READER FEEDBACK

Reader Feedback: Heat Treat To Lead a Low-Carbon Economy

/ READER FEEDBACK

Readers are checking out Heat Treat Today’s magazine, and the Letter from the Publisher in the January 2025 Annual Technologies to Watch print edition has sparked this reader feedback article from materials science engineer Jeremy Lipshaw. It makes the case for the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change — and argues that the heat treatment industry is well-positioned to lead in a low-carbon economy.

This insightful feedback article was first released in Heat Treat Today’s September 2025 Annual People of Heat Treat print edition.

Would you like to weigh in on the topic? Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

In January, Heat Treat Today’s publisher, Doug Glenn, authored a letter titled “What if We’re Wrong About CO₂ & Global Warming.” It questioned the scientific consensus of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change and suggested that “the science doesn’t seem to be as settled as claimed.” Since then, Mr. Glenn and I have had an extensive back-and-forth conversation on the topic, which ultimately resulted in this editorial. First and foremost, our discussion proved that, even in today’s polarized society, respectful discourse surrounding sensitive topics is still possible. We left that discussion with great esteem for each other, even if we did not come to an agreement on everything. Secondly, there is both considerable evidence of anthropogenic climate change, as well as an incredibly robust scientific consensus regarding its existence. Moreover, while climate change will impact the heat treatment industry, it can also provide a lucrative opportunity.

Scientific Consensus

To acknowledge the elephant (and donkey) in the room, the strongest individual predictor of climate change belief is political ideology (Hornsey, et al. 2016). This heavily implies that a strong ideological bias follows this topic. As a science-based industry, we should rise above tribalism, be skeptical about the potential for motivated reasoning (especially from ourselves), and remain open-minded to the scientific process. While there may be conservative or liberal policies surrounding the implications of climate science, science itself should remain neutral.

A scientific consensus is not a vote or opinion and therefore does not trigger the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Instead, it is a reflection of the systematic weighing of evidence and the error-correcting nature of the scientific method. While science can never truly be “settled” (nor should it be), consensus can surpass a confidence threshold to be considered robust. A robust scientific consensus emerges when two major criteria are met:

  1. The evidence from multiple well-established, independent scientific disciplines and international communities converge.
  2. There are no other alternative theories that can sufficiently explain the evidence and predict the future to a similar accuracy.

The anthropogenic climate change theory thoroughly satisfies both criteria. Climate science has been advancing for over 200 years, and the theory of anthropogenic climate change has been deduced from multiple independent lines of evidence, including through studies in atmospheric science, glaciology, geology, thermodynamics, oceanography, and paleoclimatology. Additionally, as of 2024, nearly 200 international science organizations, representing a variety of backgrounds and motivations, have endorsed the anthropogenic climate change theory (CA Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation 2024).

Data and Discussion

Scientific progress and discussion predominately occur within peer-reviewed literature. Of the papers published between 1991 and 2011 which expressed a position on climate change, 97% supported the anthropogenic climate change theory (Cook, et al. 2013). A more recent study analyzed papers published from 2012 to 2020 and purposefully biased itself by specifically searching for papers skeptical of the leading theory. Despite that, the authors discovered that the percentage of papers supporting anthropogenic climate change may have increased to greater than 99% (Lynas, et al. 2021).

Figure 1. The observed change in global temperature cannot be explained by natural-forcing alone such as the sun, orbital mechanics, cloud-cover, etc. (b) and requires the human element (a). (Data from Wuebbles, et al. 2017.)

Proper science dictates that research that disagrees with the consensus should be highlighted rather than thrown aside. An investigation from 2015 found that, from a sample of 38 publicly touted papers skeptical of the scientific consensus, all 38 papers had a number of methodological flaws. When those flaws were corrected, the results of these papers aligned with the anthropogenic climate change consensus (Benestad, et al. 2015). To further illustrate the strength of this consensus, Figure 1 shows how alternative theories, like the theory that global warming is caused by natural variations in the climate, are insufficient and neither explain nor predict the future to the same accuracy as anthropogenic climate change (Wuebbles, et al. 2017). This is the scientific method in action.

