Talk:Wear

Frog and Railway crossing

The article refers to loss of dimension through processes known as frog and railway crossing. I believe that this included in the article is outright confusing for people as it is unexplained jargon. (I personally was dispelling images of hopping creatures, before checking for vandalism) I have removed it for the moment, but if someone wants to provide an explanation, link or image, that would be great User A1 11:36 pm, 17 October 2006, Tuesday (4 years, 4 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−5)

Impingment Angle Wear

This article does not address material loss and deformation through direct angular impingement of a solid under velocity on to a surface. I believe this would or should be classified as balistic wear?

It is actually termed as erosion by solid particle impingement (see ASTM G76 for more details). Some people (even ASTM) call it erosive wear. The maximum material loss is observed around 20 degrees. There are many forms of erosion like abrasive erosion and cavitation erosion. Drajput (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fretting Wear

Wouldn't fretting wear be considered a wear as well? Fretting doesn't fall into any of the current four catagories of wear though it can be a precursor to Abrasive wear. Lukeseed (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I would also take out "surface fatigue" and instead have "fretting fatigue". Surface fatigue does not generally involve wear. I can do the necessary edits once I find a valid source. Sigmund (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of wear modes

I have reverted a change to the number of wear modes by an anonomous user for the second time, but did not check to see if it was the same IP/subnet -- Am I missing something here? The change was the same, is there a good reason for the change that I don't see? User A1 (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I have changed the section, but in my experience, there are four principle wear modes (see Rabinowicz 1995, ASTM Hanbook, etc.), namely:

1. Adhesive Wear
2. Abrasive Wear
3. Corrosive Wear
4. Surface Fatigue Wear

Fretting, galling, erosion, impact, cavitation, etc wear are all sub processes of the four primary wear processes. The sub proccesses describe different manners in which the loads and sliding are introduced but the underlying mechanism is still the same. In this regard it is common to hear of abrasive erosive wear and so on. Obviously there is some contention to the primary wear mechanisms. In this scenario I think we should follow the format of large organisational bodies (ie. ASTM) or the most commonly applied manner represented in literature. Burger86 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of wear

The definition of wear is not appropriate in the opening statement. The word "erosion" should not be there as erosion by itself is a kind of wear. It will be better to use the definition by ASTM. Drajput (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following material as inappropriate to the introduction section of the article and placed it here for later inclusion elsewhere in the article:

The definition of wear may include loss of dimension from plastic deformation if it is originated at the interface between two sliding surfaces.
However, plastic deformation such as yield stress is excluded from the wear definition if it doesn't incorporate a relative sliding motion and contact against another surface despite the possibility for material removal, because it then lacks the relative sliding action of another surface.
Impact wear is in reality a short sliding motion where two solid bodies interact at an exceptional short time interval. Previously due to the fast execution, the contact found in impact wear was referred to as an impulse contact by the nomenclature. Impulse can be described as a mathematical model of a synthesised average on the energy transport between two travelling solids in opposite converging contact.
Cavitation wear is a form of wear where the erosive medium or counter-body is a fluid.
Corrosion may be included in wear phenomenons, but the damage is amplified and performed by chemical reactions rather than mechanical action.

Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Adhesive wear or material transfer from one surface to another demand a raise in energy content, pressure or temperature

I want to correct the section about adhesive wear and material transfer. My investigation but also other investigations, refereed to in the text, clearly state that material between the two interfaces exhibits a clear change in plastic behaviour. Such a change in material behaviour is not possible without high pressure and/or temperature in the demarcated, deformed, volume. It is clear that a high energy content, pressure or temperature can be very local, especially around sharp tools or penetrating objects, because energy or heat transfer away from the contact zone is highly dependent on the surface area of the deformed volume.

For example, water doesn't evaporate in vacuum if it´s injected whit high pressure and have a small surface area, because the energy content, pressure is high and the surface area doesn't´t allow instant and total loss of energy and immediate water evaporation.

