Universal Hardness Tester Prototype
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 07. 2024
- In this video I introduce my universal hardness tester prototype design. An introduction to the tool and the most common hardness testing methods is given. The reasons for developing this tool are discussed, along with the pros and cons of the individual standardized testing methods (i.e. Rockwell, Vickers and Brinell). Calibration samples are used to demonstrate the result's quality and reliability.
00:00 Introduction
05:07 Why hardness testing?
08:36 Principles of hardness testing
09:25 Tool overview
13:22 Rockwell testing
22:50 Vickers and Brinell testing - Věda a technologie
Thanks for taking time to demonstrate the device - I love the simplicity and portability, compared to something like a Wolpert.
Even if I can vision how this device works, a video showing it’s separate parts/simple diagram would be great. I’m sure there’s several little clever details and solutions in there, I would never have figured out my self.
Nice to have you back!
Apologies are accepted, but don't disappear again.😁
:D I'll try, thanks!
I’m so happy you’re back
This is galactic epic! This is a must build to do for anyone without a bench tester who does heal treating. Glad to see you back up and at it!!! Thank you.
I am so glad you uploaded this. I've always been curious how hardness was measured. You have answered all my questions brilliantly. Thank you!
Glad you found some answers in the video!
Man you can explain this stuff to me clearer than any channel I’ve seen. Thanks so much
Glad you find the video helpful, thanks
Could you share with us the german patent ? I'm glad you are back !
A masterpiece !
kiwami japan needs one ;)
Wow. A new video again 👍🏻
Good to see a new video from you Alex, they are the best! Always something to learn from you.
Hey Alex, great to see you're well and back! Thanks for taking the time to show this prototype tool and the methodology.
Great to see you back! Thanks for the video. I was just thinking about setting up a Vickers hardness and this helps.
That is an awesome tool. Another tool for the list. Thank you Alex for sharing your tool design. Good to see you back.
Thanks for this comprehensive introduction into hardness testing! I also really like that you share some of the reasoning about the design of your tool.
Really nice to see you back after such a long time. Out of all of the machinest channels I watch, there are only you and Stefan who produce work that appears to be production ready. The rest produce "shop made" parts. There is nothing wrong with that at all, it's just yours are a step above. Hopefully, we will be seeing more of you in the coming months.
you havent seen robin renz then... watch his stuff, you will love it...
Or Adam the machinist, that's not abom by the way.
Great work. We shared this video on our homemade tools forum this week 😎
VERY glad that you are back and doing well.
Many thanks for your positive thoughts!
Glad that you are ok.Thank you for everything.Hope for more videos.
Many thanks for your kind words, I'll try to create more video in the future.
Thank you for posting again, you are excellent!
Nice to see you back! 🙂
Beautiful tool. Thanks for explaining it.
Really nice job Alex! Thanks for sharing this, I learned a lot about hardness I didn't know :)
Excellent video, Thanks so much.
Thank you for that takes me back to college days. Brilliant little gizmo Kp somehow made more sense to me that the best one we used
Absolutely Fascinating - thank you. I learned all kind of details. 👍👍😎👍👍
hell yes another video from my good friend alex
That's a job well done. Bravo!
Loved it! Very interesting! Thanks Alex.
I missed you man, but I'm glad you were "just busy".
G’day Alex. It’s nice to see you back mate. Beautiful work as per usual. There’s no doubt about you, you’re a clever bloke. Cheers 🍻 Aaron
Hello Aaron, many thanks, I really like your choice of words!
Very nice Alex...I really enjoyed the commentary on testing methods.
...and I thought that commenting the testing methods would result in several cases of coma :D
@@anengineersfindings what can I say? some of us are nerds!
Super kompakt, lässt sich besser in die Tasche stecken als der Wolpert. :-) Weiter so
Great video, thank you
very cool tool
Riehle manufactured a Rockwell B&C scale version in the US. Then in the 1970s Clark & ATS sold a version. At some point there was a copy made in India. They are still available branded Clark.
Many thanks for this information, Mr. Murphy!
Hey Alex, thanks for taking the time to make another very interesting video. I noticed, that you zeroed the load measuring indicator after clamping the workpiece which also has to exert some small yet undefined load to the test piece. Doesn't that procedure lead to some if minute errors?
Yes but it insignificant, you only tighten the clamp just enough to hold the sample.