This high degree of consensus is very rare in the scientific community. For example, there is still no robust consensus within the heat treatment industry on the formation mechanism of bainite in steel (Fielding 2013). Is it diffusionless-displacive? Diffusional-reconstructive? Yet, even with this uncertainty, bainite is austempered every day, producing lighter and stronger components.

The Economics of Climate Change

Similar to the level of certainty that informs today’s heat treating practices, the impacts of anthropogenic climate change are also relatively uncertain; nevertheless, the general economic ramifications are clear. A well-cited and influential study from 2024 predicted that anthropogenic climate change may cost the globe $38 trillion in damage per year by 2049. For a sense of scale, this value is 34% of global GDP in 2024, is six times more than the expected climate change mitigation costs and may lead to an overall income reduction of 19% (Kotz, et al. 2024). From a global perspective, it is the fiscally responsible decision to mitigate climate change, which consequently led 107 countries, responsible for roughly 82% of greenhouse gas emissions, to adopt a net-zero policy (United Nations 2025).

These policies result in strong financial incentives for heat treatment. The heat treatment industry is in a unique position for mitigating climate change because it can increase the strength-to-weight ratio of a material with marginal energy inputs. By reducing the total material required for a component, this optimum mitigation technique can decrease the energy and greenhouse gas emissions in all three stages of a component’s life cycle: production, use, and end-of-life.

Figure 2. For a given strength requirement, heat treated materials tend to produce less greenhouse gas emissions than competing materials. (Data adapted from Zhu, et al. 2023.) | Image Credit: Aalberts surface technologies

The casting industry recognized a similar opportunity and sponsored a life cycle analysis to calculate greenhouse gas emissions and the overall energy consumption for ductile iron (Zhu, et al. 2023). The study discovered that ductile iron tends to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit mass of material compared to competing manufacturing methods for ferrous materials. Additionally, it was revealed that Austempered Ductile Iron (ADI), a heat-treated ductile iron, can replace alternative materials on a pound-for-pound basis and further decrease greenhouse gas emissions. (In fact, ADI components could weigh more than the alternative material and still decrease greenhouse gas emissions in a lifecycle perspective). This finding can be extended to most heat-treatable materials as production greenhouse gas emissions per unit strength tend to be less than competing materials (Figure 2).

To retain this intrinsic advantage, the heat treat industry can continue to focus on decarbonization. Heat Treat Today has previously discussed a multitude of strategies for heat treaters, including electrification (Clark, et al. 2023), recapturing heat loss (Stowe 2024), enhancing furnace insulation (Roberts 2025), optimizing heat treatment processes (Buchner 2024), and utilizing hydrogen as fuel (Wolff 2024). These innovations can be explored on a case-by-case basis to balance investment with marketability to remain globally competitive.

Conclusion

To summarize, anthropogenic climate change is the prevailing scientific theory that most accurately describes the behavior of the climate. It is based on thousands of papers and studies and has survived brutal scientific and public challenges. Due to its predicted impact to the global economy, the heat treat industry is in an excellent position to become a leader in decarbonization, thereby fostering a more sustainable and prosperous future. Let’s not squander the opportunity.

References

Benestad, R. E., et al. 2015. “Learning from Mistakes in Climate Research.” Theoretical and Applied Climatology 126 (3–4): 699–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5.

Buchner, K. 2024. “How to Reduce Carbon Footprint During Heat Treatment.” Heat Treat Today, May 16. https://www.heattreattoday.com/how-to-reduce-the-carbon-footprint-during-heat-treatment/.

CA Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. 2024. “List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations.” https://web.archive.org/web/20241005030117/https://www.lci.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html.

Clarke, J., P. Kerbois, P. Sherwin, M. Pizella, A. Selvy, and S. Hakes. 2023. “Energizing the Future of Furnaces — 4 Perspectives.” Heat Treat Today, July 11. https://www.heattreattoday.com/industries/energy-heat-treat/energizing-the-future-of-furnaces-4-perspectives/.

