Talk:Wear
Page contents not supported in other languages.
The article refers to loss of dimension through processes known as frog and railway crossing. I believe that this included in the article is outright confusing for people as it is unexplained jargon. (I personally was dispelling images of hopping creatures, before checking for vandalism) I have removed it for the moment, but if someone wants to provide an explanation, link or image, that would be great User A1 11:36 pm, 17 October 2006, Tuesday (4 years, 4 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−5)
This article does not address material loss and deformation through direct angular impingement of a solid under velocity on to a surface. I believe this would or should be classified as balistic wear?
Wouldn't fretting wear be considered a wear as well? Fretting doesn't fall into any of the current four catagories of wear though it can be a precursor to Abrasive wear. Lukeseed (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted a change to the number of wear modes by an anonomous user for the second time, but did not check to see if it was the same IP/subnet -- Am I missing something here? The change was the same, is there a good reason for the change that I don't see? User A1 (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I have changed the section, but in my experience, there are four principle wear modes (see Rabinowicz 1995, ASTM Hanbook, etc.), namely:
Fretting, galling, erosion, impact, cavitation, etc wear are all sub processes of the four primary wear processes. The sub proccesses describe different manners in which the loads and sliding are introduced but the underlying mechanism is still the same. In this regard it is common to hear of abrasive erosive wear and so on. Obviously there is some contention to the primary wear mechanisms. In this scenario I think we should follow the format of large organisational bodies (ie. ASTM) or the most commonly applied manner represented in literature. Burger86 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of wear is not appropriate in the opening statement. The word "erosion" should not be there as erosion by itself is a kind of wear. It will be better to use the definition by ASTM. Drajput (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the following material as inappropriate to the introduction section of the article and placed it here for later inclusion elsewhere in the article:
Mmyotis (^^o^^) 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to correct the section about adhesive wear and material transfer.My investigation but also other investigations, refereed to in the text, clearly state that material between the two interfaces exhibits a clear change in plastic behaviour. Such a change in material behaviour is not possible without high pressure and/or temperature in the demarcated, deformed, volume. It is clear that a high energy content, pressure or temperature can be very local, especially around sharp tools or penetrating objects, because energy or heat transfer away from the contact zone is highly dependent on the surface area of the deformed volume.
For example, water doesn't evaporate in vacuum if it´s injected whit high pressure and have a small surface area, because the energy content, pressure is high and the surface area doesn't´t allow instant and total loss of energy and immediate water evaporation.
I wan´t to correct the section whit regards to the above explanation, thank you.--Haraldwallin (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to discuss citation 8 in the wear article presently found in the Wikipedia archive, the citation reads quote,"Surfaces also generally have low energy states due to reacted and absorbed species." end quotation, the sentence is strange because debris in frictional contact can be of hardened phases and other high energy formations.
It isn't certain that adhesive wear is exothermic in nature and free stored energy. The accumulated high energy found in debris and remainders found in the tracks after sliding contact and adhesive wear is the product of plastic deformation and plastic flow.
I would like to politely remove or rewrite the sentence or at least ask someone why it´s present and perhaps the details might it justified. It seems a bit confusing with regards to the other parts in the text.Also the reference is rather old and perhaps doesn't comply to knew findings in the latest research in adhesive wear.Glaeser, W. A., Ed. (1993). Characterization of Tribological Materials. Materials Characterization Series. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann.
--Haraldwallin (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldwallin (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this stub of an article is going to grow extensively soon, I don't see why it deserves its own article. It can easily fit into this article, even if it does grow moderately. Wizard191 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I´m proud to include my reference to the adhesive wear section in the wear article and according to Diego Moya: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason" [1]
Sincerely --Haraldwallin (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this report is in the article, that’s a fact
--Haraldwallin (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say that please add page which are of wear types. It will include all information about wear types.
Please add five pages given below:
1. Abrasion wear
2.Erosion wear
3. Adhesion wear
4. Surface fatigue
5. Corrosion wear
I feel the section on friccohesity is not well integrated with the rest of the article. Also, its length would justify a standalone article. If there are no strong objections, I'll move the contents to a separate page soon.Moritz Ploss (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, I concluded that the information on Friccohesity has nothing to do with wear. Also, it was spread out all over the article and, at least for me, impossible to read due to its complex wording. I removed all information on Friccohesity without moving it to a separate article.Moritz Ploss (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
primary wear 106.213.97.144 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]