Blacken Stainless Steel Patina Darken Metal Finishes

Aha.The pitch in the sports car press here, years ago, was that the plywood chassis required too much labor. I don't have any other information on it, except that the same comment was made in one of my coffee-table car books. The steel space frame was cheaper to build at the time. I'll bet they brazed it, like a lot of specialty Brit car manufacturers did.

Plywood actually is a very good material for making high-performance chassis. It's good for shear panels and it's good for those multi-box tubs, the early ones, that were sometimes called "monocoque" but which weren't. They were a collection of shear-panel boxes, generally made of sheet aluminum, but they could be much stiffer in plywood. They've been used in a variety of structures but I don't know of any cars built that way. I've heard that the "appropriate technology" mini cars that Renault had designed for indiginous construction in Africa a couple of decades ago were designed that way, but I never saw one, or even photos of them.

The Marcos, IIRC, was a little different. I saw some photos of the old Marcos wooden chassis once upon a time, and it looked like the frame of a big hydroplane or plywood airplane -- circa 1960. It was a highly engineered structure. My recollection is that it was a series of crosswise bulkheads tied together with upright longitudinal panels. It looked like the skin might be stressed, too, but I don't know.

You probably know this but it's a potentially useful point worth repeating: a good-quality plywood, like Bruynzeel or one of its copy-cats, has a weight/stiffness value, and a weight/strength value, roughly equivalent to a medium-strength cored composite. For example, S-glass fabric and epoxy sandwiching high-density polyurethane foam. Twenty-five years ago, that was a high-performance composite.

The performance of a well-engineered plywood structure of that type is at least as good as, and maybe better than, a fully triangulated tubular spaceframe.

I hope someone got that down on paper or other recording. Too many of those gems just get lost.

Reply to
Ed Huntress
Loading thread data ...

It's a lovely etch, even if it isn't what you were after.

He says that sanding out some of the surface chrome and nickel is the key to the darker blacks, plus a topcoat, which also darkens. This is one of the more interesting (and in-depth) vids I've seen about patinizing. He also mentioned something about the nickel and chromium migrating back to the surface after about a week. Innnnteresting. I thought maybe they came to the surface as the metal cooled during rolling, or something.

I adore the look of black chrome.

Maybe EPI's products would work better for your particular objet d'art, Boris.

formatting link

Reply to
Larry Jaques

I've always preferred lacquer thinner. Both are too damned expensive these days. Someone is making billions off 'em. (Probably the greenies.)

Reply to
Larry Jaques

:

coln- Hide quoted text -

All bunk. Any sanding is removing the oxide coating all stainless has(otherwise it wouldn't BE "stainless"). If it's done wet, that allows the chemical to react with the metal under the oxide. Nothing more complicated than that. Soldering and brazing stainless has the same problem, getting rid of the oxide layer so that the filler alloy can bond. Can be done mechanically, by scratching the surface under a puddle of solder, or chemically, with some really nasty fluxes. Unless heated really hot, nickel and chrome in a stainless alloy aren't migrating ANYWHERE, particularly at room temperature. Probably what's happening is that the chemical blackening is getting oxidized over time. Doesn't say much for future coating durability.

Stan

Reply to
Stanley Schaefer

And you have to watch the lacquer thinner you get these days, too. At least the body shop supply was nice enough to label their 5 gallon tins "recycled". Good enough for paint gun cleaning, I wouldn't use it for diluent. Solvent prices shot up about the time gas was going past the $5 mark on the coasts, they never came back down. Used to pay less than $5 for a gallon tin of acetone at the hardware store, same for V.M.& P. naptha, it's almost 4x that now. Some of that's inflation, but not all. They nail me $25-30/gal for urethane diluent at the body shop supply now.

I use V.M. & P. naptha for most of my pre-priming paint prep, gets the grease and dirt off and goes away. Haven't had any residue problem with it that I can see. Downside is that if you get a drop on jeans or shirt, it spreads out and gives a nasty chemical burn, but mineral spirits will do that, too. Just have to be careful.

Stan

Reply to
Stanley Schaefer

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.