Talk:Stainless steel

Today's stailness steel 304 18gauge seat
Today's stailness steel 18gauge 304 seat rate 103.214.60.231 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Questionable Statement about Thermal "Conduction"?
I'm not a native english Speaker myself, but I stumbled over the following passage in de Section "Thermal Conduction" (which I believe should be "Thermal Conductivity"?):

"Typically, stainless steel has a thermal conductivity ranging from 15 to 20 W/mK (watts per meter Kelvin). Due to this, it keeps more energy that stabilizes the surrounding temperature."

I cannot figure out what this sentence tries to convey! Thermal Conductivity is about the ability conduct energy from the hotter part of an object to the cooler part - not about keeping energy - that's what I would rather associate with Thermal Capacitance !

Unless there is some hidden aspect that I fail to grasp, the sentence "due to this, it keeps ..." does not make any sense in this form, and I would therefore suggest that it should be either clarified or removed.

Interestingly, both sections "Hardness" and "Thermal Conduction" seem to have been introduced at the same time in March 10, 2023, and are sourced from the same obscure Website "https://blog.thepipingmart.com/", which does not seem to be scientific. 2A01:C23:799E:1900:5C09:9A68:64B2:D760 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It was just someone adding text as an excuse to spam their website. I removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Reducing acids
Stating that acids can be either reducing or oxidizing is incompetent! An example of acid, which may act as a reducing agent, is HI. Formic acid can be considered reducing as well. Hydrochloric and dilute sulfuric acid are non-oxidizing, but ARE NOT reducing! Stating that acids can be either oxidizing or non-oxidizing is fine, because a reducing acid is also non-oxidizing. But many non-oxidizing acids ARE NOT reducing.

See Reducing agent. Gradatmit (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has had that wording for years. Per WP:BRD it should stay that way until (if) consensus is reached to change it. And the personal attack is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And where is the personal attack!? I did NOT say that you are incompetent! I said that the statement is incompetent! 94.25.177.135 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to quibble about. Please don't make comments like that.
 * One could just as well say that acids can be reducing and non-reducing. If acids are categorized as "oxidizing" and "non-oxidizing" then let's add a source to that effect. Similarly if they are categorized as "oxidizing" and "reducing" as claimed then let's add a source for that. If that was just an editor's terminology the we should reword it properly. user:Geimoe added this more than 5 years ago and it has not been contested since, but that editor has not [typo corrected 25 September 2023] been active for several years. Meters (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The section in question discusses oxidative corrosion, which is a chemical process. The concepts of oxidation/reduction are taught in high-school chemistry classes. The same applies to basic reactions of mineral acids with metals and other materials. Sources are necessary to support statements about research/technical material, not high-school-level concepts.
 * In basic terms, a substance is considered a reducer/oxidizer if it can be readily oxidized/reduced by common oxidizers/reducers. In a reaction of common metals (and other reducers) with oxidizing acids, protons are not normally reduced to hydrogen, but the element forming the acid anion is reduced instead. For example, concentrated sulfuric acid reacts with oxidizable materials and may yield a variety of reduced forms of sulfate, such as sulfur dioxide: H2SVIO4->SIVO2. When diluted, the basic process H+->H2 normally occurs, if possible. The only element, which can be oxidized in sulfuric acid is oxygen, so someone understanding elementary chemistry would not call sulfuric acid "reducing" regardless of its concentration. The chlorine ion in hydrochloric acid can be oxidized a bit easier, but considering its oxidation potential, again it cannot be called "reducing" either. HI is an example of an acid, which can be considered reducing.
 * Of course, "neutral" acids can be called as both non-oxidizing and non-reducing. Only in the context in question, oxidative corrosion is discussed, which means talking about reducing/non-reducing acids is pointless. Gradatmit (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that the terminology "reducing/non-reducing" would be of any use here, just that with the current lack of justification in the article one can't tell whether it should be oxidizing/reducing, oxidizing/non-oxidizing or reducing/non-reducing. And the section does seem to
 * Not all of our readers have a high school chemistry education, and not all of those who have a high school education in chemistry will remember that education. For that matter, I'm not aware of any policy that says that only technical matters beyond high school level require sourcing. Certainly WP:NOTCITE doesn't say that. This is Wikipedia, not a technical research paper. There seems to be a large difference between what "the average adult recognizes as true" (Wikipedia's standard for not needing sourcing) and what you (a PhD in chemistry according to your user page) think everyone should know about chemistry. You are trying to change something that has been in the article (unchallenged) for more than 5 years. Again, if the norm is to refer to acids as "oxidizing" and "non-oxidizing" then just provide a source to that effect and we'll fix it, but right now all we have is your say so.
 * And your contention that this section is only discussing oxidative corrosion seems at odds with the statement "Increasing chromium and molybdenum content provides increased resistance to reducing acids". Meters (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Availability section is oddly specific to the Netherlands and reads a bit like an advertisement
Should it really be linking to specific businesses like that? Also it seems odd that "maintenance" is a subheading of "availability"; those seem like unrelated topics. 2600:1700:9DA1:1D2F:E47D:8E4E:B8B3:2A54 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removing it. Meters (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That was added just a few days ago. Meters (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever 30x alloy Tesla is using?
Tesla claims to have made some modifications to existing 30x stainless steel alloys, with R&D done by their own (apparently, in concert with SpaceX) materials engineering/metalurgy shop, in order to make a new alloy of stainless steel. Apparently, they have recently started calling this particular alloy "HFS" (per this and other sources) and are using it extensively in their new pickup truck EV. They previously just called the alloy 30X.

They don't make the steel. They buy large coils from regular/standard suppliers of stainless steel alloys. I read somewhere it may be similar, or identical?, to the cold-rolled alloy they are using for the new SpaceX huge launch vehicle: Starship. This the the world's largest and most-powerful launch vehicle ever now, larger than the Saturn V, and has made a couple of test flights. But am unsure if the particular alloy for that rocket is confirmed in reliable sources.

Given the number of consumer orders and projected production volume for the new stainless-steel-body Cybertruck, it would appear that this new alloy is an economically-significant, and clearly a notable alloy.

When might we find serious (laboratory? or academic?) analysis of just what this new alloy is? Composition? Properties? etc.? Would be good to add that particular grade/type/formulation to improve the article. N2e (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)