Among today’s nitriding technologies, gas nitriding remains the most widely used process for enhancing surface hardness, wear resistance, and fatigue performance while preserving dimensional stability. In this Technical Tuesday installment, Daniel H. Herring, aka “The Heat Treat Doctor®,” and Dr. Edward Rolinski, a senior scientist and recognized authority on plasma and ion nitriding, explain where gas nitriding excels, its process advantages and limitations, and the applications best suited for the technology.
If you’re looking for a broader introduction, watch for the upcoming print feature, “Nitriding Selection Guide: Gas, Plasma, or Salt Bath?” for an overview of nitriding, its key benefits, and a side-by-side of the three primary nitriding processes.
Gas nitriding represents 60–70% of all nitriding processes. The main benefit of gas nitriding, specifically when compared to plasma nitriding, is its ability to harden the entire surface of the component. Masking can be done by copper plating or painting with a nitriding-specific stop-off paint (Figure 1). Modern gas nitriding processes also allow treating of stainless steel, where PVC and other chemicals are used for surface pre-activation. Maintenance increases when these activating agents are used.
Figure 1. Large steel pinions being prepared for nitriding | Image Credit: NitrexFigure 2. Typical small parts and loading arrangements for gas nitriding (Herring 2011)
Case depths are typically total case depths (core hardness + 50 HV0.5) and vary by material (see Table B in Herring et al. 2026). Caution should be used when stating a required case depth as a number of definitions for total case depth are in use.
Another benefit of using gas nitriding is its ability to form a thick compound zone up to 0.025 mm (0.001 inches). The process can enhance the corrosion resistance of steels, particularly combined with post-oxidation. Also, gas nitriding is an excellent way to improve tribological properties of the treated components (Senatorski et al. 2017). Modern controls allow for automatic process adjustment over the length of the cycle and control of the nitriding atmosphere based on nitriding potential (Kn value) or ammonia dissociation rate (Herring 2020; Winter and Kalucki 2013). This allows for precise growth of the compound zone type and thickness, tight case depth ranges, and repeatability.
Dimensional change in nitrided parts, typically very small, is governed largely by composition, tempering temperatures, time/temperature of nitriding, relative thickness of case/core, shape of the part, and areas masked off to prevent nitriding. The amount of growth is usually constant for identical parts nitrided in different batches by a fixed processing cycle. After the amount of growth for a particular part has been determined experimentally, allowance for it can be made prior to nitriding during final machining prior to nitriding.
Table A. Single Stage Gas Nitriding Case Depth Time at 525°C (975°F) (Herring 2011)
Sharp corners or edges should be avoided on parts to be nitrided, because the projections formed at sharp corners receive higher nitrogen concentration and are susceptible to brittleness and chipping. These sharp edges nitride through the section and are without support from a soft ductile core.
In the single stage process, a temperature range of 500°C–540°C (925°F–1005°F) is typical, and process times range from 1 to 100 hours (Table A). The dissociation rate of ammonia is held in the range of 15% to 30%. The process produces a brittle, nitrogen-rich white layer at the surface comprised of various iron nitrides (Fe2-3N, Fe4N). One advantage of this thick white layer is that it will provide longer component service life in abrasive and adhesive wear applications.
Most parts, however, are nitrided in a two- or even three-stage process and not ground after nitriding (Table C). This affords them excellent dimensional stability (Herring 2011). Case depth is affected by temperature (Figure 3), time (Figure 4), nitriding potential (if there is not a compound zone formed), and how the total case depth is defined.
Table B. Recommended Ranges of Nitriding Potential (SAE International Aerospace Material Standard AMS 2759/10)
Figure 3. Gas nitriding case depth versus time for 4140 steels at 538ºC (1000ºF) (Adapted from Stange Electronik GmbH Data) Figure 4. Effect of temperature on formation of 0.51 mm (0.020 inches) case depth during nitriding 4140 steel (Adapted from Stange Electronik GmbH Data)
References
Herring, Daniel H. 2011. “Principles of Gas Nitriding, Parts 1–4.” Industrial Heating, April–May.
Herring, Daniel H. 2020. “An Overview of Nitriding—Technology and Tribological Benefits.” Industrial Heating, March.
Herring, Daniel H. and Edward Roliński. 2026. “Nitriding Selection Guide: Gas, Plasma, or Salt Bath?” Heat Teat Today, August.
SAE International. n.d. AMS 2759/10 Aerospace Material Standard (latest revision).
Senatorski, J., J. Tacikowski, E. Roliński, and S. Lampman. 2017. “Tribology of Nitrided and Nitrocarburized Steels.” In ASM Handbook, Vol. 18: Friction, Lubrication, and Wear Technology, edited by George E. Totten, 638–652. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
Winter, K. M., and J. Kalucki. 2013. “Gas Nitriding and Gas Nitrocarburizing of Steels.” In ASM Handbook, Vol. 4A: Steel Treating—Fundamentals and Processes, edited by Jon I. Dossett and George E. Totten, 647–679. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
About The Authors
Dan Herring (The Heat Treat Doctor®) The HERRING GROUP, Inc.
Dan Herring, who is most well known as The Heat Treat Doctor®, has been in the industry for over 50 years. He spent the first 25 years in heat treating prior to launching his consulting business, The HERRING GROUP in 1995. His vast experience in the field includes materials science, engineering, metallurgy, equipment design, process and application specialist, and new product research. He is the author of six books and over 1000 technical articles.
Dr. Edward Rolinski, affectionately known as “Doctor Glow,” is a distinguished senior scientist having spearheaded research on plasma/ion nitriding since the 1970s. He holds advanced degrees in manufacturing technology and metallurgy, including a PhD and Doctor of Science. His focus has been on plasma nitriding processes, especially involving titanium alloys and powder metallurgy. Over his career, Dr. Rolinski authored numerous influential technical chapters and articles, including for ASTM International and the ASM Handbook, and is a prolific contributor to industry publications. After decades of leadership and innovation in surface engineering and heat treating, he is now a consultant in the heat treating industry.
As manufacturers look for greater control, precision, and flexibility in surface hardening, plasma nitriding has emerged as a versatile alternative to traditional nitriding methods. In this article, Daniel H. Herring, aka “The Heat Treat Doctor,” and Dr. Edward Rolinski, a senior scientist and recognized authority on plasma and ion nitriding, examine the advantages of plasma nitriding, including its ability to treat stainless steels, selectively harden complex geometries, and process powder metallurgy components.
If you’re looking for a broader introduction, watch for the upcoming print feature, “Nitriding Selection Guide: Gas, Plasma, or Salt Bath?” for an overview of nitriding, its key benefits, and a side-by-side of the three primary nitriding processes.
Plasma nitriding can be used over a broad range of heat treating temperatures and is used for all types of ferrous alloys (Figures 1 and 2). Additionally, it has the ability to activate the surfaces of oxidized stainless steels to allow them to be nitrided (Winter and Kalucki 2013; Roliński 1987).
Activation of the surface involves both ion bombardment and sputtering of the surface/cathode in the areas where the glow discharge covers the surface (Figure 3). The actual contact area of the part with the cathodic base plate or fixture does not nitride. The problem of edge effect, which is related to uneven distribution of sputtered atoms at corners and edges of a component (Roliński et al. 2005; Roliński 2024), is addressed primarily by proper adjustment of the processing gas pressure, which changes the thickness of the cathodic glow, making it more uniform around contour of the part. Masking areas that do not need to be hardened is simple. For example, a nut on a thread or a steel plate on a section with small holes is sufficient to protect those surfaces from the glow discharge and prevent nitriding.
