must be out, so, it must be in.Alex Rio Brazil (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If by "people", you mean Wtshymanski and yourself, you are correct. Please answer my this question: Why is the picture with the girl preferable to the one I posted without the girl? I have given you several disadvantageous, and as evident earlier in the discussion, I am not alone in sharing these opinions. We will never come to a consensus if you do not make coherent arguments as to why this picture is BETTER than the one that I posted. By your logic, there is no clear rule as to why the plain picture of a chair should be out, so it should also be in. We are back to square 1.Enigmocracy (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with enigmocracy. This picture is clearly not encyclopedic material and is inappropriate for this article.Mvp15 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is the picture with the girl preferable to the one I posted without the girl? The question is not why. The question is why not? The girl picture was choosed by the colaborator, so, there must be maintened once it dosent violate no clear rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.112.5 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because an image or textual content doesn't break a rule doesn't automatically make it the best choice. In this case, both images suck and there are plenty of better images of stainless steel in the article already. Otherwise check out commons:Category:Stainless steel for even more images that are better than these two chairs. Wizard191 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this action. I only added the black chair picture because my attempts to remove the other image entirely were constantly being reverted.Enigmocracy (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Better? Who decides what is better? To me and many others this one with the girl is the better one. If you dont work. Dont try to stop the ones who does it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.55.21 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty universal that this image sucks as an example of stainless steel. If you take a percentage of pixels used to depict the stainless steel vs. the pixels to depict everything else minus the pixels used to depict white space, the percentage is tiny. As such, if there is consensus that another image is even needed as an example of stainless steel, of where I don't think there is a need, then a better image needs to be selected. Wizard191 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about this chair, but any photo of a small boat with stainless steel fittings, showing a corrosion-free surface, would be an excellent example of use around salt water and would be an excellent addition, IMO. David Spector (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Activation of stainless steel

Stainless steel may be activated, e.g. the protective Cr2O3 coating removed, by acids. When a stainless steel screw is placed in concentrated hydrochloric acid, it corrodes to form hydrogen gas and a mixture of chromium chloride, nickel chloride, and iron III chloride. Also, when stainless steel is placed in concentrated copper II chloride, the Cr2O3 coating is dissolved by it, reforms, dissolves, reforms, dissolves, etc..., leaving a chromium oxide precipitate. Meanwhile, the iron is corroded also. Activated stainless steel, according to the galvanic series of metals in seawater, is only slightly less active than ordinary iron. --Cheminterest (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, of course if you strip off the Cr2O3 layer in an oxygen deprived environment it corrodes just like ordinary iron! The whole point of stainless steel is forming that protective chromium oxide layer. Oh, and your comment isn't actually quite true - the nickel additions in austenitic stainless will still reduce corrosion. 131.151.161.156 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

here no one discuss about the super austenitic steel and there color docing system as per standard.(kashif bin nazir) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.39.4 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What is a color docing system? David Spector (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Skin Irritation?

76.234.122.227 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)STAINLESS STEEL AND JEWELRY: I am concerned if stainless steel can be worn as jewelry or if there is a possible danger of any components in stainless steel that could cause irritation to skin. I have ordered a medical alert chain with dog tag for someone with brain cancer. I certainly do not want to add to any possible adverse reactions.76.234.122.227 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable reference to skin irritation, please add it to the article. I have never heard of this. David Spector (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Skin irritation due to the nickel content of some stainless steels is not uncommon, as can be seen here: [2]. Many other WP:RS can be found. See also the Wikipedia article Nickel allergy. Reify-tech (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor thermal conductivity

I have seen coax cables made from solid stainless steel - I was told it was used because of the very low thermal conductivity (microwave receiver at 20K) Wizzy…☎ 11:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How to section

I have removed the maintenance section as it was a how-to guide and has not been changed in about 4 months. Here was its content:

Here was the section's former content for reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

== Maintenance ==

If treated or stored incorrectly, any grade of stainless steel may discolor or stain. To maintain optimum appearance, the surface should be cared for regularly.

The quality of installation affects the durability and lifespan of stainless steel.[1] Therefore, it is important to make sure stainless steel is in good condition before installation. Normally, giving it a quick clean is enough prior to installation. However, if surface contamination is present, more attention is required. In fields such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals and food handling, an extremely high standard of cleanliness may be required, so extra care should be taken.

Maintenance is required to maintain the quality and appearance of steel. Depending on the environment, it is carried out between one and ten times per year. A proper maintenance routine significantly prolongs the life of stainless steel.[2]

Abrasive cleaning tools should be avoided to prevent alteration of stainless steel finishes. Chloride-containing solutions, such as bleach, should also be avoided.

