Talk:Stainless steel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ?[edit]

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)