Figure 3. Typical “glow” around component parts during plasma nitriding | Image Credit: The Herring Group, Inc.Figure 4. Plasma/Ion nitrided powder metal component run at 565°C (1050°F) in a mixture of nitrogen/hydrogen at a ratio of 1:3 and pressure 3.5 mbar. 3% Nital. (Roliński et al, 2021)
Plasma nitriding is a unique process capable of surface hardening low-density sinter/powder metal (PM) products, even those less than 7.3 g/cm3 (Figure 4) and PM stainless steels (Roliński 2004). This is especially true when a portion of the treated component requires masking (Roliński and Sharp 2005, 2004). Active nitrogen species generated by the glow discharge penetrate only near-surface cavities/porosities, forming a nitrided layer. By contrast, ammonia in gas nitriding penetrates throughout the entire thickness of the component increasing the brittleness of the nitrided part.
Plasma nitriding is a low-nitriding potential process because the compound zone/white layer is typically very thin without extreme control accuracy of the nitriding parameters. This is a result of sputtering and a low partial pressure of nitrogen during processing (Roliński 2014). Plasma nitriding requires much less processing gases, such as nitrogen and hydrogen, than gas nitriding with ammonia. In addition, only small quantities of hydrocarbon gases are needed to dope the atmosphere and form epsilon-type compound zones at the surface (Roliński and Sharp, 2004).
Long parts, such as extruder screws and shafts, can be plasma nitrided even in “cold-wall vessels,” which do not have external heaters (Hemsath and Herring 2019).
References
Hemsath, Mark K., and Daniel H. Herring. 2019. “Nitriding—Growth and Tribological Benefits for Surface Engineering.” In Heat Treating Progress 2019 Conference Proceedings. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
Herring, Daniel H. and Edward Roliński. 2026. “Nitriding Selection Guide: Gas, Plasma, or Salt Bath?” Heat Teat Today, August.
Roliński, E. 1987. “Effect of Plasma Nitriding Temperature on Surface Properties of Stainless Steel.” Surface Engineering 3: 35–40.
Roliński, E., J. Arner, and G. Sharp. 2005. “Negative Effects of Reactive Sputtering in Industrial Plasma Nitriding.” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 14 (3): 343–350.
Roliński, E., and G. Sharp. 2004. “Ion Nitriding and Nitrocarburizing of Sintered PM Parts.” Industrial Heating, October: 33–35.
Roliński, E., and G. Sharp. 2005. “When and Why Ion Nitriding/Nitrocarburizing Makes Good Sense.” Industrial Heating, August: 67–72.
Roliński, E. 2014. “Plasma Assisted Nitriding and Nitrocarburizing of Steel and Other Ferrous Alloys.” In Thermochemical Surface Engineering of Steels, edited by E. J. Mittemeijer and M. A. J. Somers, 413–449. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
Winter, K. M., and J. Kalucki. 2013. “Gas Nitriding and Gas Nitrocarburizing of Steels.” In ASM Handbook, Vol. 4A: Steel Treating—Fundamentals and Processes, edited by Jon I. Dossett and George E. Totten, 647–679. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
About The Authors
Dan Herring (The Heat Treat Doctor®) The HERRING GROUP, Inc.
Dan Herring, who is most well known as The Heat Treat Doctor®, has been in the industry for over 50 years. He spent the first 25 years in heat treating prior to launching his consulting business, The HERRING GROUP in 1995. His vast experience in the field includes materials science, engineering, metallurgy, equipment design, process and application specialist, and new product research. He is the author of six books and over 1000 technical articles.
Dr. Edward Rolinski, affectionately known as “Doctor Glow,” is a distinguished senior scientist having spearheaded research on plasma/ion nitriding since the 1970s. He holds advanced degrees in manufacturing technology and metallurgy, including a PhD and Doctor of Science. His focus has been on plasma nitriding processes, especially involving titanium alloys and powder metallurgy. Over his career, Dr. Rolinski authored numerous influential technical chapters and articles, including for ASTM International and the ASM Handbook, and is a prolific contributor to industry publications. After decades of leadership and innovation in surface engineering and heat treating, he is now a consultant in the heat treating industry.
For applications requiring exceptional wear resistance, corrosion protection, and rapid processing, salt bath nitriding continues to be a reliable surface engineering solution. In this article, Daniel H. Herring, aka “The Heat Treat Doctor,” and Dr. Edward Rolinski, a senior scientist and recognized authority on plasma and ion nitriding, explain how salt bath nitriding can create a durable compound layer that helps parts last longer and perform better across a wide range of industrial applications.
If you’re looking for a broader introduction, watch for the upcoming print feature, “Nitriding Selection Guide: Gas, Plasma, or Salt Bath?” for an overview of nitriding, its key benefits, and a side-by-side of the three primary nitriding processes.
Salt bath nitriding, like gas nitriding, has been around for a very long time and is still in active use today. This method introduces nitrogen, and sometimes carbon, into the surface layer of steels, cast iron, and sintered powder metal by immersing the part in a molten salt bath containing nitrogen-bearing salts at elevated temperatures. The process enhances wear resistance, fatigue strength, corrosion resistance, and surface hardness without significantly affecting the core mechanical properties of the base material.
Salt bath nitriding has ability to form a thick compound zone up to 0.025 mm (0.001 inches). The process can enhance the corrosion resistance of steels, particularly when combined with post-oxidation. Also, salt bath nitriding is an excellent way to improve tribological properties of the treated components (“Melonite®/QPQ Process,” HEF USA).
A diverse range of industries and products leverage this process (e.g., automotive, aerospace, oil & gas; hydraulic and pneumatic machinery, firearms, metal forming and forging tools, material handling equipment, and tooling). Components like camshafts, gears, piston pins, hydraulic systems, and cutting tools benefit from the enhanced surface properties imparted by this process.
Salt bath nitriding is performed at temperatures typically ranging from 500°C to 630°C (930°F to 1165°F) to produce a controlled and highly uniform release of nitrogen at the surface of the workpiece (Figure 1). Nitrogen diffuses into, and chemically combines with, nitride-forming elements in the metal, producing a tough, ductile compound layer with exceptional mechanical properties through a catalytic reaction. This hard compound layer has wear properties that are reportedly 200% to 1000% greater than the original material, and greatly enhanced resistance to corrosion, galling, and scuffing (Pye, 2003).
Figure 1. Salt bath nitriding modifies the surface metallurgy and properties (“Salt Bath Nitriding, Controlled Liquid Nitriding (Overview),” HEF USA)
The salt reacts with the metal surface to form a hardened compound layer (primarily composed of ε-iron nitride and γ’-iron nitride) and a diffusion zone beneath it where nitrogen atoms diffuse into the metal matrix (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Microstructure of a sale bath nitrided component (“Salt Bath Nitriding, Controlled Liquid Nitriding (Overview),” HEF USA)
Case depth is a function of both treatment time and material. The final surface hardness is a function of the material composition. Higher percentages of nitride forming elements (Cr, Mo, Al, V, Mn, Ti, W) produce higher surface hardnesses (Table A).
Table A. Surface Hardness as a Function of Material (“Melonite®/QPQ Process,” HEF USA)
Salt bath nitriding remains a valuable surface engineering technique due to its effectiveness in enhancing durability, wear resistance, and corrosion performance. While environmental and safety concerns exist, advancements in salt chemistry and waste management continue to make this process viable for modern industrial applications.