Cook, J., et al. 2013. “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.” Environmental Research Letters 8 (2): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

Fielding, D. 2013. “The Bainite Controversy.” Materials Science and Technology 29 (4): 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743284712y.0000000157.

Glenn, D. 2025. “What If We’re Wrong About CO₂ & Global Warming?” Heat Treat Today, January 27. https://www.heattreattoday.com/what-if-were-wrong-about-co2-global-warming/.

Hornsey, M. J., E. A. Harris, P. G. Bain, and K. S. Fielding. 2016. “Meta-Analyses of the Determinants and Outcomes of Belief in Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 6: 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943.

Kotz, M., A. Levermann, and L. Wenz. 2024. “The Economic Commitment of Climate Change.” Nature 628: 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07219-0.

Lynas, M., B. Z. Houlton, and S. Perry. 2021. “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature.” Environmental Research Letters 16 (11). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.

Roberts, J. 2025. “The Cost of Furnace Insulation Failure.” Heat Treat Today, June 23. https://www.heattreattoday.com/the-cost-of-furnace-insulation-failure/.

Stowe, M. 2024. “Sustainability Insights: How Can We Work to Get the Carbon Out of Heating? Part 2.” Heat Treat Today, March 26. https://www.heattreattoday.com/sustainability-insights-how-can-we-work-to-get-the-carbon-out-of-heating-part-1-2/.

United Nations. 2025. “For a Livable Climate: Net-Zero Commitments Must Be Backed by Credible Action.” https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition.

Wolff, D. 2024. “Water Electrolysis for Hydrogen Production Facilitates Decarbonization.” Heat Treat Today, December 17. https://www.heattreattoday.com/water-electrolysis-for-hydrogen-production-facilitates-decarbonization/.

Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, and K. A. Hibbard. 2017. “Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I.” NOAA. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19486.

Zhu, Y., G. A. Keoleian, and D. R. Cooper. 2023. “A Parametric Life Cycle Assessment Model for Ductile Cast Iron Components.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106729.

About The Author:

Jeremy Lipshaw
Materials Science Engineer

As a Class of 2022 Heat Treat Today 40 Under 40 recipient, Jeremy Lipshaw is an emerging leader with over 10 years of experience in the foundry and heat treatment industry. This article represents Jeremy’s passion for sustainability and scientific skepticism and is not affiliated with any current or previous employment.

For more information: Contact Jeremy Lipshaw at jeremylipshaw@gmail.com.

Reader Feedback: Heat Treat To Lead a Low-Carbon Economy Read More »

Reader Feedback: ‘Settled’ Science or an Agenda? Part 2

/ READER FEEDBACK

Our last Reader Feedback edition showcased several comments from readers responding to the letter from the publisher, entitled “What If We’re Wrong About CO2 & Global Warming? In his letter in Heat Treat Today’s January 2025 Technologies To Watch print edition, publisher Doug Glenn challenged the “assumption that global warming, and specifically man-induced global warming, is a real and settled science.”

In this follow-up, we share a reply from a reader who comes to the discussion from a different perspective.

Would you like to weigh in on the topic? Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s page:

“I’d like to challenge that assumption. Firstly, legacy media, the federal government, academia, and the scientists who deliver the science we’re called to follow — i.e. “follow the science” — are all strong proponents of man-made global warming and the evil of CO2. This grouping of authorities, in and of itself, causes many to be suspicious, given this group’s historic record of dishonesty and deception. If this group has been so wrong in the past on macro-social economic issues (e.g., Covid) would it not be reasonable to question their claims about climate change?

Secondly, the science doesn’t seem to be as settled as claimed.”

This publisher’s page prompted this feedback from loyal reader Markus Kick, Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG:

Thoughts on “What If We’re Wrong About CO2 & Global Warming?”

“I wanted to share some thoughts on an article from one of my favorite US magazines, Heat Treat Today. If you’re in the thermal processing field, Heat Treat Today is a must-read!

