Talk:High-speed steel

Metalworking High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Materials Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials 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.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bad reference

Reference 4 to "taylor-white process" in Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary, contains nothing pertaining to the subject of high-speed steel. Rich Schroeppel. 166.70.232.207 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor English

This whole article needs thorough revision by a competent copy editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.17.155 (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALL cutting involves SOME shearing

so the contrast with carbide tools is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.17.155 (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

I'm not very sure if you can directly compare steelmaking with cooking. Although it might be so mentioned in the citation presented, I don't think we can safely presume it as a common judgment. You might also want to check this article just to see the developments in steelmaking. I suggest that we remove at least the first paragraph of the section. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the first paragraph because it was too sweeping in its generalization. It is true, however, that prior to the 19th century, the chemical science for understanding which alloying elements were present in a heat of steel, in what percentages, and how they affected each other molecularly, did not exist. But that is a bit beside the point, as HSS could potentially have been invented empirically without it. The other paragraphs are more specific and are cited (except that the citing of Kanigel 1997 needs to be extended to a point-by-point basis), so I don't think that they should be deleted. As for the {{Globalize}} tag, I think that removing the first paragraph takes care of it. The info in the other paragraphs is an accurate summary of when, where, and how HSS was developed, regardless of where the reader is. — ¾-10 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly in agreement with Kanigel reference since it's a biography and can hardly be taken as a single valid source for historical development of steel. As with the Globalize tag, the reason I used it was there are evidences that a high speed steels were in fact developed in Asia (China, Japan, India) much prior to their usage in Europe. I am collecting certain references in this area and hope to update the info in a day or two. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Well, there's nothing wrong or invalid about Kanigel 1997 in general. Robert Kanigel is a smart guy, with an engineering degree. Yes, it is true that his 1997 book is not about the historical development of steel, but it certainly counts as one important, valid source to be cited in this article regarding the development of HSS specifically.

(2) It's possible that people in various countries in centuries prior to Taylor's and White's era could have made steel that we today could identify as metallurgically equivalent to HSS. However (a big however), they would not have recognized its application to machining, because prior to the mid-19th century there was no machine tool practice anywhere on earth (whether Europe, North America, China, India, or anywhere else) that was primed and ready for a new type of tool bit that could take higher speeds and feeds, retaining hardness at higher temps. The closest analogy that I can currently think of is with optical fiber technology: yes, glass fibers have been around forever, ever since ancient glassblowers were blowing glass. But that doesn't mean that therefore the history of optical fiber technology has ancient roots. Glass fibers didn't become fiber optics until there was a prevailing state of technology that was prepared to put them to that use. Analogously, steelmakers in China or India in centuries prior to Taylor's and White's era could have made steel that we today could identify as metallurgically equivalent to HSS, but that doesn't mean that they "invented HSS" or that HSS was being used for machining at that time. (Any more than a Phoenician glassblower 2,000 years ago "invented fiber optics".)

Regardless, it would be great if you can add the sources that you mentioned, as we may be able to add more overall context to the history section in citing them.

Cheers, — ¾-10 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've entered the information and the relevant sources. Although it's obvious the high speed steels as they are used today only started being developed in late 19th or early 20th century, I still find it necessary to at least mention the earlier instances of their use (or you may say, use of similar alloys). I think it's needed to understand the development of the alloy in general.

