Bruce, you said something very interesting and something that makes sense to me.
What I do want to know is, how come those quality chinese goods are not seen in the US, as much as they deserve to be seen.
I mean, if I could buy a quality new machine for, say, 60% of what a new US made machine costs, I personally would do it. (assuming that support, etc is also available).
i
I believe he already answered that, Ig.
Very well too.
Richard
I sent this to two groups.
steel,Obtained at 850C withe special heating time and cooling rate , Tensile strength is very high,and the flow curve is very smoothing ,and A lot of work need to done.
Im fascinated by the fact the buffoon thinks that the end user or retailer is supposed to act as the QA department of a manufacturer
3500 miles away, and with 3 degrees of separation.Thats idiocy.
Gunner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by continuous
due to Fe-C phase-diagram, there must be a limit of martensite. At 850C, the martensite fraction / percentage is around 17%
with special conditions,change the heating temperature, we can obtain different volume of austenitite at high temperature. when it is cooled down to the room temperature, the steel obtained different fraction martensite.
'fluctuations in tensile strength' --- my mean is that tensile strength is not line with the temperature.
of course, lots of work need to be done to investigated other circs and the rule.
Frankly I don't know, but I can say that after perusing the pages of Harbor Freight I've seen none of these types of machines offered for sale here. The multi function mini machines are available but rare. I believe they are of European manufacture.
Do a search on Alibaba and see what is available, I think you will find it enlightening.
Regarding support I can't comment on what is available in the U.S. I suspect that it is a factor of who is the agent/supplier, but In Asia all machinery comes with guarantees and at least parts support.
Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply)
Of course. The specific chemicals spec'd for aqua-dots, for instance, and the chemical substituted, have been widely published. And each of the toy manufacturers has _claimed_ that lead paint was substituted for the specified paint, even to the point where the initial batches were made to spec, passed QA, and then the cheaper lead paint was substituted for later production.
Want links?
Eve if they have to put phenols in a food product, which will kill whatever eats it?
Yes, in theory, but in the case of this example, the spec was not followed. I'm kind of surprised that people who haven't followed the issue are springing to the defense of China on this one because, it's really not a supportable point of view.
Cheap is fine, if that's the spec. If the spec is "Use this polymer which doesn't metabolize into a drug that will induce coma if eaten", and they use one that does, because it's cheaper (yes I can provide cites), then THAT is a problem. And that's what they did in this case. And continue to do at every opportunity.
THAT, is the problem.
// -------- Comment ---------------- //
What would make your data easier to conceptualize would be a graphic showing the martensite, carbide, and ferrite levels changing as the annealing temperature increases.
// ------------- Comment ---------------- //
Adding a tensile strength curve to the above graph may show the relationship between tensile strength, yield point, and the other properties.
As a former QC tech for a US factory, one of my tasks was to inspect incoming shipments using random samples to determine if they did indeed meet specifications. The shipments came from more than 3500 miles away, with many degrees of separation. One of the things we checked was chemical content of the paint. (More specifically, we checked for certain banned compounds and elements.)
That's not idiocy. It's responsible standard operating procedure. Or at least it was, fifteen years ago.
Are you telling me that factories today aren't inspecting their parts any more?
" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com" wrote in news:f3bb8ec1-29c4-41cb- snipped-for-privacy@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Apparently, the US toy distributors were not inspecting their imports too much, until somebody found lead in the paint.
Yes, in manufacturing, that's only logical.
Of course not. It's also not the topic of discussion in this case.
The factories, are in China. And if they're inspecting 'em, the same people putting lead paint on the toys are the ones "inspecting" for it. Mattel or whomever then imports it, obviously without checking it. Yeah, they share the blame and are the only entity we can actually legally do anything about, but the ultimate blame belongs to the people putting banned substances in the products in the first place.
We're not importing toy parts, we're importing toys, packaged and ready for the store shelf.
As has been pointed out, the distributors should be inspecting those toys even if they're "ready for the store shelf"
You can blame the Chinese factories all you want. They deserve it. But unless I misunderstand you, it seems you want to place no blame at all on the parent companies who are taking them, without any inspection, and placing them on the store shelves.
In my factory, we shipped out many things "Ready for the shelves" and we sometimes got shipments returned because of something somebody found in an inspection. Sometimes it was our fault, sometimes it was a mistake.
My point is that those toys should have had a better final inspection from the people that bought them. Part of the blame goes to the customer. Not all, but dammit, our people got sloppy too. You're supposed to keep better tabs on your suppliers than that.
Metalworking is not my first skill, and many of the questionable sections of your article are probably technical in nature, not grammatical. Also, the lack of paragraphing in your text makes it more difficult to read. I'll go through it sentence by sentence and tell you where I think it's rough.
(Many of the "rough spots" are the sort of thing I used to find in my classmate's papers, by the way. They aren't really indicative that English is the second language of the writer.)
First is the original sentence, then my version of syntax and grammar. This is a rough draft, requiring further review. Paragraphing can be discussed later. :-)
Also note this was done as an excuse to delay going outside to shovel snow. Which I am now about to go and do.
--------------------------------------
Different microstructures and mechanical properties can be developed in a variety of annealing temperature.
---Possibly change "in" to "at": Different microstructures and mechanical properties can be developed at a variety of annealing temperatures.