References
Boßlet, Jochim. n.d. Melonite®/QPQ Process Brochure. HEF Durferrit.
Herring, Daniel H. and Edward Roliński. 2026. “Nitriding Selection Guide: Gas, Plasma, or Salt Bath?” Heat Teat Today, August.
Pye, David. 2003. Practical Nitriding and Ferritic Nitrocarburizing. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
About The Authors
Dan Herring (The Heat Treat Doctor®) The HERRING GROUP, Inc.
Dan Herring, who is most well known as The Heat Treat Doctor®, has been in the industry for over 50 years. He spent the first 25 years in heat treating prior to launching his consulting business, The HERRING GROUP in 1995. His vast experience in the field includes materials science, engineering, metallurgy, equipment design, process and application specialist, and new product research. He is the author of six books and over 1000 technical articles.
Dr. Edward Rolinski, affectionately known as “Doctor Glow,” is a distinguished senior scientist having spearheaded research on plasma/ion nitriding since the 1970s. He holds advanced degrees in manufacturing technology and metallurgy, including a PhD and Doctor of Science. His focus has been on plasma nitriding processes, especially involving titanium alloys and powder metallurgy. Over his career, Dr. Rolinski authored numerous influential technical chapters and articles, including for ASTM International and the ASM Handbook, and is a prolific contributor to industry publications. After decades of leadership and innovation in surface engineering and heat treating, he is now a consultant in the heat treating industry.
This Technical Tuesday installment summarizes the highlights from a site visit by Heat Treat Today’sDoug Glenn, publisher and founder, and Karen Gantzer, manager of events. Learn how OMG Building Products, LLC took control of efficiency, product quality, and R&D in the middle of New England.
This informative piece was first released inHeat Treat Today’sJuly 2026 Annual Super Brands Issue print edition.
In 2003, OMG‘s decision to vertically integrate manufacturing operations meant that heat treating needed to be brought in-house, making R&D a prized cornerstone of operations that guarantee high quality products. The Northeast operation in Agawam, Massachusetts, now moves 20 million pounds of steel per year (two to three tractor trailer trucks of steel wire per day) and features electrically powered IQ batch furnaces and continuous mesh belt furnaces.
Founding and Evolution
Five guys in Agawam, Massachusetts, gathered around a backyard BBQ in 1981 talking about the challenge of finding decent roofing screws. Pooling their talents across fabrication, finance, and more, they formed the company that has expanded to be OMG Building Products LLC. Their singular focus: making better roofing fasteners. To this day, roofing fasteners still make up 60% of OMG’s business.
In 2003, following years of sustained growth and product expansion, they took steps to bring increased oversight to their product. The main objective was to further ensure quality, gain greater material velocity, and increase customer service. The first step was to invest in an ECoat painting line for the fasteners, the process closest to OMG’s clients. Kevin Walters, now OMG’s senior process engineering manager, was hired as quality manager to oversee these transitions.
Making room for roofing heat treating operations soon followed, as well as several building expansions in the industrial park, including a residential construction fastener business and increased warehouse space. These capacity developments brought OMG’s low-carbon steel and yet highly efficient roofing product to a global market.
The Next Step: In-House Heat Treat
Bringing heat treating in-house would be a major move to further secure the manufacturing line. Product was being shipped to as many as ten different locations, including facilities in the Midwest and Canada. In fact, the biggest percentage was at risk since that Waterbury, Connecticut, heat treat supplier was looking at closing its doors with just a 90-days’ notice.
It was 2012 when OMG decided to investigate installing systems at the industrial park in Agawam. After three to four years’ worth of technical and business research, the parent company approved the funds to embark on the installation that is there today.
Research and Design
Jeff Hotham, Heat Treat Manager, and Kevin Walters, R&D Lead, collaborate to make OMG’s heat treat operations more efficient and effective. | Image Credit: Heat Treat Today
When it comes to the success of their heat treat operations, Jeffrey (Jeff) Hotham, OMG heat treat manager, put it bluntly: “Kevin is our secret weapon.” Since joining the team in 2003 at the apex of change, the senior process engineering manager brought heat treating operations in-house, facing every obstacle that comes with it.
The first challenge was logistics. OMG is situated in a light industrial park that cannot provide enough energy to power gas or electric furnace operations. After much analysis, it was determined that the most cost-efficient solution was to build an electric line connecting to an Eversource utility grid. This has had welcome maintenance implications as the electrically powered furnaces do not require an on-site burner tech and the accompanying nickel element ceramic tubes are also low maintenance.
Next was determining the thermal processing equipment. For an entire year, Kevin researched heat treating methods to optimize the company’s fasteners. His boots-on-the-ground research included visiting commercial heat treat facilities, attending trade shows, and speaking directly with industry professionals.
Because OMG produces a variety of lengthy fasteners, distortion control drove the decision of an integral quench furnace design, while productivity needs were met through a continuous mesh belt furnace design. Additionally, size of the furnace systems was all important in balancing flexibility and time-to-market realities. This resulted in a competitive heat treat system design that would leverage a significant amount of automation and a loading system that minimized manual intervention. This original furnace line included two endo generators, smart oil filtration, cooling equipment, and material handling.
The Right Fit: Finding a Furnace OEM
The competitive system design, however, would hinge on the ability to find a vendor who could deliver dependable, customizable equipment. Kevin and a cross-functional team of OMG business, operations, finance, purchasing, and safety representatives were tasked with selecting the equipment supplier.
When reviewing their options, OMG’s choice of furnace supplier came down to three key factors: design flexibility, locality, and customer service. It was essential that the system integrate design decisions to accommodate Kevin’s researched solutions.
Some furnace OEMs had reservations about adapting their systems to accommodate these special requests. Other suppliers had systems completed at various locations, with features sometimes being subcontracted off-site. Ultimately, the team found their perfect fit with Williams Industrial Service, located in Bowling Green, Ohio, who were eager to accommodate design changes, maintained full control of furnace build under one roof, and demonstrated a service-minded team.
Once ordered, the next step was to monitor job progress. OMG was proactive, providing timeline-focused goals. The furnace build progressed on schedule with Kevin making quarterly visits to complete milestone reports.
Within three years, OMG’s full heat treating line was installed.
Optimizing Productivity in Current Operations
Operations have increasingly shifted to focus on cost savings and control over inefficiencies. From a 30,000-foot view, wire arrives, is skim drawn, goes through cold forming, then heat treating, and finally painting and packing.
Facility design is critical in operational performance. According to Kevin, the working environment surpasses that of many heat treat operations he has visited, a credit to how well Jeff manages the plant floor. A key example of this is safety. OMG’s safety culture can be seen throughout their operations, extending to the racking department where a climate-controlled room away from loud manufacturing supports racking staff. Kevin also remarked that the air ventilation system is a point of pride: “We literally have guys wear hoodies in the heat treat department in the wintertime… because we have so much fresh air intake and exhaust in the room; the climate here is pretty good.”
Mesh belt line | Image Credit: Heat Treat Today
When roofing fasteners are heat treated, they either go through one of the three medium- to large-scale continuous mesh belt furnace lines or through the automated integral quench (IQ) furnace line. The mesh belt line receives shorter, 1.5- to 6-inch parts that are poured from a tub onto the belt with ease as well as longer 7- to 8-inch product. On the other hand, the IQ furnace line includes two furnaces which receive longer parts up to 24 inches long from a fully automated delivery system; fasteners are hung from their heads on the rack to prevent distortion. In the future, the team looks forward to automating this part of the process.