  • Soft cloth and water: suitable for cosmetic issues and general cleaning
  • Mild detergent: needed if stains cannot be easily lifted with water
  • Glass cleaner: useful for removing fingerprints and similar stains

Despite its design and use, stainless steel can still be susceptible to corrosion, some grades more than others, and especially in corrosive environments.[3] Challenging environments include saline environments, such as coastal areas where regular exposure to sea salt is common and areas where de-icing salts are common during winter. Manufacturing environments, especially in chemical and food industries, may also be subject to corrosive substances.

Stainless steel may also corrode if surfaces come into direct contact with iron or carbon steel. Trace particles from iron or carbon steel will rust on stainless steel surfaces. If left unattended, rust spots may compromise surface passivation and may spread internally. Contamination is common when stainless steel is subject to sparks from nearby welding, cutting, drilling, or grinding of carbon steel.

Corrosion can be treated by:[4]

  • Light rust: all-purpose lubricant or domestic stainless steel cleaners (typically containing calcium carbonate or citric acid)
  • Moderate rust: phosphorus acid solutions
  • Severe rust: hydrofluoric acid bath (typically performed by professional service providers due to the hazardous nature of chemicals)

References

  1. ^ "Maintenance of Stainless Steel Products". 2013. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  2. ^ Kopecki, E. (1937). Cleaning Stainless Steel. ASTM International.
  3. ^ "Article: Cleaning methods for stainless steel". www.bssa.org.uk. Retrieved 2016-05-06.
  4. ^ "Article: Care and maintenance of stainless steel". www.bssa.org.uk. Retrieved 2016-05-06.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KAP03 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stainless steel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stainless steel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Any disadvantages?

The article is great at listing the various merits of stainless but I'm not seeing much mention of its disadvantages. I presume we'd all be making vehicles, ships & skyscrapers out of the stuff but for (cost?) or (machinability?) I'm not sure what the factors are relative to existing steel alloys and by how much.--Hooperbloob (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well....cost. Chromium and nickel are spendy. Looks like scrap carbon steel is worth about 4 cents a pound but scrap stainless is 14 cents a pound - sure there's a pretty high ratio for new steel, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not the place for general talk about stainless steel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.187.17 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

the numerical designators (304, 316, etc) are used before they are defined

The idea that different alloys are designated by numbers should be mentioned somewhere (maybe briefly in the lede) before these designators are used. It it quite disconcerting to see a unadorned and unexplained number in the text (even though it is linked). I don't know enough about how these designators can into existence to add this myself. Something along the lines of "different alloys of stainless steel are given numerical designators such as "304" and "316". -Arch dude (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You are asking a very good question Numbers such as 304 refer to AISI/ASTM standards (American), each one associated with a particular chemical composition Nomber such as 1.4301 refer to EN, (European) Standards) I am nor familanir with Japanese and other standards The EN standards have a plus, i.e. a steel designation Example: 1.4418 stainless steel has the following steel designation:X4CrNiMo16-5-1 which means that the average composition by weight is 

4: 0,04%C Cr 16%, Ni 5% Mo 1% balance iron. Some elements in small amounts purposedly added may or may not be listed.

You will find in the stainless steel page under paragraph martensitic stainless steels a partial list of the stainless steel grades I hope this helps Mtl-371 (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Excessive level of detail

Most of the tables in this article contain an excesive level of detail in the body of the text that are not useful for the general user. While well meaning, this detracts from the accessability and readability of the article. Please consider removing these tables, reordering them to the end of the article, &/or colapsing them, so that article is not bogged down in minutia. As I'm not sure which whould be the most aproprate, I mearly marked the sections affected with the approprate templates, and am making this suggestion here on the talk page so that discussion can be had on which options(s) are best. -- 155.95.90.244 (talk)

Well, I understand that this may be too detailed for some readers ....but hopefully useful for others. Perhaps the best way to simplify is to collapse the table (I have to find out how to do this). This will not erase some of the contents. Mtl-371 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I collapsed the tables (apparently the defaut setting is not always collapsed, I do not know why). Please let me know if this does not meet the wiki criteria Mtl-371 (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing tables is probably a sign of too much detail for a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a manufacturer's handbook. Anyone who actually needs the composition is going to have real referencess at hand and could not rely on easily-vandalized WP for any such data. I've taken out the excessively detailed tables. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing the tables wan an option you suggested, therfore I thought this was OK, and if it did not work that was something I did not do right.You have been so far the only person complaining about it I do not accept your removing them completely, as I feel thy are important to anyone wanting to know stainless teels. However I agree to reduce their size to the most common stainless steel grades used, about 10 per table, but you must put them back. Mtl-371 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Are guidelines outside the scope of a wikipedia page ?

