Measurements And Relations Of Hardness And Depth Of Carbonization In Case-Hardened Steel.

Discussion of the paper of Mark A. Amnion, presented at the Cleveland meeting October, 1913, and printed in Bulletin No. 70, October, 1913, pp. 1167 to 1 79. J. E. JOHNSON, JR., Ashland, Wis.:-Mr. Amnion's paper is of great value and it is not with any desire to reflect. on it that I wish to make some comments on the use of the scleroscope. We obtained one on trial some months ago and made very extensive tests with it, but without getting very satisfactory results. The readings on good car-wheels and bad ones were just about the same, but the factor in its use most likely to produce erroneous results is a variation in the thickness of the specimen being tested. In order to find out something on this subject we cut a thin disk, about -1,: in. thick, off a brass rod; then one 0.25 in. thick, and another about 1 in. thick, put the surfaces of all in about the same condition and tested them with the scleroscope. The readings varied widely; the resilience of the anvil evidently entered to a very high degree on thin pieces. By putting a soft cushion between such a thin specimen and the anvil, and forcing it up against the tube, the softness of the cushion cut off the resilience of the anvil and the results were more like those of the thick specimens. After a thickness of 1 in. was passed, the specimen seemed to have mass enough so that the resilience of the anvil no longer played an important part, and above that thickness results on different materials would be comparable, even though the thicknesses differed. But in order to get comparable results on thin specimens the thickness of those being tested should be the same. I should like to ask how the variations introduced in this way were overcome, so as to get strictly comparable results. Mr. AMMON :-.I have not had much experience in that, but the scleroscope is simply an indication of the surface harden-