I’ve been working globally in automation and digitalization in industrial thermal process technologies for over 20 years, focusing on furnaces, melting tanks, and boiler systems. So, I know my stuff. It’s really troubling to see human-caused climate change being questioned. But it’s important to discuss every opinion clearly, and that speaks to the quality of Heat Treat Today without losing sight of reality. Our planet and future don’t have a Plan B.

The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that climate change is real and primarily caused by human activities. Over 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities, especially burning fossil fuels, are the main cause of global warming. This consensus is supported by science academies from 80 countries. Data from the Federal Statistical Office shows that the impacts of climate change are already being felt. Extreme weather events like heatwaves and floods have increased in recent years, causing significant damage.

It’s crucial that we rely on solid scientific evidence to tackle the challenges of climate change. Industrial thermal process technology must always be discussed globally as a team because we all have an impact on this wonderful, millennia-old tradition of heat treatment. The industry shouldn’t work with private opinions but should shape the future for our kids. Especially the thermal industry must ensure that we still have our planet tomorrow. The world is a ‘we,’ not an ‘I.’

Let’s work together to create a sustainable future. By trusting scientific findings and collaborating globally, we can ensure that the tradition of heat treatment continues while protecting our planet.

Sources:

Our World in Data: This source provides a comprehensive breakdown of global greenhouse gas emissions by sector, highlighting the significant contributions of energy, transport, and industry

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The IPCC’s reports offer detailed assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts, and potential future risks

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): NASA’s Climate Change and Global Warming portal offers extensive data and research on the causes and effects of climate change

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): The UNFCCC provides international policy frameworks and agreements aimed at combating climate change.

World Resources Institute (WRI): WRI’s research includes data on global greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for reducing them.”

Heat Treat Today thanks Markus for his input and perspective, and we encourage all respectful inquiries or feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Find heat treating products and services when you search on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com

Reader Feedback: ‘Settled’ Science or an Agenda? Part 2 Read More »

Reader Feedback: ‘Settled’ Science or an Agenda?

/ READER FEEDBACK

Readers are checking out Heat Treat Today’s magazine, and the January 2025 Technologies To Watch print edition has a piece that sparked comments from readers. The letter from publisher Doug Glenn entitled “What If We’re Wrong About CO2 & Global Warming?“ challenges the “assumption that global warming, and specifically man-induced global warming, is a real and settled science.“

Would you like to weigh in on the topic? Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s page:

“I’d like to challenge that assumption. Firstly, legacy media, the federal government, academia, and the scientists who deliver the science we’re called to follow — i.e. “follow the science” — are all strong proponents of man-made global warming and the evil of CO2. This grouping of authorities, in and of itself, causes many to be suspicious, given this group’s historic record of dishonesty and deception. If this group has been so wrong in the past on macro-social economic issues (e.g., Covid) would it not be reasonable to question their claims about climate change?

Secondly, the science doesn’t seem to be as settled as claimed.”

This publisher’s page prompted this feedback from loyal reader Roger Hird of W.H. Kay Company:

“Thank you for your column in the recent HTT issue.  As a longtime climate skeptic, articles like yours are exactly what’s needed to push back on continued efforts to use climate change as a tool for massive government interference in all phases of life.

Sadly, the EU is much further down the road in their Climate zealotry, and we’re reading how these efforts are even pushing some European landowners to close down their farms to avoid crippling penalties in the decree of decarbonization. 

This past election puts the proverbial ‘finger back in the dike’ of climate-based government intrusion in our economy and daily lives, and thank God for that! 

Keep up the great work Doug.” 

Doug’s reply:

“The well-meaning folks in our government will continually find ways of expanding their scope and power. Let’s assume 90% of them mean well. The fact is, the government should NOT be in 90% of the stuff they’re currently in. It is our responsibility to reign them in, politely if possible.

Keep fighting the good fight when and where you’re able. The publisher’s page is one place I’ve been blessed to use in my little corner of the world.  Not everyone agrees, but that’s the way it ought to be.”