Cheers for the video Alex, cherished all the detail!
(I am using an push-type mechanical portable Instrumatic hardness tester, not easy to get super consistent measurements but good enough for my limited needs. Strange thing is that it is supposed to be pushing the diamond with 15kg, quite far from your 150 kP...)
BR,
Thanos
Very cool
Very nice tool. MarkII could do with some ergonomic improvement. The loading wheel could do with turning 90 degrees with a wedge mechanism perhaps.
Such an impressive work as usual!
Sorry for of topic but by any chance, will you share /sell drawing of your brake press? Community is waiting for you ;)
Thanks a lot for your patience, the plans are on my to-do-list!
Will you make these? Or at least sell plans?….that would be very cool!
Currently I'm endurance testing the tool in various setups. If everything works out positively, I'll produce a batch of the tester and offer it for sale. Thanks for your question!
👍 Very interesting and a very cool machine that you have made. Has reminded me to get mine looked at.
I have a small portable tester made by Akashi (Japan) in 1938. Model P.H.T No 28381. My google skills are very poor and I cant find any info about it. From memory it did HRC and HRB and maybe one other scale. Only weighs about 5kg and only about 250mm tall. Tiny little thing but worked well for my needs.
Sadly it went through a fire 😢. I've restored the machine but the dial needs to be looked at. I have loosely organised for Emma's Spareroom Machineshop to have a look so Emma will probly do a video about it, maybe even this year? 🤣
Much enjoyed and subscribed 🍺
Missed this one somehow, nice job and very interesting! I have a US made Ames portable hardness tester that works in a similar manner( I think ). But, the anvil is fixed, and it will only measure items that can fit between the indentor and anvil. When you remove the lower jaw of your tester( that's acting as the anvil ) and bolt it directly to a large test piece, would you need to re-calibrate it, as the flex between the measuring head and moving jaw, would be different than that of the flex between the measuring head and whatever test piece that you bolt the measuring head to?
Very interesting, elegant design and execution, excellent narration, and explanation! I have a Ames portable Rockwell tester, which works well, but is very basic compared to your design.
Many thanks for your kind words!
The need to optically measure for Vickers reduces the convenience the portable tool. Given that the Vickers penetrator is well defined, it should be possible to get an approximation from the penetration depth. Maybe add another scale to the depth gauge?
Neat!
Nice contraption! Maybe you could use a small 1/4" rachet for driving the screw
Good call! Thanks!
Is it not so that:
- the pyramid has a well-known / well-defined shape
- a certain depth will have, therefore, a certain area at the 'surface', defined by its geometry
- so that a depth measurement *should* translate directly to an area of the base of a pyramid of a known 'height' ?
In use, though, is it so that the plastic flow of the material has some effect on the measured area, since there *may* be a kind of 'ridge', like that around a meteor crater??
Thanks for another nice video, good to see you again... good to hear that you were busy with customer work, "Bread on the table"!
Could you show the mechanism of this device, I would like to understand how the charge is measured. thanks.
Hey Alex,
thank you very much for this informative video! That's a fascinating and beutifully made davice!
Did you ever hear something about "Durostil Härtegriffel / Härteprüfer / Härteprüfstifte"? With these you try to scratch the testpeace with a cylinder of known hardness, similar to the TSUBOSAN test files. I have a set of the Dorostils, but have no idea on how reliable the results are..
Viele Grüße!
Alex
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with these methods. However the results have an incremental character and rely a bit on user experience. If you need a rough ball park number of the hardness, the method is surely perfectly adequate. If you need more precise results, I think you have to go the route of the standardized methods with indentation. Beste Grüße, Alex
I thought that it would be kP for kiloPascal, rather than any of what you named, even tho the pascal is Pa... The kilopond should be labeled as kgf, or kp for latin nomenclature, it also gets written as kgF, but the p in weight is written small... Its a great unit to use for the case, and an interesting one... I was just thinking when you named it how its a great way to avoid some math that other units would require.... Quite a long time since i saw it outside of physics books and such literature... And quite a fossil in a sense compared to the modern metric system, but a properly useful and remarkable unit that shows you a bit of insight into the practical nature of people in its era, compared to more theoretical mindset era that followed it... Kinda like the horsepower, where its a unit that was supposed to represent how many horses would be required to do the job the engine can do by itself, tho that is a much better example of fossil units of measurement...