I wan´t to correct the section whit regards to the above explanation, thank you. --Haraldwallin (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the article as you wish -- You do not require anyones permission to perform edits almost anywhere on wiki. See WP:BOLD User A1 (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Adhesive wear usually involve plastic deformation

I would like to discuss citation 8 in the wear article presently found in the Wikipedia archive, the citation reads quote,"Surfaces also generally have low energy states due to reacted and absorbed species." end quotation, the sentence is strange because debris in frictional contact can be of hardened phases and other high energy formations.
It isn't certain that adhesive wear is exothermic in nature and free stored energy. The accumulated high energy found in debris and remainders found in the tracks after sliding contact and adhesive wear is the product of plastic deformation and plastic flow.

I would like to politely remove or rewrite the sentence or at least ask someone why it´s present and perhaps the details might it justified. It seems a bit confusing with regards to the other parts in the text. Also the reference is rather old and perhaps doesn't comply to knew findings in the latest research in adhesive wear. Glaeser, W. A., Ed. (1993). Characterization of Tribological Materials. Materials Characterization Series. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge from adhesive wear

Unless this stub of an article is going to grow extensively soon, I don't see why it deserves its own article. It can easily fit into this article, even if it does grow moderately. Wizard191 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Adhesive wear

I´m proud to include my reference to the adhesive wear section in the wear article and according to Diego Moya: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason" [1]

Sincerely --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not acting within reason, Harald. A lot of people have warned you. - Tournesol (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about writen facts, not opinions. I have always acted within reason--Haraldwallin (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have an opinion about facts, then correct the facts.

Wikipedia is not about arguments and having opinions.

So Tournesol, please stop having opinions, correct the facts only and stop polluting Wikipedia with gossip.

The content of this report is in the article, that’s a fact

• Wallin H. 2008, 129 p: An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfer and friction), A free pdf document available here or www.diva-portal.org found here or at www.uppsok.libris.kb.se here use search words:"galling & Harald Wallin" or the direct libris link here

--Haraldwallin (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place for you to publish or market your own research. Please accept that and start a blog or whatever. - Tournesol (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, really. People have told you many many times. - Tournesol (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Harald, this is getting silly. If you want my questioning your motives for endlessly adding references to your own thesis removed, ask someone else to remove my comment. - Tournesol (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my work acknowledge the fact and summons the acceleration vectors "attributes" as 1dim, and the mass as a 3dim function, there are no references in my report who include the same information.

This small change in the handling of entities in Newtons F=ma is my contribution to the world of science.

If you where a bit interested you would also realize the wonderful things this notion will bring.

(But of course it can also release destructive power and deteriorate a lot of egos)--Haraldwallin (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you aren’t a bit interested in improving Wikipedia with facts because if you were interested you would also realize the wonderful things my scientific report points out. Wikipedias rules are the following “it´s ok to use your own work if it´s benefits others.”

You must prove my report and explanation about acceleration in plastic deformation false, then it doesn’t benefit anyone and my report can be deleted as a reference.

Please prove me wrong, I’m interested in you ability to match mathematical models and the reality.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Editors should not use Wikipedia to debate issues like matching models and reality. Further, editors should not repeatedly add links to their favored reference, particularly when that reference does not satisfy reliable sources and when there is a COI conflict. An article talk page is used to discuss improvements to the article based on reliable sources (not a student thesis). Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Listen Johnuniq, try to understand.

The question is if it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida.

The answer is Yes!
For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.

If Johnuniq want to improve the articles and for some reason dosen´t want my report as a reference, Johnuniq must prove it wrong. Then Johnuniq must delete all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the galling, wear and Stress (mechanics) articles, because they are closely linkt to my research.

Do you Johnuniq really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research?--Haraldwallin (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Add wear types in new page.

I want to say that please add page which are of wear types. It will include all information about wear types.

Please add five pages given below:

1. Abrasion wear

2.Erosion wear

3. Adhesion wear

4. Surface fatigue

5. Corrosion wear

Section on Friccohesity

I feel the section on friccohesity is not well integrated with the rest of the article. Also, its length would justify a standalone article. If there are no strong objections, I'll move the contents to a separate page soon.Moritz Ploss (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I concluded that the information on Friccohesity has nothing to do with wear. Also, it was spread out all over the article and, at least for me, impossible to read due to its complex wording. I removed all information on Friccohesity without moving it to a separate article.Moritz Ploss (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

primary wear

primary wear 106.213.97.144 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

awab panggilan. Ge

awab panggilan.

Ge 125.166.125.182 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)