From reader Kevin O’Brien, Birmingham, Michigan:

“Quick note to thank you for your editorial. Yes, agree on the idea that we are re-shaping and re-orienting too many aspects of our economy and society because there is an agenda being pushed by a group. Even more so when you consider that many of the people pushing the agenda stand to gain from massive government spending in this arena. All too often, the environmental ‘movement’ seems to be acting on and reacting to published material that seems more like the flavor of the month rather than solid, steady scientific findings…. The result is that large numbers of people experience a negative outcome (higher prices, more regulations) with no means for redress.”

Doug’s reply:

“Very much agree with your assessment of ‘flavor of the month.’ My content is that we should trust the market and not well-meaning individuals in positions of power to determine the direction of the world’s environmental movement. If everyone in the world were genuinely concerned about global warming, they would demonstrate that sincere concern by spending money in that direction. That in turn would encourage companies to follow the consumer’s lead. We don’t have enough faith in the market … or as Adam Smith would say, the Invisible Hand!”

From reader Steve Maus:

“I have followed this issue with great interest for decades, and so I am familiar with the work and comments of the prominent figures you have referenced. My studies toward a metallurgical engineering degree included significant coursework in organic chemistry and thermodynamics, and in my career, I’ve done extensive hands-on work with CO2 and its many reactions. With that in mind, I tend to agree with the skeptics because the chemistry simply does not support the claims of those who predict catastrophic global effects due to small changes in atmospheric CO2.

It seems to me that our industry ought to encourage frank debate of the issue, and that we should demand that it be based on a critical look at the entire chain of generating process heating, and on the genuine effects of CO2 emissions.  Simply moving the generation of CO2 away from the point of natural gas-based heating and transferring it to the source of generating electricity with fossil fuels or ‘renewable’ sources that have issues of their own or using fuels that require electric power to generate them, is not accurately addressing the situation.  Otherwise, it appears to be a situation of doing something just to do something, for reasons that may not well-considered.  And as we have seen with other attempts like EVs, solar panels and wind turbines, the solutions often come with problems of their own, so we ought to learn the lessons and apply them here.

But I digress. Doug, I applaud you for raising the question, and I look forward to the healthy discussions that will be provoked by it.”

Doug’s reply:

“Thanks for the encouragement, Steve. I hope you’re doing well. By the way, if you haven’t read the article I referenced from The Epoch Times, I highly recommend it. If what they are saying in that article is true (regarding ‘saturation’ of CO2), then the whole issue becomes moot … IMHO! It is worth the read.”

From reader Dean Keal of IGE Fans:

“I think you are spot on.  Aside from all the science debunking this, history has shown the planet has been warmer in the past than it is currently. Heck, in the medieval warming period, the Vikings were grain farmers on Greenland. I think this whole fiasco is about power and control, not science. Unfortunately, there are so many people making money from this issue it has become entrenched. Perhaps President Trump will interject some common sense.”

Doug’s reply:

“Thanks, Dean. Appreciate the encouraging words. Not everyone agrees, but most everyone that has taken the time to respond has been respectful and MOSTLY in agreement. There was one who vehemently disagreed but we’re still on speaking terms!”

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Find heat treating products and services when you search on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com

Reader Feedback: ‘Settled’ Science or an Agenda? Read More »

Reader Feedback: Don’t Dis the DOE

/ READER FEEDBACK

Readers are checking out Heat Treat Today’s magazine, and the April/May 2024 Sustainable Heat Treat Technologies print edition has a piece that sparked a comment from a reader. The letter from publisher Doug Glenn, entitled “The DOE IS Coming After YOUR Job“, debates the question of policy-driven market forces over economy-driven indicators.

Would you like to weigh in on the topic? Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s page:

“On the fourth slide of a presentation entitled, ‘Cross Sector Technologies Meeting: Day 2, Nex-Generation Enabling Technologies,’ presented by Mr. Chan on May 30, 2023, we find the following: 

  • DOE Commitment to Industrial Decarbonization (slide title)
  • ‘Industrial Heat Shot™ — Developing technologies to reduce process heating GHG emissions by 85% by 2035′
  • ‘Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap — Net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050′

The same slide goes on to list four international organizations that the U.S. has joined to ‘decarbonize’ energy-intensive industries. Those four organizations are:

  • Net-Zero World Initiative
  • G7 Industrial Decarbonization Agenda
  • Mission Innovation’s Net-Zero Industries Mission
  • UNIDO’s coordinated Industrial Deep Decarbonization Initiative”

This publisher’s page prompted this feedback from loyal reader Jim Conybear:

“I enjoy keeping up with the industry through Heat Treat Today. I read your recent editorial, “The DOE is Coming After Your Job”. Although you make some interesting and provocative comments, I think you did a disservice to the work being done by the DOE. Without their efforts, we would be even further behind in our needed efforts to combat the wasteful use of energy. The headlines you extracted from the presentation by Isaac Chan, fourth slide . . . do not mean that there is an either/or decision on fossil fuels. They are, in fact ,very good goals to pursue if we are to continue to make progress. 

I have known Isaac Chan since his early days with the Gas Research Institute and the DOE. Never did he advocate the elimination of all combustion processes. On the other hand, he has led many industry and government programs that enabled our industry in particular to reduce costs and improve productivity by identifying and supporting more efficient, environmentally compatible processes. 

Isaac Chan is a friend to our industry, not the enemy. I would enjoy seeing an interview with him to present a more realistic assessment of the problems and potential solutions to our carbon excesses.” 

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

 

Reader Feedback: Don’t Dis the DOE Read More »

Reader Feedback: The State of the Quality Movement

/ READER FEEDBACK

Readers are checking out Heat Treat Today’s magazine from March/April 2024. The annual Aerospace print edition has a piece that sparked a comment from a reader. The letter from the publisher Doug Glenn entitled “Is It Time To Rethink the ‘Quality’ Movement?” discusses the current state of the quality movement.

Would you like to weigh in on the topic? Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s page:

“One of the first thoughts I remember having about the corporate quality initiative I was involved with was the distinct lack of a definition of what ‘quality’ really meant. For many of the standards, they did not really care what you did (whether or not you did quality work), they just wanted you to prove you had documented your work, that your people knew said documentation existed, and they were following the processes you had described in documentation.”

This publisher’s page prompted this feedback from Jorg Demmel, founder, owner, and president of High Temperature Concept:

“There is one thing I’d like to ask you, because I just read your publisher letter. I like it, although the situation you describe is not ‘quality’ in my mind. It’s a great discussion, which is worth it!

“It’s, in my mind, an oversubscription of quality management and it’s industry. That’s something different than quality. I don’t like these guys called ‘auditors’. Some (or many) never learned what means ‘operational quality’.

“Did you know that e.g. an iso 9001 certified company doesn’t have to follow the iso 9001 10 chapters in their QM handbook. Or, that not all suppliers have to be rated. Or, that internal audits don’t have to be bureaucratic and elaborative. Etc. 

“Conclusion: a QM system is only as good as it is based on the people on the shop floor, their motivation, experience and attitude, and the leadership commitment. I guess I missed something 😉.”

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Reader Feedback: The State of the Quality Movement Read More »

Reader Feedback: AMS2750 The Temperature Debate

/ READER FEEDBACK

Readers are checking out Heat Treat Today's magazine from February 2023. The annual Air & Atmosphere Furnace Systems edition has a piece that sparked a comment from a reader. The letter from the publisher Doug Glenn entitled ± 0.1°F – The Debate discusses revision to AMS2750 regarding compliance temperature.

Would you like to weigh in on the topic? Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“Both Revision D and E of AMS2750 required compliance temperatures to be ±2°F or ±1.1°C (“or ±0.2%” was added in Revision E). That pesky “.1” in ±1.1°C appears to be the source of this most current “situation.” The folks using °C were recording temperatures down to 1/10th of a degree, while the folks using °F — which was not a small number of people — were not. So, the standards committee needed to make a decision on what to do about this discrepancy. The options were to round up or down or to the nearest integer for both °F and °C people OR require EVERYONE to record their temperatures down to 1/10th of a degree. After surveying end-users, the committee decided that end-users wanted to be required to record the 1/10th of a degree rather than round it up or down to the nearest integer. Thus, the new AMS2750 standard requires accuracy to 1/10th of a degree.”