Please let me know your views: I inserted the following text in the wikipedia page on stainless steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_steel

"Selecting the right stainless steel for adequate corrosion resistance is a very frequent concern for designers. There are guidelines which can help 1.For Structural applications; Eurocode 1-4 provides a procedure for selecting an appropriate grade of stainless steel for the service environment of structural members. This procedure is applicable to i)Load bearing members ii)Outdoor use iii)Environments without frequent immersion in sea water iv pH between 4 and 10 v)No exposure to chemical process flow stream 2.Other buiding applications: It is based on the following service criteria: i)Pollution ii)coastal exposure iii)decing salts exposure iv)local weather v) design vi) maintenance reference: http://www.imoa.info/download_files/stainless-steel/IMOA_Houska-Selecting_Stainless_Steel_for_Optimum_Perormance.pdf 3. Deutsche Institut für Bautechnik Sonderdruck 862 Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung Z-30.3-6 vom 5. März 2018 „Erzeugnisse, Bauteile und Verbindungsmittel aus nichtrostenden Stählen“ https://www.edelstahl-rostfrei.de/page.asp?pageID=1590

This edit has been reverted by Wtshymanski as "not a textbook, not a how-to guide" I disagree, becaust I think this is a very useful information for anyone interested in stainless steels I welcome opinions and comments as to whether this text is outside the scope of the page or not. Thank you January 13, 2019 3:30pm GMT Mtl-371 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. We're not supposed to reprint all of a manufacturer's catalog here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
=Not a manufacturer catalog yes. But

_in the French Culture we have a hypothesis that "CULTURE" (in uppercase) have to be useless. In computing what's useless is just junk. So I think we should be careful not to delete knowledge used by users of those steels : welder, designers, ... that would be vandalism: and that’s obviously just what has been done.
_The difference between an encyclopedia and a handbook is the perspective. The handbook is a step by step “what to do” list. The encyclopedia explains the mechanism under the procedure: and that’s what you did erase.
_Rousseau defined the encyclopedia as the sum of the human race knowledge,
=> so what you are building from wikipedia is a dictionary. April 5 00:37 UTC

No elements, but some things not very useful

Hello I wonder why the elements of stainless steel are not on there. There is sure a lot of things on it, but most of this seems not very usefull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:50B:FB00:588A:561B:F4E3:53A7 (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please explain what you mean by "elements", I don't understand.
As to what is useful, among the 2500 viewers of the stainless steel page every day, it makes sense to assume that some will look for more than superficial information. Who can claim to know what they are looking for?
Please also consider that now a lot of information (for instance google books, technical articles and so on) can be obtained only on a pay basis only. Wikipedia's great dream and purpose is to provide access to information on all topics to everyone for free.
It follows that there should be as much information as possible on wikipedia, and no self-appointed censors on the level of detail. - Mtl-371 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the unsigned comment was probably looking for a table of alloys and their elemental composition. Perhaps someone who enjoys formatting exercises will gratify the request someday. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing properties

There is no information on mechanical and thermal properties (elastic modules, strengths, heat conductivity and capacity etc) in the properties section.150.227.15.253 (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Nor melting points - Rod57 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What is 30x stainless?

I can't be the only person who came here to find out what this actually means beyond "it's what the cybertruck is made of" Betterthanalemur (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Betterthanalemur, that explication should perhaps be in the article, because referring to "type 30x" stainless is seen in various sources I've run into, and could cause confusion to readers who come to Wikipedia to learn what it is.
All it means, however, is a shorthand by Musk/Tesla as "300-series" stainless steel. This means it is in the austenitic family of alloy mixes but has no manganese or molybdenum, not in the 200-series or 900-series. It would include SAE 301, SAE304, and SAE316 grades. It just means Tesla is not (yet) publically saying exactly which exact alloy of stainless steel will be used, but they expect it to be 300 series. See here for more info: SAE steel grades Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
while understandable, the preceding comment is probably wrong. 30X refers to a custom alloy developed by SpaceX's metallurgy team for use in starship fuel tanks.[1] it is not 301 or 304L.[2] the "X" is not a placeholder, but refers to Space"X", or so i hear... 157.131.250.246 (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1226782860746555392. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1238952612562489344. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Where is the article on SAE 316?

the entry for 316 points to Marine_grade_stainless, which just complains about how the phrase is vague doesn't really mean anything. various other pages for 316 point there as well. shouldn't AISI/SAE 316 have its own page? it's a very common alloy.157.131.250.246 (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this article being trolled? by asking for citations

