Unfortunate that cowardly bullies like William and Frank lurk in threads, waiting for others with the willingness to provide opinions (which may be proved wrong) or factual data, but lack the
cojones themselves to offer anything but BS and criticism of those opinions, and can't help but show their obsession and hatred by reviving past feuds.
Sorry gentlemen, then I'll give it a rest
A. Pagliuca, Metallurgist
Metals Engineering & Testing Laboratories
"The braze contamination descriptions are kept vague because that's about as conclusive a statement we can make based on the data. The concentrations of iron and oxygen detected could technically be
consistent with corrosion (rust) or overheated steel. Based on where it was observed in the braze, we need to refer to it as ferrous braze contamination. We don't know exactly what it is. This could have occurred during the brazing process (likely) and been exaggerated over time by successive heating cycles, moisture, etc via possible alloy segregation effects, electromigration and such phenomena."
This is the braze joint with manganese sulfide inclusions and ferrous debris
Keith - how about you start another thread instead of dumping equine fecal matter all over this one? Maybe let us know what
your safe wall thickness criteria are?
And back to the topic - what is
your opinion as to the cause of the "barrel wall failing"?