 

The article prompted this feedback from reader Aaron Crum:

“I could not agree with you more. This is like measuring a piece of lumber with a tape measure, but being required to record the number in microns.  Making requirements more stringent just for the sake of it costs companies real money with no improvement to the process or the product.  I hope this gets removed in the next revision.

Thanks for the good write-up Doug!”

 

 

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Reader Feedback: AMS2750 The Temperature Debate Read More »

Reader Feedback: Measuring Junction Construction in AMS2750 Rev. G

/ AEROSPACE HEAT TREAT, FEATURED NEWS, READER FEEDBACK, THERMOCOUPLES TECHNICAL CONTENT

Readers are checking out recent AMS2750 Rev. G changes and want some more information from Heat Treat Today about a specific clarification. Read the correspondence about the implications of AMS2750 Rev. G paragraph 3.1.1.5 about how to measure junction construction.

Douglas Shuler, lead auditor at Pyro Consulting, has written numerous articles with Heat Treat Today about AMS2750 standards. Check them out by searching "Doug Shuler" at www.heattreattoday.com.

Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

READER QUESTION: After combing the new AMS2750 Rev. G, I found that paragraph 3.1.1.5 no longer allows thermocouples to be tack welded directly to parts, OR to representative dummy parts. This has been standard practice for decades. So I dug into it further with the folks from PRI and it turns out to be true. They’re now expecting load thermocouples to be either placed inside of a part (ends twisted and inserted), or inside the hole of a dummy block.

I’d done some searching online and there isn’t a single source talking about this major change. This could lead to a lot of failed upcoming Nadcap audits.

Doug Shuler
Lead Auditor
Pyro Consulting

Douglas (Doug) Shuler (Pyro Consulting) for Heat Treat Today: Historically (i.e. prior to Rev. F), AMS2750 was silent on measuring junction construction. In Rev. F, the construction of the measuring junction was as follows:

Measuring junctions shall be made by any combination of twisting and/or welding the thermal elements provided there is no addition of filler metal.

This raised concerns about both the use of quick tips and spot welding to make the measuring junction. The AMEC AMS2750 revision team engaged with Cleveland Electric Laboratories to perform testing on these measuring junctions as compared to the twisting/welding combinations.

The conclusion of the tests were that both quick tips and spot welding to a part/heat sink became unstable at temperatures above 2000°F. The quick tip crimping point and the spot welds showed rapid oxidation and increased errors in a short period of time. Based on the results of these tests the AMEC AMS2750 revision team put forth the following update in Rev. G:

Measuring junctions shall be made by either of the following methods:

        • Any combination of twisting and/or welding the thermoelements provided there is no addition of filler metal (including ungrounded and grounded MIMS).
        • Spot welding the thermoelements directly to a part, simulated part, or heat sink is permitted for temperatures ≤2000°F or 1100°C.

This allows spot welding measuring junctions for process temperatures at or lower than 2000°F. The team and AMEC members decided that quick tips were to unstable to permit their use going forward.

READER FOLLOW-UP: Our current method that we’re using is to twist the thermocouple using a set of Twister Pliers, then tack-weld that twist onto the part (first photo below). We’ve been doing this for parts up through brazing temperatures (~2150°F) without issue. We recently ran a furnace run around 2100°F with parts tack-welded as I’ve described AND had T/Cs that were just twisted with no tack weld. We noticed there was no significant difference in the temperature the TCs were reading. This was also our technique that we used at my previous company.

The way I read AMS2750 Rev. G was: You may twist and weld thermocouples to a part, but only for temperatures less than or equal to 2000°F.

To comply with Rev. G, we have gone ahead and made heatsink blocks to make sure we’re in compliance. Our new method of temperature measurement is twisting the wires and sticking the twisted end down inside of a block of solid metal (like the one I’ve shown below).