Kevin Walters, Doug Glenn, Karen Gantzer, and Jeff Hotham stand in OMG’s testing lab. | Image Credit: Heat Treat TodayLong roofing screws are hand-racked to best control distortion. | Image Credit: Heat Treat Today
The IQ line is a point of pride. Kevin commented that he has reason to believe that his IQ line may be the most automated in the country. “My operators do not have to get on a charge cart at all,” he explains, “[because] it’s fully automated; it knows when loads are done in the furnaces, takes them, puts them in, takes them out, puts them in the washer, and takes them out. Everything is automatically programmed.” These loads are monitored based on weights for baskets and piece count for racks.
Jeff and Kevin have collaborated to increase equipment efficiency and throughput while maintaining quality.
Operations feature an in-house laboratory to test product, particularly for distortion, the leading quality concern for roofing product. As mentioned earlier, furnace line automation is a goal, yet longer parts — like thin-shanked 8-inch parts — may still need to be hand-racked on the mesh belt to attain the quality results.
The Power of Planned Maintenance
Regular planned maintenance schedules work to keep this operation up and running. Jeff coordinates any maintenance requiring extended furnace downtime to occur at the same time.
On an annual basis, temperature uniformity is prioritized through extensive furnace care, including replacing the thermocouples and carbon probes. As Jeff asserts, “We try to stay ahead of the game.” This planned maintenance takes two weeks of the furnace being out of commission to ensure the furnace is thoroughly cleaned and any equipment replacements completed.
Biannually (twice every year), furnace ductwork is cleaned — a critical measure to stop risk of fire since, according to Jeff, most industry fires start in the ducts. OMG outsources experts to complete this maintenance over the course of a full week.
Finally, on a quarterly basis, all equipment undergoes vibration and infrared analysis. Following this proactive maintenance schedule has brought the operation from producing 9 million pounds in his first year to 19.2 million pounds just six years later in 2025 — same equipment, simply leveraged by Jeff’s proactive planning and coordinating Kevin’s R&D efficiency endeavors.
Future
Kevin Walters, the R&D manager at OMG, explains how OMG forms spools into screw and nail roofing product to Doug Glenn, publisher of Heat Treat Today. | Image Credit: Heat Treat Today
As the business grows, OMG is exploring other ways to accomplish tasks better and more efficiently: induction, vacuum furnace, continuous or pass-through IQ, and rack furnaces are all being considered.
Kevin addressed their laser-focused approach in heat treating operations, saying, “As time goes on though, we are perfecting productivity with Kaizen events and controlling our own destiny and lowering overall costs. Last year, process optimization on the mesh belt lines boosted our productivity by more than 30% and our automated IQ line is up 20% this year.”
OMG’s operation demonstrates what curious innovation and on-the-ground industry research can unlock for in-house heat treating. If the past is any indication of the future, we’ll see OMG leading the way in thoughtful, quality-focused integration of advanced technology in the industry.
This article was written by Heat Treat Today’s editorial team. For more information, contact editor@heattreattoday.com.
In this installment of Answers in the Atmosphere, David (Dave) Wolff, an independent expert focusing on industrial atmospheres for heat treat applications, dives into the hairy issues of gas contracts with guest co-author David Loomis, an industrial gas consultant.
This informative piecewas first released in Heat Treat Today’sJune 2026 Sixth Annual Buyers Guide print edition.
David Loomis Industrial Gas Consultant
The following column identifies the key facts about gas contracts to dispel the mystery behind these agreements. David Loomis, an industrial gas consultant, joins me in this effort. Having retired in 2020 after 35 years of bulk gas sales and contract management experience with Praxair (now Linde plc) and Airgas, David now assists clients to negotiate and manage their industrial gas contracts, saving money and enhancing supply reliability. This knowledge of contracts will help you create supply arrangements that are mutually beneficial to all parties.
Supplying Industrial Gas
Supply of industrial gases typically requires a long-term relationship with an industrial gas provider. Supplying industrial gases is a capital- and people-intensive business. Success in industrial has supply requires a disciplined approach to deploying resources.
Industrial gas contracts enable suppliers to commit resources to customers. If a thermal processor purchases gases in larger volumes than can be effectively delivered in cylinders, the supplier will need to supply gases and dedicate capital investment into the production, delivery, and gas storage equipment in order to provide the gases needed.
Industrial gas suppliers are invested in their clients’ success. Therefore, industrial gas supply contracts are for the benefit of both suppliers to protect their capital investments as well as the client, on whom continued success hinges. | Image Credit: Minerva Studio/AdobeStock
In this sense, industrial gas suppliers are invested in their clients’ success. Therefore, industrial gas supply contracts are for the benefit of both suppliers to protect their capital investments as well as the client, on whom continued success hinges.
Understanding Gas Supply Contracts
If a business requires industrial gases, it probably will have a supply contract. Insightful negotiation and active management of the industrial gas contract is key to reliable, cost-effective industrial gas supply. Industrial gas contracts generally consist of two related documents:
Terms & Conditions: This document describes the relationship between the client and the industrial gas supplier (generally one per client).
Product Rider(s): Often more than one, these individual sections describe the specific contract considerations and economics for each product purchased.
The terms and conditions and the product riders will each have a start date and a term (determined by the specified end date).
Industrial gas contracts are generally continuous: they will automatically renew unless cancelled in writing by one of the parties at least one year prior to the renewal date. Note that the effective date and contract term of the boilerplate terms and conditions contract may differ from the product riders — one document may expire before the other. For example, the term (and therefore the required cancellation date) for a nitrogen supply agreement is determined based on the expiration date for the nitrogen gas rider.
Many industrial gas clients note the difficulty in cancelling their industrial gas contract, which is why proactive management is critical. If industrial gases are used to manufacture a product, then the operations depend on access to those gases.
Product management avoids:
Inadvertently canceling gas supply, forcing operations to stall.
Not securing access to enough gas to meet operational needs, resulting in lost profits.
Knowledge gaps from unavoidable personnel changes in operations that risk missing multi-year contract terms and conditions, which can lead to missed gas supply cancellations.
To avoid these headaches, some thermal processing operations send a cancellation letter as soon as they sign a gas supply contract to ensure it ends when expected. However, David advises caution, as cancellations cannot be easily withdrawn. Since market conditions are difficult to predict over 4+ years, he suggests companies decide to secure a new contract and cancel the previous agreement close to the cancellation deadline to ensure that supplier options, gas requirements, and specific market information are up to date.
If neither the client nor supplier cancels the contract in accordance with the cancellation requirements, then the contract enters the “evergreen” stage at the end of the contract term. Evergreen is a rolling one-year extension of the contract that repeats until the contract is canceled in accordance with its cancellation requirements. Having a comprehensive understanding of the terms and conditions of the contract is necessary to avoid unintentionally missing the cancellation date and falling into the evergreen stage.
Gas Supply Method
Recovery of costs and generation of profit are the goals of the industrial gas contract. As most thermal processors use bulk gases, stored as a liquid or as a compressed gas, these are delivered in bulk form. A trailer is sent from the supplier and the liquified gas in the trailer is pumped to fill an on-site tank, or the full compressed gas trailer will be exchanged in place of an empty trailer. In either case, there are equipment and delivery costs incurred.
