Talk:Roughness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

surface finish shown in s for e.g. 2.0s

Contents

[edit] Surface finish tolerances chart is INCORRECT

The units on "Surface Finish Tolerances In Manfacturing.png" are swapped--e.g. 8 microinches corresponds to .2 microns, not the other way around. I've notified the image's creator. Sandheep (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the image. It is easiest if Emok does the change (because he had the tools to create it in the first place), so I just let him know. His last contribution was on April 5th, so if he doesn't react soon I will make the change myself.
By the way, you don't need to YELL that the image is "INCORRECT". ;-)
Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for the mistake. Thanks for catching it. I can't edit the file right now, but I'll correct it and repost soon. Emok (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the yelling--just trying to call attention to the error--Thanks for fixing, Emok Sandheep (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Link ("Surface Profile Parameters") requires a password. I propose removal.

(this was removed august 2007) --Berland 06:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surface Finish Index Numbers

Does anybody have any detailed information on the Surface Finish Index numbers, i.e. A1, A2, C1, C2, etc? This would be useful to record here... FusionKnight 14:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging rugosity into roughness

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was not merge RUGOSITY into ROUGHNESS. The merge was proposed one year ago and all opinions expressed are against it. -- Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the subject, but from looking at both articles it looks like rugosity is used more for natural sciences and roughness for engineering. If this is true, having the articles divided (with a "see also" link to each other) seems natural and so I would suggest not to merge them. Nahraana (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia:Content forking suggests that "Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject". So, if the two terms are synonimous, maybe we should merge the articles. Opinions anyone?
Are they synonimous? The Free Dictionary gives different definitions for rugosity and roughness, and the only difference between them seems to be that rugose is used for botany specifically. Since I am not a native speaker, can anyone say if there is a real perceived difference between "rugosity" and "roughness" in the English language? Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
These two articles should not be merged because they are not synonymous. In an abstract sense they may be related, but they have different meanings when used technically. In mechanical engineering, metrology, manufacturing, tribology, etc. roughness has a precise definition that is explicitly defined in various standards published by ISO and ASME. These standards never mention the term rugosity. Emok (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
So what does rugosity mean when used technically? Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
From googling, it seems that rugosity is used in chemical engineering and marine sciences. I don't know much about it beyond that. My point is just that the standards have algorithms for separating out the high-frequency component of surface texture, and they call the result roughness, never rugosity. Emok (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. So, in the light of Emok's comments, I confirm my opinion that the articles should be left divided, with a "See also" link to each other. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Are the symbols correct?

The symbols for surface finish specification show the symbols for removal and no removal. Is this correct? I do not have a copy of ASME Y14, but I do have BS EN ISO 1302:2002 to hand. Figure 4 (para 4.4) shows the symbols the other way around: the "tick" with a circle meaning "material shall not be removed" and the "tick" with the horizontal line meaning "material shall be removed".

If the illustration is correct, can the paragraph be updated to state that BS EN ISO 1302:2002 have the opposite definitions, as it is implied in the text that the definition is the same for both. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake. It should be corrected now. Thanks for pointing it out. Emok (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)