Source: Heat Treat Today Reader

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Reader Feedback: Measuring Junction Construction in AMS2750 Rev. G Read More »

Reader Feedback: The Effectiveness of Furnaces

/ AEROSPACE HEAT TREAT, ENERGY HEAT TREAT, READER FEEDBACK, VACUUM FURNACES NEWS

Here is what readers are saying about recent posts on Heat Treat Today. Submit your comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Hello Heat Treat Daily,

I was surprised to see this bright red furnace on your daily email this past Friday. This is an old image of a furnace still in production at my company Spectrum Thermal Processing in Cranston, RI.

Now, like most of us, this furnace is showing some age, but is is still in production every day with an upgraded control panel and SSI controls.

I reflected on this particular email and want to add that what I find intriguing about heat treat is the longevity of some of the equipment. This furnace processes work for aerospace, automotive, commercial cutting tools and oil and gas refinery and has for nearly 30 years! Just to the left of this furnace in the photo is an older single chamber vacuum furnace that has process parts for the Apollo space program and has recently processed parts for SpaceX. Somehow this equipment just keeps going.

Thanks for your daily insight into the heat treating industry.

Rick Houghton
VP of Operations/Quality Manager
Spectrum Thermal Processing

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Reader Feedback: The Effectiveness of Furnaces Read More »

Reader Feedback: Thermocouples 101

/ AUTOMOTIVE HEAT TREAT NEWS, FEATURED NEWS, READER FEEDBACK, THERMOCOUPLES TECHNICAL CONTENT

Here is what readers are saying about recent posts on Heat Treat Today. Submit your comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

On John Niggle and Ed Valykeo article, "Thermocouples 101" (click here to see original article)

John Niggle, Business Development Manager, Pelican Wire

Edward Valykeo, Thermocouple Specialist, Pelican Wire

In June 2020, Heat Treat Today published a noteworthy technical article on the basics of thermocouples by John Niggle, Business Development Manager, and Ed Valykeo, Thermocouple Specialist, at Pelican Wire, Naples, FL. The article covers the different types of thermocouples, questions to consider when deciding which type of thermocouple to use, as well as a fascinating discussion on thermocouple wire and wire insulations. One feature of significant recognition is the chart included by Niggle and Valykeo:

Thermocouple Color Code Chart (photo source: "Thermocouples 101")

 

One of Heat Treat Today's editorial contributors and readers, Martin Reeves of Unitherm Furnace, LLC, saw this article and provided valuable information to the subject:

Martin Reeves, Owner, Fontec-global, LLC

"Excellent article and a great base for understanding T/C's. Only one thing missing and that is the differences between US and international lead colours. These are very different and when equipment is sold overseas or imported this becomes important for T/C's to be wired correctly."

International Thermocouple Lead Colors (photo source: Martin Reeves)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Reader Feedback: Thermocouples 101 Read More »

Reader Feedback: Reusing Non-expendable Base Metal Thermocouples

/ FEATURED NEWS, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT, READER FEEDBACK, THERMOCOUPLES NEWS

Here is what readers are saying about recent posts on Heat Treat Today. Submit your comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Jason Schulze has written numerous articles for HTT about AMS2750E. Check them out by searching “Jason Schulze” at www.heattreattoday.com

Jason Schulze, Aerospace Heat Treating
Jason Schulze, Conrad Kacsik

READER QUESTION: As per AMS2750E, what is the number of reuses for nonexpendable base metal thermocouples (N type MIMS TCS) above 980°C? Our application is TUS and SAT from 700°C  to 1250°C. We would like to use N type MIMS thermocouples for both TUS and SAT. Recalibration period is specified as 3 months for N type thermocouples in AMS2750E. But no details are provided for the number of reuses above 650°C.

Jason Schulze (Conrad Kasik) for HTT: The number of permitted uses depends on the intended use of the thermocouple. For example, if the Type N thermocouples are used at 980°C (1796°F) as load thermocouple, the maximum permitted use would be 3 months or 180 uses, whichever comes first. If the thermocouple is used as a resident SAT thermocouple, it would need to be replaced every three months. In this case, the usage limit would be limited to 3 months. This will not be changing when the new version of AMS2750F is released.

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Reader Feedback: Reusing Non-expendable Base Metal Thermocouples Read More »