Talk:Hardness comparison

Data reliability
Nice comparison, but a source is necessary! --BjKa 07:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: There is a typo in the Vickers column. 191 shouldn't be between 168 and 174. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.73.1 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mohs?
Surely Mohs scale of mineral hardness should referenced in some way? Snori (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How do conversions for different types of material vary
The conversion curves are often stated for some but not all types of steel. It could be useful to see how different the conversion curves are for different types of materials. Can anyone explain why the conversion curves are different for different types of material ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did the numbers come from
Brinell values over 450 are not used in industry, the indent is two shallow and difficult to read. Thus readings of over 600 hardness brinell are fantasy. Also(HRB) Rockwell B readings over 100 are also unreliable, the indent is so shallow that accurate and reliable reading is not possible. Most rockwell testers are unreliable below HRC 20. A graph of Vickers 150kg versus the other scales makes sense. Vickers 150kg scale covers a very large range of hardness. The Mohs scale of hardness is so different from the metals hardness scale, that comparison is difficult. ASTM E18 for rockwell, ASTM E10 for Brinell define the limits of rockwell and brinell testing.

T A Hunter (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we extend to non-steels
Eg Lead (HB 5), Aluminium (HB 15), Gold (HB 25), Copper (HB 35) ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tensile Strength
Is anyone willing to add a "Tensile Strength (N/mm2 / MPa) column? That would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.247.233.46 (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)