This is an exciting experiment, but it would be interesting to compare the compression and bending forces. In particular, gear teeth often break due to high bending loads and high contact stresses.
I would be interested to see the wear characteristics of the two as sprockets are much more likely to need replacement due to worn teeth rather than breakage. I would presume both manufacturing styles have been optimized and theyve been heat treated to maximize wear characteristics of both sprockets so....which one lasts longer? I gotta say though, I was completely surprised by the results of this test. I would think the powdered metal sintered components failure characteristics and performance could be drastically altered during the sintering process.
What about hardness of machined part? Was it stress relieved after machining? And was it through hardened or just induction hardened teeth? What was the procedure? And thanks for the video.
iit is very impressive. I work at powder metallurgy mold company. I thought machining part would much stronger than PM part. Do you have any idea about the material of the machining sprocket
It appears the PM sprocket had better rigidity over the entire part while the CM sprocket was slightly softer starting to give way around 4-5 tons. Curious if it would be better for the part to sheer off rather than exploding suddenly.
Powder is more brittle and less ductile. It might be prone to fatigue cracking from repeated impact loads. The machined part might do better in such applications where the loading is not subject to impacts. It's been 25 years since I studied materials. I'm surprised I remember some of it because I've never used it much in my career.
Neat but I'm pretty sure this is not the ANSI test method for roller chain sprockets. How to these compare to billet using established standard methods of testing?
You are correct; it is not a testing method according to ANSI standards, but both types were tested under the same conditions. It serves as a demonstration of tooth strength in shear between the compared manufacturing methods
This is an exciting experiment, but it would be interesting to compare the compression and bending forces. In particular, gear teeth often break due to high bending loads and high contact stresses.
I would be interested to see the wear characteristics of the two as sprockets are much more likely to need replacement due to worn teeth rather than breakage.
I would presume both manufacturing styles have been optimized and theyve been heat treated to maximize wear characteristics of both sprockets so....which one lasts longer?
I gotta say though, I was completely surprised by the results of this test.
I would think the powdered metal sintered components failure characteristics and performance could be drastically altered during the sintering process.
Are you guys engineers too? Wishing I could do a full failure analysis on those pieces.
What about hardness of machined part?
Was it stress relieved after machining? And was it through hardened or just induction hardened teeth? What was the procedure?
And thanks for the video.
iit is very impressive. I work at powder metallurgy mold company. I thought machining part would much stronger than PM part. Do you have any idea about the material of the machining sprocket
..Why not add furnace right into the compression chamber..with the Dye..!
It appears the PM sprocket had better rigidity over the entire part while the CM sprocket was slightly softer starting to give way around 4-5 tons. Curious if it would be better for the part to sheer off rather than exploding suddenly.
Powder is more brittle and less ductile. It might be prone to fatigue cracking from repeated impact loads. The machined part might do better in such applications where the loading is not subject to impacts. It's been 25 years since I studied materials. I'm surprised I remember some of it because I've never used it much in my career.
the conventional is more durable as a whole
Neat but I'm pretty sure this is not the ANSI test method for roller chain sprockets.
How to these compare to billet using established standard methods of testing?
You are correct; it is not a testing method according to ANSI standards, but both types were tested under the same conditions. It serves as a demonstration of tooth strength in shear between the compared manufacturing methods
Thanks for the info ❤
"And now its time to dance...."
Only legends will get it.
Welcome to hydraulic press channel
Conventional machining is harden than powder metallurdgy
You have mistaken strength instead of hardness.
Can we get hard this meterial in vacuum
Nice video. I think it might be the tempering process that makes the metal less brittle.
Wow super👍👌
Super👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Where are you getting your binder from?
Sorry, I don't quite understand your question. Could you please clarify what you mean by 'binder'?