``No fancy applications in many fields, i just wanna know how many horses is the engine worth, and how much force do i need to lift a thing of 1kg*x on the bloody earth with its damn gravity... Dont give me nonsense about moving rocks on the moon and that, aint nobody ever gonna walk there, if the thing is heavier than air, it cant fly and thats that! And those wright madmen, they are as quaked as that davinci and the rest of their ilk`` -some people from the 1905 probably...
Regarding the video, great job, great tool, great explanation of what most people consider black magic... I really like your stance on the vickers scale, the rockwell is kinda the most popular, but i think its just because its narrower in a sense, you have below 20hrc which means cheese, around 40 which means tough, around 55 which is hard, and then you have 60+ which is file/tap hard or glass hard... Vickers on the other hand ranges as you say, up to 1000, and tho a much finer scale, i think people shy away from it just because of the many numbers... The hrb i dont even consider, as i work with steel and hard metals mostly, and for ``soft metals`` i make bushings and such outta alloy slabs where the hardness kinda as with other properties is factory certified and aint changing too much from work hardening in a sense that it will impact a bearing surface negatively... The Mohs scale is a thing unto itself and is a great thing, and i would say that its more like vickers in a sense, as people dislike it because it seems complicated... Brinell scale as you said is a mess just because of the possibility of the ball actually dipping in too far, rendering the reading an inside job... I remember which is which as B in brinell is round and is b for ball, where the V in vickers is a pyramid in a sense...
Thank you for your interesting comment, good call on the lower case letter in kp. I hadn't checked it and just (incorrectly) used an intuitive upper case letter for the pond. But as you say, the labeling would probably be clearest if it read kgf. Thanks!
@@anengineersfindings Haha, yeah, as i said, its not that i am really a purist in that regard and do make similar mistakes on the fly when doing stuff that is for myself, but the capital P totally threw my list of references off... Either way, as said, a great video, and great project... I am glad to have found your channel... Im delaying watching the micron restoration, as i do have some similar projects in the works in the future, so i wanna watch it when it will be needed as a morale and motivation boost...
You may find a portable hardness that I made to be of some interest, part 1 is here
czcams.com/video/oxT8Uqq88xM/video.html
and a second part here
czcams.com/video/4ghW9RNKiDA/video.html
Very interesting build, thanks for sharing!
Awesome video! One thing I don’t quite understand is why the Vickers method can’t use depth. The pyramid has a known angle, so can’t the dimension of the square be calculated based on how deep did it indent the material? 🤔
update: I couldn’t find any explanation on the internet quickly, but now that I’m thinking about it - if it relies on size only is it because there is no good way to set the zero depth? Ie. for HRC you did 10kiloponds of force, I guess for Vickers you can’t do that?
I guess there is no easy way to accurately measure the depth so measuring the diagonals comes handy
I think the thing is that the pyramid angle is very shallow, so there is nice ratio between size and the depth, in favor of the size. Increased resolution.
@@ydonl i think it's 44 included angle, so it's a bit pointy, but that actually makes for a better depth to area ration, methinks.
@@lohikarhu734 I was using wikipedia to find out more about that. Here's a quote, right or wrong: "As two tangents to the circle at the ends of a chord 3d/8 long intersect at 136°, it was decided to use this as the included angle between plane faces of the indenter tip. This gives an angle from each face normal to the horizontal plane normal of 22° on each side."
What do you think about Leeb hardness testers?
The experience I have with those rebound methods is not good. For my taste, the method is much too sensitive with respect to sample weight, surface levelness and surface curvature.
@@anengineersfindings - Thank you. It sounds like it might be a good method for production lines, where calibration can factor out the part design. Not so much for field / shop testing.
Hopefully I'll be able to get my paws on one like you built.
Guten Abend Alex.
Nachdem Du davon sprichst, Prototypen zu bauen, würde ich Dir gerne ein Projekt vorstellen -
Jetzt meine Frage:
Wie erreiche ich Dich?
schöne Grüße...
Grüß' Sie Herr Titus, Sie können meine bei CZcams hinterlegte Email-Adresse einsehen wenn Sie auf die Kanalhauptseite gehen und dort den Reiter About öffnen. Vielen Dank und beste Grüße, Alex