Liquid hydrogen trailers can carry up to 13,000 gallons of cryogenic liquid | Image Credit: Dave WolffBoth compressed and liquefied gases may be delivered and stored at customer sites | Image Credit: Dave Wolff
Requirements
Paragraph one of the terms and conditions section of most industrial gas contracts is titled “Requirements.” It is important to read this paragraph carefully and ensure full understanding. Unless it is modified, Requirements typically obligates the client (“Buyer”) to buy all of their present and future needs (“requirements”) of all industrial, specialty, and medical gases to all of the client’s present and future locations from that specific industrial gas supplier. It also restricts the client in their ability to eliminate gas deliveries by switching to on-site generation unless they work with the contracted supplier.
Left as is, it is a very sweeping obligation for clients. Consider modifying the Requirements by limiting the obligation to:
Only those gases defined on accompanying gas riders
Specific locations
Clients may also consider revising the Requirements to allow for unfettered ability to convert to on-site generation for applicable gases, such as nitrogen, oxygen, or hydrogen.
Costs
Each product rider will define the unit cost of the specific gas and the monthly cost of storage equipment rental for that product. It is not unusual for clients to receive two separate periodic bills from their industrial gas supplier — one following each product delivery and another monthly bill for tank rental. The product delivery bill will include the cost for the product delivered, as well as any applicable fees and surcharges.
Some clients consider buying their own storage tank to eliminate storage rental fees. My own experience has shown that that is rarely an appropriate decision. Suppliers amortize their storage equipment over decades, so their monthly costs are relatively low, enabling them to keep their rental rates reasonable. Additionally, tanks are pressure vessels and thus must be recertified periodically. They also require annual maintenance to maintain the vacuum and ensure that pressure regulators and safeties are working as required. Buying a tank introduces the need to figure out what to do with the storage tank if your gas needs increase, decrease, or go away entirely. Consequently, buying your own storage tank may only be advisable for the largest users.
The primary cost elements of industrial gas supply and delivery are the generation of the gases themselves and the fuel costs and labor to deliver the gases to you. The energy to generate the air gases is primarily in the form of electricity, while for hydrogen the cost is a blend of electricity and natural gas costs. The cost of delivery is primarily driven by diesel fuel pricing. Clients should expect to see escalation approaches for the cost elements that may vary over time, such as electricity, natural gas, and diesel fuel. It is advisable to negotiate the contract to define formulas for each of these variables. If buyers do not negotiate, then the supplier uses their own internal criteria, which may not be advantageous for buyers.
Typical contract terms vary, depending on the form of supply. Small quantities of liquefied gases are typically supplied in micro bulk form using a straight truck for delivery and a highly portable pallet-mounted storage tank. These contracts tend to be 3 to 5 years in duration. Standard liquid and gases bulk supply is typically 5 to 10 years in duration. If the supplier builds an on-site gas generation plant for you, expect a contract with a minimum duration of 10 years. If you choose a shorter term, the supplier may charge higher unit prices due to the reduced value of your contract and the risk to the supplier of having unproductive assets or excess, unsold product.
Determining Your Gas Usage
A site survey is the first step in a contract negotiation. It’s important for the buyer to understand that making the tank available for deliveries is the buyer’s responsibility. The best (and least expensive) delivery infrastructure allows the gas delivery driver to pull through the site, entering, unloading, and exiting the site without needing to back up. Flammable gases require certain minimum clearances; the greater the quantity stored, the farther the distance required between the tank and areas of occupation and site borders. Oxygen cannot be stored close to flammable gas. In the case of snow, the delivery driver is not equipped or permitted to dig out your tank.
A delivery consideration that influences fees is the hours and days of access to the storage equipment. The supplier is going to expect 24/7 access to the tank so they can make deliveries based on their schedule not the buyer’s. If 24/7 access cannot be made available, clients should ensure that access restrictions are defined in the contract. Site restrictions can increase the supplier’s cost to serve, which will cost more for the client.
Another characteristic of many industrial gas contracts is the “estimated use quantity,” typically denominated in standard cubic feet per month. The purpose of this is to allow the supplier to understand how much product they need to reserve for your use. Suppliers cannot sell more than they make, but they are highly incentivized to sell out everything they do make since industrial gases are difficult to store. Buyers may be asked to estimate their monthly use quantity; the resulting estimate may become a contract variable. In essence, the supplier is acting to reserve the quantity of gas the buyer has nominated (and the assets to deliver it), and the buyer is indicating a willingness to pay for it.
If the buyer uses substantially less than estimated, the supplier may increase the price per unit. Alternatively, if the buyer uses substantially more than estimated, the supplier may not be able to provide the necessary amount or may charge a premium to do so. Estimated quantities are a particular concern for supply-constrained gases like argon and helium.
Clients of industrial gases must communicate to their potential supplier the pressure and flow rates (min, average, max) of the gas supply they need to ensure that the tank and ancillary equipment (vaporizers, regulators, etc.) are specified correctly. Maximum gas supply rate is largely determined by vaporizer sizing and technology. Note that the supplier will supply the rental tank, but clients are financially responsible for the installation, including permitting, clearances, foundation, utilities, fencing, and piping. Companies expecting an increase in production should anticipate an increase in tank size in the future and consider the distance requirements for a larger tank, potentially including an oversized foundation to accommodate installing a larger tank in the future.
Most industrial gas suppliers will offer a telemetry device, which enables them to monitor the buyer’s tank inventory and schedule automated deliveries. Although the clients will pay a monthly fee for the telemetry, most thermal processors find the service helpful. If a client declines the telemetry or the supplier does not offer one, the client will be responsible for checking gas inventory every day and reporting that inventory to the supplier for them to manage deliveries.
Fair Price Analysis
The market for industrial gases is relatively opaque, meaning it can be difficult for buyers to know if they are receiving a fair price. As such, it’s a good practice to get at least two quotes when considering industrial gas requirements. Operations personnel should collaborate with procurement personnel to negotiate and manage the gas contract. Some industrial gas clients find it helpful to seek assistance from an industrial gas purchasing consultant. While legal counsel may be helpful in evaluating the terms and conditions portion of the contract, attorneys may not have expertise in the gas rider portion(s) of the contract, which is where most of the costs are driven.
About The Author:
David (Dave) Wolff Industrial Gas Professional Wolff Engineering
Dave Wolff has over 40 years of project engineering, industrial gas generation and application engineering, marketing, and sales experience. Dave holds a degree in engineering science from Dartmouth College. Currently, he consults in the areas of industrial gas and chemical new product development and commercial introduction, as well as market development and selling practices.
Additive manufacturing (AM) has transformed how metal parts are designed and produced, but it is also changing the role of thermal processing. As engineers develop alloys specifically for additive manufacturing — and tailor process parameters to achieve increasingly complex microstructures — heat treatment is evolving from a downstream finishing operation into a critical part of the overall materials design strategy.
This Technical Tuesday installment is a Q&A with Heat Treat Today Digital Editor Pat Reyes, in which Olga “Dr. O” Ivanova shares her perspective on what that shift means for manufacturers with in-house heat treating and commercial heat treaters.
With more than 15 years of experience in advanced materials and additive manufacturing, Olga “Dr. O” Ivanova is the founder of Dr.O Strategies, where she advises executives, startup leaders, and engineering teams on additive manufacturing technology integration and commercialization. A 2026 Additive Manufacturing Users Group (AMUG) DINO Award recipient, she brings expertise spanning materials chemistry, process design, and performance validation, helping organizations bridge the gap between scientific innovation and scalable production.
