- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
-
<p>Sometimes, “surface finish” refers not only to the processing technology, but also to the functionality of the coating: corrosion protection, friction reduction, aesthetics. For me, this is an interesting dilemma: we are used to perceiving the surface as the “finishing touch,” but it is precisely the surface that determines how a part will behave in real-world use. I often encounter the opinion that customers underestimate the importance of the surface, and that requirements “on paper” do not always correspond to reality. Have you ever had a situation where the surface “let down” the finished product? And how, in your opinion, should the design culture change – should engineers immediately include surface requirements on a par with mechanical characteristics?</p>
-
<p>I completely agree. We made shafts for pumps, and everything was perfect in terms of dimensions, but the surface let us down – it was too rough. This resulted in wear and leaks. Since then, we immediately write Ra, Rz, and everything else in the technical specifications, otherwise it’s a time bomb.</p>
-
<p>I completely agree that the surface determines the life of a part. We had a case with aluminum panels for aviation: the dimensions were correct, but corrosion began after a few months. We only found a solution after consulting with Tech Met. They are specialists in metal surface finish . Thanks to them, we introduced chemical cleaning and passivation, and the panels stopped crumbling. Since then, I believe that engineers must specify surface requirements at the design stage. To be honest, without Tech Met, we would have spent a long time looking for the root of the problem.</p>
-
