Most magnetic stainless?

Your choices are somewhat limited when it turns to sheet stock. The vast majority of them will be non-magnetic, so you may have difficulty in finding one that will suit your needs. 410 is magnetic and is available in sheet, as is 17-7. There may be others, but I don't know of them.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos
Loading thread data ...

Had they worded their comments differently, I'd likely agree-------but in this case, unlike all others that I have read, it distinctly says to not put it in service in solution annealed condition. All other stainless specs I've read caution that the material at hand may be lower in corrosion resistance in the annealed state, but there is no recommendation that they not be put in service. Curious, isn't it!

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote: : Your choices are somewhat limited when it turns to sheet stock. The vast --Don't need a lot; I think I'll take Ernie's idea and use a stainless steel rule, heh.

Reply to
steamer

Ernie Leimkuhler wrote: : 410 is what they use for SS straight edges. --Aha! That would be about the right size, too!

Reply to
steamer

Ok... you have to decide.... annealed or not.

If annealed, forget the Austenitic steels... they aren't magnetic. BUT if cold worked you could use 304.

Martensitic (400 series) may be your best bet......

although I think you are looking for Unobtainium if it truly must be, "highly magnetically inclined" as you indicated in your first post.

Reply to
Gene Kearns

Yes indeed. I have an Armco product data brochure from 1978 that contradicts your reference. Here's the same brochure updated a bit...

On page 4 it says,

"This alloy exhibits useful mechanical properties in Condition A. Tests at Kure Beach, NC, after 14 years show excellent stress corrosion resistance. Condition A material has been used successfully in numerous applications. The hardness and tensile properties fall within the range of those for Conditions H 1100 and H 1150.

However, in critical applications, the alloy is used in the precipitation-hardened condition, rather than Condition A. Heat treating to the hardened condition, especially at the higher end of the temperature range, stress relieves the structure and may provide more reliable resistance to stress corrosion cracking than in Condition A."

Ned Simmons

Reply to
Ned Simmons

Thanks for the updated data. I think the last sentence explains it pretty well. I'd suggest it *can* be used in the solution annealed condition.

By the way, at the bottom of my sheet, it mentions that 17-4 PH is a registered trademark of Armco Steel Corp. I would think their information would be correct.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

Harold I found the following reason for the warning against using 17-4 in condition A, in the ASM Metals Handbook, 8th edition, Volume 2 Heat Treating, Cleaning, and Finishing. Page 249 preface " 17-4 PH is normally supplied in the solution treated condition, in which it has an essentially martensitic structure and has limited formability. Fabrication .....bla,bla,bla " "This alloy should not be put into service in any application in the solution treated condition, because in this condition its ductility can be relatively low and its resistance to stress corrosion cracking is poor. Hardening to any of the strength levels shown in table 7 (H900 to H1150) improves both toughness and resistance to stress corrosion. Interesting, is that the following section on 17-7 PH makes no such mention of warning in condition A. Compounding the confusion further as MIL-HNBK-5J " Metallic Materials for Aerospace Vehicle Structures" warn with the use of 17-7 PH in condition A, but not 17-4. In any case, I stand corrected, and Harold wins the cigar. Tom

Reply to
tomcas

Chuckle!

I'm willing to split the cigar with you, Tom. Thanks for the great report! It's always been a mystery to me what the reason might be------but I've always been quick to make mention of the caution-------*just in case*. Better to err on the safe side I always say.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

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.