In the discussion that follows, Ivanova explains why additive-specific microstructures demand a different way of thinking about thermal processing, how emerging alloy systems may reshape traditional heat treatment practices, and why thermal processors have an opportunity to become collaborators in materials development rather than simply the final stop in the manufacturing chain.
From Process to Strategy
Pat Reyes: How do you see the relationship between material design, additive process parameters, and thermal processing evolving over the next decade?
Dr. O: I see this evolving from sequential handoffs to integrated co-design. Today, these disciplines operate in silos — alloy selection, then build parameters, then heat treatment, each handed off to the next.
Different LPBF processing parameters produce distinctly different microstructures in the same tool steel, illustrating how build conditions shape the material entering heat treatment. | Image Credit: Dr.O Strategies
AM breaks that model. The thermal history during printing shapes the microstructure as much as the alloy chemistry does. Laser power, scan strategy, layer thickness, cooling rate — all of them determine what the heat treater receives.
Consider a nickel superalloy like Inconel 718. The powder morphology affects how it absorbs laser energy, which determines the as-built stress state, which governs whether a standard aging cycle actually hits its target. Change any one variable and you change the outcome.
Over the next decade, the winning question will shift from “How do we heat treat this alloy after printing?” to “How do we design the alloy, print parameters, and thermal strategy together?”
Heat treatment becomes a design variable, not a corrective step.
Pat Reyes: What do thermal processors most need to understand about additive-specific microstructures?
Dr. O: The most important concept: AM does not replicate conventional microstructures. It produces non-equilibrium structures that wrought and cast materials never experience.
Rapid melting and solidification cycles — repeated thousands of times per build — create metastable phases, columnar grains aligned with the build direction, and complex residual stress states. A thermal processor who treats an AM part as “just another batch” misses what makes it unique.
Related Reading: New to Inconel 718? Click on the image above to explore its history, aerospace applications, and production fundamentals as you dive deeper into how additive manufacturing is changing its thermal processing.
You might receive a familiar alloy like Ti-6A1-4V or Inconel 718, but the starting microstructure can be fundamentally different from what the standard heat treat schedule expects.
Residual stress relief isn’t just about preventing distortion. It’s about unlocking predictable properties. And HIP porosity closure must happen at the right stage relative to solution treatment and aging. These aren’t small differences, they’re the difference between reproducibility and scatter.
I’d point practitioners to standards like ASTM F3055-22 for qualification frameworks. But the principle holds: applying traditional schedules designed for wrought stock may solve the wrong problems or create new ones.
Rethinking Heat Treatment for AM
Pat Reyes: Are current heat treatment approaches generally sufficient for metal AM parts?
Dr. O: For established alloys in mature applications, yes, adapted conventional cycles generally suffice. If your goal is matching wrought performance in aerospace structures, current methods work.
A stainless steel rocket nozzle illustrates how increasingly complex AM geometries demand tailored thermal processing strategies. | Image Credit: Dr.O Strategies
But I expect tailored thermal strategies to become the norm as AM matures. The reason: many AM materials are produced under thermal conditions that didn’t exist when traditional heat treat standards were written.
Two developments will push beyond today’s methods.
First, custom thermal cycles designed around printed microstructures rather than inherited from legacy routes. Second, spatially selective processing (e.g., different zones needing different treatments within a single component) for multi-material and functionally graded parts.
I’m also watching in-situ heat treatment during the build — re-melting passes that serve dual purposes. This blurs the line between process and post-processing entirely.
Pat Reyes: Will future AM alloys be designed with downstream thermal processing in mind?
Dr. O: Absolutely. One of the most exciting shifts is the emergence of alloys designed specifically for AM rather than adapted from casting or forging.
Future alloys will be engineered with solidification behavior, cracking resistance, residual stress management, and post-processing response as design criteria from day one.
When you’re developing an aluminum-copper or titanium-niobium variant for LPBF, the precipitation hardening response must be part of the alloy design brief, not an afterthought.
We’re moving toward process-aware metallurgy: How does this composition behave under rapid solidification? What thermal pathways unlock our target properties? Can we design an alloy that forgives minor process variation?
Organizations embedding this thinking early — treating thermal response as a design lever — will have the advantage when scaling production.
The Next Generation of Materials
Pat Reyes: What emerging material systems should thermal processors watch?
Dr. O: Beyond Ti-6A1-4V and Inconel 718, these systems deserve attention:
High-entropy alloys: Alloys like CoCrFeMnNi (Cantor alloy) offer unusual strength-toughness combinations. Their sluggish diffusion kinetics mean standard solution treatment times may need re-evaluation; these alloys don’t homogenize on conventional schedules.
Refractory metal composites: Systems based on Tantalum-Tungsten (Ta-W) or Molybdenum Lanthanum oxide (MLA) target extreme-temperature applications. Oxidation control during heat treatment remains the critical challenge; protective atmospheres and ramp rates matter more than with conventional alloys.
Additive-specific aluminum alloys: Like Scalmalloy® (A1-Mg-Sc-Zr), these are advancing rapidly. Their precipitation behavior differs from wrought 6061 or 7075; aging cycles optimized for cast stock may miss the peak hardness window entirely.
Copper alloy systems: Grades like GRCop-84 or C17000 are gaining traction in thermal management and electronics. Their high thermal conductivity affects cooling rates during printing and heat treatment alike, requiring adjusted soak times to ensure uniform property development.
For processors expanding into AM services: build relationships with alloy developers early. These materials move faster than published standards can keep up.
A laser powder bed fusion component with titanium-to-tantalum material gradient highlights the growing role of thermal processing in functionally graded materials. | Image Credit: Dr.O Strategies
Pat Reyes: How might nanomaterial-enhanced systems affect thermal processing?
Dr. O: This is where my focus has been most intensive, and I see both significant opportunity and genuine complexity.
Nanomaterials can refine grain structure, suppress hot cracking, and unlock new precipitation mechanisms. But they also introduce new variables: agglomeration risk, inconsistent dispersion, unexpected interactions during thermal cycling.
The challenge is that nanomaterial behavior under heat treatment doesn’t follow bulk-phase predictions. You might get beneficial grain refinement in one temperature window and particle coarsening in another. A “standard cycle” for a nanoparticle-modified alloy may produce fundamentally different results than for its conventional counterpart.
Where I see real promise: alloys engineered to leverage nanoparticles for localized property enhancement. Imagine a turbine blade where coating regions respond differently to thermal treatment than the core. Spatial control without complex assembly.
Building the Future Together
Pat Reyes: Where do you see the greatest opportunities for collaboration?
Dr. O: The biggest opportunity is moving collaboration upstream. Involve thermal processing specialists before the alloy is finalized and the first layer is printed, not after.
Thermal processing professionals understand phase transformations, microstructural control, and property optimization. Those insights can shape alloy development and process qualification from the start.
Three areas stand out:
Data sharing: Alloy suppliers publish compositional specs; heat treaters run their cycles. We need closed-loop data. What thermal paths actually deliver target properties for printed microstructures? Without this feedback, progress stalls.
Co-developed qualification: Aerospace and medical certification is expensive. Joint efforts between materials developers, machine OEMs, and thermal processors could create streamlined pathways instead of ad-hoc testing for every new alloy-part combination.
Equipment innovation: Furnace technology hasn’t evolved significantly for AM-specific needs. Opportunities exist for sensors that track microstructural transformation in real-time, and adaptive cycles that adjust based on in-situ measurements.
Pat Reyes: What misconception do you wish more thermal processors understood?