The article has a large number of references and yet there seem to be sections where “citation needed” has been sprinkled on each sentence of a paragraph without making any effort to see that the existing references support the remaining statements. This has all the qualities of the work of a troll; one who makes expends negligible effort to cause disruptions and takes a perverse gratification from the extensive effort that others take to respond to their disruptions. Perhaps someone well versed in Wikipedia content management has some idea of how to deal with this more constructively and durably than simply deleting the tags. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The only section now with multiple CN seems to be Life Cycle Costs. There are a few other sections which generally ask for more citations (that seems less helpful than identifying what needs a citation). Which remaining CN do you feel are unwarranted ? Perhaps just reusing the appropriate reference would fix it ? A citation/reference to a book should specify a page IMO. - Rod57 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems that trolls have popped out from under the bridge again. Every section in this short article that already has 157 separate references (many used several times) has been flagged with an "Unreferenced Material" template. Its curious when people who don't understand what they're reading can agree that a reference number should be attached to each sentence, because they won't understand the reference material either. Encyclopedias like Britannica paid for people with some knowledge of the topic to write or re-write articles. Some editions have bibliographies but none attempted to supply a reference for each statement. In theory Wikipedia relies on some form of consensus about the reliability and value of content. This article demonstrates how Wikipedia's content is easily manipulated by individuals to make content appear unreliable to unknowledgeable readers. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Nickel leaching info needed since many people cook in stainless steel, and have stainless steel water distillers

Here is what got me interested. It is a review for a stainless steel water distiller. Rashes and skin eruptions from nickel in the output water. Nickel causes rashes and skin problems in many people. Since it is an all stainless steel interior and coils, the logical source of the nickel in the tested water output is the condensing coil. Supposedly it uses 304 stainless steel. That has 8-10% nickel depending on the grade.

The comments raised many logical questions.

A Google search:

Having been studying available water distillers I see another path for nickel leaching. I need to find something authoritative to back up my suspicions. If you look at the photos customers provide in Amazon reviews one sees all the crud that remains in the boiling chamber after all the water boils out each day. Many water distillers (like the one with the above-linked review) only turn off the heat after a certain temperature is reached.

So the crud gets pretty hot and some of this chemical stew undergoes further chemical reaction with itself and the stainless steel. Nickel compounds probably evaporate at a lower temperature than pure nickel. Some of it may smoke or boil off at the higher temperature of the crud stew, and enter the condensing coils. The fan is still removing heat from the coils and any remaining water in the coils will catch the condensing crud and fall into the water output.

Anyway this info is important, and should be put in the article. Those with more time than me might put in the tomato sauce leaching info now, since it has reliable sources. Put in more leaching info as reliable sources are found. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There's photos of stainless corrosion at a desalinization plant and salt corrosion that relate to the corroding boil-dry distiller. As its boiled dry the last of the water is very salty and very hot, ideal for corroding the machine. Its far more likely that contamination in the condenser would be from small particles of nickel salts that became airborne as the water boiled than that they evaporated directly the melting and boiling points of Nickel halides are very high and the vapor pressure is extremely low. That's how ocean salt supplied the chlorine that created the small Antarctic "ozone hole" that became a large hole when man-made halide compounds arrived. 50y ago water stills had a timer to shut the heat off before it boiled off more than a small fraction of the water to avoid all of the problems described. Boil-dry is simpler and cheaper to make, more compact for a given output, and probably claims greater energy efficiency, although the energy cost to replace it may undercut that claim. The tomato sauce nickel leaching study was designed to find an intended result and tended to bury its own data about leaching dropping off after the pot aged, but it was fairly well done. It was fairly obvious that it doesn't persist significantly - you don't hear about people's favorite stainless pot they cook spaghetti sauce in developing pitting corrosion or becoming brittle and cracking, you do see people pulling out the same ancient Revere Ware pot from the 1930's that was their grandmother's and mother's pot that they used every week to cook their own sauce in. Even so, its probably better to take the hint and cook your tomato sauce in one of the boro-silicate glass cookware offerings than to figure out how to use stainless safely. Glass won't last 90 years, it will look fine and break after 7 or 10 years right on the burner and dump its contents everywhere, buy a new one every 5 years. When contemplating the contaminants in a factory produced tomato sauce, the pesticides to keep insects out of a the ripening sack of wet sugars called a tomato and the plastics in contact with the foodstuffs at every stage including the consumer packaging would be higher on my list than the nickel in the process machinery, but I'd still be better pleased if the hot processes were carried out in borosilicate glass piping heated by industrial microwave. I don't think stainless machines to process the cold ingredients and cooled product are realistically avoidable, but nickel leaching is nearly nil at low temperature. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Today's stailness steel 304 18gauge seat

Today's stailness steel 18gauge 304 seat rate 103.214.60.231 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stainless_steel/Archive_2&oldid=1252898951"