Talk:Surface integrity
 | A fact from Surface integrity appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
redundancy?[edit]
- Surface integrity is the nature of the surface condition ...
What's the difference between the condition and the nature of the condition?
How about something like: "Surface integrity is the degree to which a workpiece's surface is ..."? —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
condition or good condition?[edit]
- Surface integrity is the nature of the surface condition of a workpiece after manufacturing processes. It can also be defined as the "unimpaired or enhanced surface condition of a component or specimen which influences its performance".
The first sentence defines it as the condition whatever that is. The second sentence defines it as good condition. Pick one. —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that's pretty much what Degarmo says, but I agree with you, on closer inspection, that they are in conflict, so I removed the later, as it was listed as a more specific definition. Wizard191 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
surface integrity inspection[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Please bring this up at WP:REFDESK, because this talk page is for improving the article. Wizard191 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the user of BS EN 13261:2009 "RAILWAY APPLICATIONS --- Wheelsets and bogies -- Axles -- Product requirement". According to item 3.7.2 "Surface integrity" and Table 8 "longitudinal defect limit" in this standard, it gives a detail and operable acceptance criteria for surface integrity inspection. My question is does these defects limited only on haircrack? or could be used to any kind of surface defect(for example, crack with certain depth)? If the later is corrective, my worry is that if the defect is accepted per this criteria (for example, longitudinal defect, length 5mm , on axle journal area), but this defect could not be checked out by UT internal defect inspection (since in the UT blind layer), is it possible? Could we accept this situation? Thanks for your asistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William zheng (talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)