Dr. O: That heat treatment can fix poor build quality.
It’s tempting to view post-processing as a corrective step — to assume thermal cycles will close every pore, eliminate every stress concentration, transform every undesirable phase. They won’t.
Heat treatment operates within constraints set upstream. Contaminated powder, excessive lack-of-fusion defects, unpredictable stresses from poor support strategy — no thermal cycle can reverse those fundamentals.
The misconception gets expensive when organizations invest in better furnaces instead of better prints. Quality must be built in first. Heat treatment unlocks potential; it doesn’t manufacture it.
Looking Ahead
Throughout this conversation with Dr. O, one theme emerged consistently. As additive manufacturing matures, thermal processing is becoming less about only completing material processing and more about unlocking material performance not found in traditional processing methods. Dr. O emphasizes that alloy chemistry, build strategy, process parameters, and heat treatment have always been interconnected. The difference today is a growing recognition that optimizing additive manufacturing requires materials scientists, additive manufacturing engineers, and thermal processors to collaborate from the earliest stages of design rather than working sequentially through the production process.
The takeaway is clear: the next chapter of additive manufacturing offers heat treaters more than new work — it offers a seat at the table. By contributing to process qualification, materials development, and production optimization, thermal processors can help shape the future of advanced manufacturing instead of simply responding to it.
About The Expert:
Olga “Dr. O” Ivanova Founder Dr.O Strategies
Olga “Dr. O” Ivanova is the founder of Dr.O Strategies, where she helps organizations align materials development, additive manufacturing, and commercialization strategies. An Additive Manufacturing Users Group (AMUG) Distinguished INnovator Operator (DINO) Award recipient, she advises manufacturers, startups, and investors on process qualification, alloy development, and technology adoption, with a focus on moving emerging innovations from the laboratory to scalable production.
Main image shows an LPBF copper heat sink with thin fins, which demonstrates the complex geometries that require designers and thermal processors to optimize material performance together. | Image Credit: Dr.O Strategies
Heat TreatRadio host, Doug Glenn, sits down with Peter Sherwin, director of Strategic Marketing at Watlow, to discuss how the next generation of process control technology is being shaped by the evolving needs of the heat treating industry. Their conversation explores the role of AI, cybersecurity, workforce development, energy efficiency, and compliance in modern furnace operations, as well as how Watlow’s Edge Process Management (EPM) platform aims to bring these capabilities together in a unified system. Looking beyond a single product launch, the episode examines the trends that could define heat treating over the next two decades.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Introduction (1:04)
Doug Glenn: Welcome to another episode of Heat TreatRadio. I have the pleasure of actually being face-to-face here with our guest today, Peter Sherwin. Peter is the director of strategic marketing at Watlow, and we’re going to be discussing an exciting product that Watlow recently launched.
Host of Heat TreatRadio Doug Glenn (left) and Director of Strategic Marketing at Watlow Peter Sherwin (right)
There’s been some discussion in the industry about Watlow’s commitment to the thermal processing market. Can you address that?
Peter Sherwin: One of Watlow’s taglines is “wherever thermal is critical.” Obviously, thermal is very critical in heat treatment. My background is from Eurotherm, now combined with Watlow. I’ve been with the organization for around 17 years now. There was always a bias toward heat treatment within Eurotherm, but Watlow has a much broader portfolio.
Heat treatment is still very important to Watlow, but we play in a number of different spaces. The business is split into two key verticals: semiconductor and industrials. The heat treatment activity resides under the industrials banner, whether it’s automotive, aerospace, etc. So, it’s still very key to us, and I think we’ve been pushing more through our distribution channel as of late, particularly in the last twelve months.
We have been working on training and re-skilling our workforce, as well as developing the next generation of products. That’s been taking quite a bit of our focus, but we definitely have not stepped away from heat treatment.
Doug Glenn: Watlow has been dedicated to providing the resources to do that. You have been with the company when Eurotherm was standalone, when Eurotherm was Schneider, and now as Eurotherm is Watlow. Comparatively speaking, are you happy with the resources that Watlow has dedicated to the brand?
Peter Sherwin: Originally, Eurotherm was part of the Invensys setup.
Doug Glenn: Correct; I forgot that.
Peter Sherwin: But it was pretty much a standalone company. We used some of the Invensys products, like Wonderware, etc. As time went on, we were acquired by Schneider around 2014. We were folded into the energy controls business as a whole but still remained intact with Eurotherm. We had our own offices and sales team spread globally around the world. But you could tell toward the end, when Eurotherm put us up for sale and Watlow acquired us, there was a little bit of restriction in spending at that time, which probably slowed down some of the velocity of that program. Thankfully, since Watlow picked us up, we’ve gone full steam ahead. A lot of investment — I’m surprised by the amount of investment.
I’ve been in the industry for 30+ years, and it’s given me the opportunity to work across the world. I started in Europe running commercial heat treatment plants, as well as captive. Then I moved to India working with a suite of commercial shops. Then, about 18 years ago, I moved to the U.S., and it’s all on the back of heat treatment. It’s amazing to look back on. It’s a fascinating industry, and I feel as though I still owe something to the industry. This next generation of platform, for me, is something I’ve worked on for 10 years.
The Edge Process Management (EPM) Platform (6:38)
Doug Glenn: Let’s talk about that. We both attended an industry event where they said the next 4 years will determine the next 20. Essentially, this next period of time is going to be pretty critical. This product you mentioned, EPM, which stands for Edge Process Management, correct?
Peter Sherwin: Correct.
Doug Glenn: Can you describe what it is?
Peter Sherwin: EPM is a platform product. Eurotherm was started in 1965 and produced a lot of instrumentation for the heat treat industry. Everything was kind of separated. We had the best in temperature control, the best in chart recorders, originally from a brand called Chessell, and also the best in SCR power controllers. That was perfectly good for the time those came out.
But as we’re moving into this newer arena, there needs to be far more connection between those devices to address some of the challenges the heat treat industry has to wrap its arms around. For example, how do we improve compliance and make it far easier? What about energy efficiency? That 4 years will dictate the next 20 years to 2050. Think about how the planet will be at that point in time. We will need to run our furnaces far more efficiently.
Doug Glenn: I think more than any other time in history, nobody knows what the industry is going to look like 20 to 30 years down the road. It used to be that you could make a decent prediction. I’m not sure we can do that anymore.
EPM is a platform, not a discrete instrument or product, correct?
Peter Sherwin: The four years are key because of how we are rolling it out. We are releasing one part after another, so it will take a bit of time for the full platform to emerge. We start the release in July with data management, which really replaces our historical chart recorder but goes much further than that. And then, as that evolves, we will bring out control, data, and full automation over the next few years. That’s why it’s a platform. It all shares the same IO base and has the same programming software. There’s commonality across everything, but effectively you can put any of these modules anywhere that makes sense.
Doug Glenn: What is the motivating force behind the development of the platform? I’m assuming that your company, and perhaps companies even before that, had concepts of changes that would occur over the next so many years. Were some of those developments the impetus behind creating this platform? For example, workforce changes — did they have an impact on the motivation to get this platform up and running?
Peter Sherwin: I think we benefited from some of the slowing-down process of Schneider because we were able to make some architectural choices that fit with this kind of new world of AI. A lot of the web technology we’re using fits very well with AI, so we are fortunate that we can leverage some of the current technologies. As we sit here today, AI is in the news all the time. Not everyone is completely sure how all of that is going to unfold but producing a platform today and not being able to utilize AI would be a big miss. So, we integrated those features within the platform, which helps us address many of these workforce challenges.