I've edited some part of Taylor-White patent debate. It appeared overly one-sided and had no relevance with the development of steel itself. As I know it, the debate was essentially about whether Taylor-White developed a new alloy or a new process. If you can supplement these areas it's fine. But I still feel it might be slightly out of line here. LeaveSleaves (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edits are good. I am happy with the resulting version. There is only one thing that I would add, which is that the earlier incarnations in Asia were not applied to machining as we know it today. I will go add that; everything else looks good! — ¾-10 23:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on—actually, I started to sense that there is a problem here and have begun looking into it. We have to be clear that not every tool steel is high-speed steel. Not every high-quality steel is high-speed steel. Not every high-carbon alloy steel is high-speed steel. The ancient steels famous for their quality may not have had any heat treatment similar to Taylor-White, according to what I am reading. Thus, they would anticipate modern tool steels outside of HSS, but not HSS itself. (It is not the alloying element percentages by themselves that make HSS, it is them plus the extremely hot heat treatment.) I am going to read up on this before changing anything in the article. I'll be back soon! — ¾-10 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already agreed on the part that the earlier steels from Asia weren't HSS as we know them today, and there if no need to add details. There are separate articles for that. But they do remain an important part of development of HSS as a steel. Please don't forget that machining is only one of the applications (albeit a major one) of HSS and the article shouldn't restrict itself to that only. There are a bunch of other properties exhibited by HSS which makes it useful in other applications as well. LeaveSleaves (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you about acknowledging the excellent qualities of the ancient steels. But this article *is* the place to discuss the difference between other tool steels and HSS, which come down to heat treatment, speeds and feeds, and volume of metal removal per minute. As explained in the article lede, "At room temperature HSS and high carbon steel have an equivalent hardness; only at elevated temperatures does HSS become advantageous." That's why it's *not* particularly true that "machining is only one of the applications (albeit a major one) of HSS and the article shouldn't restrict itself to that only. There are a bunch of other properties exhibited by HSS which makes it useful in other applications as well." Like I said, I'll wait to make any changes till after reading more about it. — ¾-10 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the history section be the first on the page after the intro? I will change this, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.Darkwraith (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Treatment

What about something on the heat treatment of high speed steel. How is it softened? How is it hardened? 89.194.51.33 (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out heat treatment Wizard191 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key part of my question is "how is it softened". "How is it hardened" then arises. Under "heat treatment" there is no mention of high speed steels. If they are the same as something else what is it? 89.194.46.2 (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in heat treatment. All steels can be hardened via quenching and tempering and all steels can be softened via annealing. Wizard191 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification of "all steels" above: low-carbon steels of only .10 to .20 C do not harden very much, unless carbon is added to the outer surface via carburizing case-hardening methods. The core remains pretty soft no matter what heating and quenching the piece is given. But Wizard's point still stands: heat treatment is what does the magic. — ¾-10 02:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a possibly noteworthy application

Military specifications for the bolt of the M16 rifle require Carpenter 158 steel, also known as AISI T6 high speed tool steel. Is this worthy of mention, or is it trivia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it could be fine under "applications" as one example of a general sentence, like this: "Occasionally HSS is specified as the workpiece material for machined parts. For example, [state the example]." But I don't think Carpenter 158 is actually HSS—I think it's non-HSS tool steel. Carpenter's page for it says "(AISI Type P6) (UNS T51606)" (note P vs T), and googling supports that it's tool steel and favored for making molds; but its carbon content (.10 C) and alloy content (0.50 Mn, 0.30 Si, 1.50 Cr, 3.50 Ni, Bal. Fe, per the Carpenter page) are too low to count it among HSSs, as far as I can figure. The only hardening it would take would be case hardening with carbon added via carburization; the .10 C would not allow through-hardening. Any metallurgists reading this page? — ¾-10 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Carpenter No. 158 is used in the M16 or not, but I do know it is not a high-speed steel. It is a mold steel as indicated by the "P" in the P6 designation. The high nickel content gives it some reasonable depth of hardening, but as you said, it needs to be carburized to attain a higher hardness for use. I am a metallurgist and specifically a metallurgist working for a steel company that makes tool steels and high-speed steels. The high-speed steel article needs some work. I did correct some blatant errors, but if I have time I'll make some more improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.176.161 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptions in article

The terminology used assumes that the reader has a previous understanding of metallurgical processes. Oceanic84 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surface modification

There are a lot of words in this section, but little actual content about HSS. It relies on a single primary source that describes a fringe process that doesn't seem to be used industrially. Thinking of cutting. Uhoj (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]