發表人 | 內容 |
---|---|
cwlan
終極會員 |
I have tested as part of my work the corrosion resistance of a number of steels and other alloys, I thought the comparison between the stainless steel 316L (used by virtually majority of manufacturers watch) and 904L (used by Rolex for the Sub) will interest you Protocol testing: aging and accelerated corrosion of different alloys: sample of different tests 30 minutes 120 ° C 100% humidity was saturated saline 24 hours in acid chromosulphuric 24 hours in hydrochloric acid 48 hours in the ammonium bifluoride has saturation Verdict .... the 904L has left virtually intact, except for a slight surface passivation, has the right 316L ..... the corrosion resistance of 904L is not a legend, it is noted that the most severe tests were the resistance has a high salt saturation temperature (which perfectly simulates a saline mist): 316L after the test showed traces of bites, and the bath of ammonium bifluoride daunting for almost all steel of course we rarely bathes in the ammonium bifluoride or hydrogen chromosulphuric but these tests are interesting as premature aging and has seen how it is important to rinse his watch after a bath of seawater ... . and yes the steel corrodes and the 904L is definitely a little more (the flat near the rate of nickel and therefore important allergenic and hardness slightly less than 316L) cwlan 在 星期六 2009-11-21 13:28 作了第 4 次修改 |
ptt_hello
中級會員 |
|
mp5ris2002
白金會員 |
|
t7050113
中級會員 |
|
cwlan
終極會員 |
|
biglincm
進階會員 |
|
sovereign
終極會員 |
|
BABA
白金會員 |
|
allenzi
資深會員 |
|
ㄚ銘
終極會員 |
|
第1頁(共2頁)
您 無法 在這個版面發表文章
您 無法 在這個版面回覆文章
您 無法 在這個版面編輯文章
您 無法 在這個版面刪除文章
您 無法 在這個版面進行投票
您 無法 在這個版面上傳附加圖檔
您 可以 在這個版面下載已上傳之附加圖檔
您 無法 在這個版面回覆文章
您 無法 在這個版面編輯文章
您 無法 在這個版面刪除文章
您 無法 在這個版面進行投票
您 無法 在這個版面上傳附加圖檔
您 可以 在這個版面下載已上傳之附加圖檔