An investigation was undertaken to examine effect of annealing temperature on microstructure and mechanical of dual phase steel under simulated hot-dipped galvanizing.
------ An investigation was undertaken to examine the effects of annealing temperature on microstructure and mechanical properties of dual phase steel, under simulated hot-dipped galvanizing conditions.
The steel (of composition 0.15wt%C 0.1wt%Si 1.7wt%Mn) was obtained at three different heating temperatures (790?, 820?, 850?) by continuous annealing experiment thermal simulator.
---- here, I fall down. I'm okay with this part: The steel (of composition 0.15wt%C 0.1wt%Si 1.7wt%Mn) was obtained at three different heating temperatures (790?, 820?, 850?)
----- but when I get here, I'm a little confused. by continuous annealing experiment thermal simulator.
----Do we mean, we used a "continuous annealing experiment thermal simulator"?
-- or did we use continuous annealing in a thermal simulator as an experiment?
--- a little more explanation is in order, I think.
The microstructures were observed by the optical microscope and transmission electron microscopy, and the mechanical properties were tested.
The microstructures were observed using an optical microscope and transmission electron microscopy, and the mechanical properties were tested.
Under hot-dip galvanizing condition, the effect of annealing temperature on microstructure and the relationship of microstructure and mechanical properties have been investigated.
Under hot-dip galvanizing conditions, the effect of annealing temperature on microstructure and the relationship of microstructure to mechanical properties were investigated.
Increasing the annealing temperature, martensite volume fraction increases, and intergranular carbide reduces and ferrite intragranular carbide becomes small.
------ Again, I'm not sure. I think this is what it means: When the annealing temperature is increased, martensite volume fraction increases, intergranular carbide reduces, and ferrite intragranular carbide becomes small.
When the annealing temperature is 790?, most of martensite distributes intergranular region.
--- a little problem with the degree symbol. Mac, Windows, and Unix
-- often disagree about it. I am also stumped about what's happening
-- with the martensite. I know it's a displacive rather than diffusive
-- crystaline structure but don't know if it's being transformed
-- or whether it's redistributing itself, or whether it's doing something
-- to the intergranular region.
When the annealing temperature is 790 degrees, most of the martensite distributes to the intergranular region.
Yes. As I've said several times, both here and on the website I built to show how bad the problem is, productrecallwatch.com . It downloads RSS feeds from the CPSC, FDA, DOT, and several other government sources. I haven't done this week's rundown yet but, dozens of products just last week with lead paint. From China.
Yes, you are misunderstanding me horribly. I've been quite clear that the importer is the only one who we can legally do anything with and they share some of the blame. I have also been quite clear and consistent that the factories choosing to use toxins in products made for the US, are doing so intentionally and are ultimately to blame.
Mistakes are also your fault. Whose else would you pretend they are? Seems to me, the culture is "profit at any cost to the customers, and apologize if we get caught". That is disgusting, but dozens of items a week? It is hard to come to any other conclusion.
BULLSHIT. The lead shouldn't be in there in the first place. This isn't a surprise to the factories deciding to use it.
BULLSHIT.
You disgust me.
By "mistake", I meant that the inspector misinterpreted the specifications or used the wrong set of specs.
Well, we have something in common. You disgust me too. :-)
That is not an excuse for using lead paint. That is not an excuse for using 1,4-butanediol (metabolizes into coma-inducing drugs if swallowed) in a childrens toy, instead of the 1,5-butanediol that was specified. A Chinese factory decided to use the cheaper chemical, despite the fact that it's not safe.
A factory in China decided to use lead paint on decorations:
It's time that the US revokes China's "most favored trade nation status". Trade _partners_ do not intentionally poison the children of their customers. Pretending it's a mistake or anything other than a consious decision based on greed and malice. Which motivation is it? Are you trying to save a few pennies, or is your primary motivation in trying, intentionally, to harm the generation of Americans which may very well go to war with China?
Two of the major recalls were of toys sold by Mattel. They are not a retailer and yes they bloody well _are_ supposed to act as the QA.
Several were from Toys R Us, which is not some neighborhood shop, they're a very large franchise operation with centralized purchasing and they also should bloody well be making sure that what they are selling in their stores does not violate the safety laws. Jo-Ann fabrics the same way.
Put it this way, if you bought a saw from Sears and it threw the blade at you, would you be angry at Sears or would you be angry at the Chinese because in your opinion it wasn't Sears' responsibility to perform quality control on the products they sold?
No, idiocy was Mattel failing to ensure that what was sent to them was what was ordered.
Amen. Buffoon indeed. 35 miles away or
3500 miles away. Makes no difference. Importers are responsible for QC. But as I indicated in another post, I had used the term retailer when I should have used importer.
Two? There were 30+ last week.
Yup, Jo-Ann Fabrics is another prime importer of lead-painted Chinese stuff. I blame them as well as the manufacturers.
Both. But Sears is the only entity with a USA'n presense that I could have any recourse with.
What was worse was the chairman of Mattel apologizing TO THE CHINESE for the lead paint recalls. W. T. F.
How so? If they're 35 miles away, they follow USA'n laws. In China, obviously, not.
NO. Manufacturers are responsible to follow the damn spec and not just apologize if caught.
Backpedal noted.
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.