OK preacher, have you rested your brain long enough to take in another observation? Take a deep breath and think real hard.
Since we know that the 1890's Krupp barrel, which was "similar" to AISI 1045, would not have been given an AISI designation for the reasons I outlined in my last post, we must accept your description of it as "similar" to AISI 1045.
That is not a stretch, considering when it was made. If it was analyzed and found to be "similar" to AISI 1045, we can reasonably assume it was a decarbonized steel with a carbon content of around .45%
If Krupp had alloyed it with nickel, chromnium, molybdenum, etc., it likely would not be described as "similar to AISI 1045".
But then you go on to say that the tensile strength of that barrel was dramatically different than a sample of non-standard (high phosphorus and sulfur) AISI 1045. The numbers were 82,000-85,000 psi vs. 101,000 psi.
That isn't what "similar" means preacher. That is radically different. And it was cool to see how you skated away from my question about tensile strength being the only criteria for good gun barrel steel.
Now here's a second thought. Take a rest and come back to it later if this is too much to take in all at once.
You then go on to say this:
"similar to 1045" and "non-standard 1045" means they don't fit the criteria for 1045...and are therefore not 1045. Not a hard concept William.
The problem is, you are now attempting to say that "
non-standard 1045" is therefore not 1045 right after telling us that it is AISI 1045:
Interesting observation William.
It turns out that a specimen of 1898 Smith No. 00 Armor steel was non-standard (high phosphorus and sulfur) AISI 1045 with a measured tensile strength of 101,000 psi. Very good stuff for a farm implement grade gun!
So preacher... right there is the part where we catch you being dishonest and deceptive again.
You think it's hard to have a discussion with someone who puts more than one thought in a post???... you should try debating someone like you who changes his own words and tries to twist meaning in order to discredit the other guy. But hey, being dishonest helped you skate away from several pertinent questions.
Do you think that being dishonest and twisting like this is going to make more people believe that you actually understand this subject? You need to take a good long look at yourself.