Considerations When Building This Platform (11:35)
Doug Glenn: Those were actually two of the areas I wanted to ask you about: the workforce and AI. Some other areas I was thinking about were electrification, energy, compliance, and cybersecurity. I assume these were all considerations when you were putting together this platform.
Peter Sherwin: These areas of concern have just accelerated the need for deeply embedding all those technology features. I’m not sure we fully understand how the workforce changes are going to affect the industry and specifically in a furnace operation, but there’s definitely going to be a component of AI that is needed. As we have so many people retiring, there are people coming into the industry who have no background in processes like signing off on records and certain procedures. We have to get new hires up to speed very quickly.
This is the type of technology we’re putting into the EPM platform, to enable people to have a very short learning curve, be useful very quickly, and arm them with the likes of AI so they can enhance their capabilities.
Three forces reshaping heat treatment: an aging workforce, rising energy demands, and the rapid arrival of AI.
Energy is another one of these points. If you have separate components, it takes quite a lot to then integrate those components together to make them more useful, like a temperature controller and a power controller. You can do it, but it doesn’t have all the abilities of one device. You’re only passing certain information between the two. But if you can make that power controller have all the capabilities of control and data, you can more easily manage energy efficiency going forward. This energy piece is another trend this new platform will address.
Doug Glenn: How about the cybersecurity and compliance issues you were talking about?
Related Reading: CMMC Phase II just hit pause. As Sherwin notes in this interview, cybersecurity requirements are only rising for heat treaters — this piece breaks down what the pause does (and doesn’t) mean for defense-supply-chain compliance.
Peter Sherwin: I think that’s one major benefit of a new platform. Cybersecurity requirements have been around for a while. A few years ago, we had SB-327, a California law that came out because of hacking concerns with baby monitors. This law affected everything, though. If an industrial supplier had an internet-connected device, they had to ensure more protection on those devices. You wouldn’t believe the hurdles to then re-engineer cybersecurity into older products — not easy and kind of clunky. Our clients probably still want to slap our wrists on that, because it’s not easy for them. We had to do it because it was a law in California and CMMC. There are laws just coming into effect toward the end of next year in Europe. All of these are going to push higher and higher requirements for cybersecurity. The benefit of a new platform is that you can design these cybersecurity requirements from the start. We’re fortunate there, but it’s a big deal.
Impact of Aging Infrastructure (15:26)
Doug Glenn: How about the fact that the infrastructure most of the systems are built on now is aging out. You’re fortunate to be able to almost start from scratch. Can you comment on the aging infrastructure?
Peter Sherwin: I was having a discussion with a large global heat treater a couple of weeks ago, and they were talking about how one of their issues is that every furnace is different. With this new platform, we are looking to solve those challenges and requirements for clients. We also realize some clients want something they can just take out and put in place, a discrete instrument. So, along with EPM, we’re building what we call our level three controller. That’s a project in flight at the moment. We’ll preview it at Furnaces North America, and it’ll be released sometime in 2027.
The NanoDac recorder | Image Credit: Watlow
If you look at all the different products now across Watlow and Eurotherm, discrete products like the F40, the NanoDac, 2704, 2604, 3504 — these devices are very different, and it’s a learning curve for someone to learn and program them. We are taking the best of these devices and putting them into a new device. Even if you just want to replace a single device, we’ll have that next year.
We are trying to account for the fact that if you’ve got an operator who’s been running a particular controller for several years, how can we make that display appear the same to them? I’m hoping we’ll have some prototypes at the show so we can demonstrate. It’s kind of exciting as we come to the end of a whole suite of products from the Eurotherm and Watlow portfolio and what we’re moving into next. Not just the platform but also being able to keep some of those instruments going with a slightly new disguise.
Doug Glenn: Right, that fits into this platform. Sounds very interesting.
EPM Platform Benefits for Users (18:00)
Doug Glenn: You have talked about the clients and the users of these devices and technologies. If you can summarize briefly, why do they need this platform?
Peter Sherwin: It’s about what you were saying earlier — the next 4 years dictate the next 20. There are so many challenges for heat treaters: dealing with a lack of personnel, new hires not having the skill base, and trying to train faster. These issues are going to hit everyone.
We are not going to see a slowdown in energy initiatives, though possibly a pause in some places in the world at the moment. Why wouldn’t you want to be more energy efficient? We’ve been developing some algorithms for this new platform to enable energy efficiency. It’s not just about climate — it’s about running your operations more efficiently. The two concepts we mentioned earlier: cybersecurity, which is going to rise, and AI. How are our clients or prospective clients going to be able to leverage AI for their operations?
I don’t think that exists in today’s technology, but we’re building it. I’ve seen some of these prototypes where, instead of having to drag function blocks onto an engineering diagram and manually software-wire, it’s just a prompt. Say what you want, and it will create that architecture. It blows my mind when you see it. It’s not a big leap from what’s available to us at our fingertips today, if you use ChatGPT, Claude, etc. But it’s bringing that technology into our industry.
Building the EPM Platform (21:24)
Doug Glenn: We’ve talked a bit about what EPM is. I’m curious about what it took for Watlow to build it. It seems daunting. Can you discuss that process in terms of scalability, data integrity, etc.
Peter Sherwin: Like anything, it takes a village — a global village. We started in 2016. We had a team in India that put together a questionnaire and went around the world to key clients asking in-depth questions.
Doug Glenn: Getting thevoice of the client.
Peter Shirwin: We wanted to learn what was needed for a next-generation product. Now, as we’ve mentioned, things slowed down a bit with the handover at the end of Schneider and into Watlow. Since then, it’s been full speed ahead with Watlow.
Watlow also bought control capabilities; they had their own control line. They manufacture their products in Winona. So now we’ve introduced a Winona team into this village. The original creators were based in Worthing. These were the designers and were responsible for product/project management. We have initial manufacturing where all the Eurotherm instruments are manufactured in Poland, and we also have engineering resources in India. You can imagine all of these groups collaborating. It’s a 24-hour cycle just to build this platform. For anyone looking to build something similar, do not underestimate the amount of effort and money it takes to create something like this. It’s a commitment.
You asked about our commitment to heat treatment. This platform alone is a big commitment, because of the increased ability to do TUSs, SATs, along with process control and process recorders.
Doug Glenn: I did want to ask you about that.
Peter Sherwin: All of that has been considered in this platform. It doesn’t just apply to heat treatment, because from the Eurotherm side, historically, there were two main industries we focused on: heat treatment and life sciences. Life science is all the requirements for auditing. If you make one single change on a device, you have to make sure it was the right person that made that change and have full records. So we really just expanded on all of that intelligence that we already had to a point in some of our data management products. Where heat treatment is kind of moving, life science has already been somewhat out in front. All of that functionality supports the direction we feel heat treatment will potentially go.
Doug Glenn: It seems like a very daunting task to put something like this together.
Peter Sherwin: Daunting but exciting, and you always want to release things as soon as possible. There’s a lot of work in testing the platform. We have a brand to uphold, and we need to make sure we get something out there that works consistently. You know what the heat treatment game is like, Nadcap requirements, AMS2750 — it has to be right.
Compliance for Both Captive and Commercial Heat Treaters (25:46)
Doug Glenn: You mentioned compliance, AMS2750, and Nadcap. How will this EPM platform help a captive heat treater, as well as a commercial one?
Peter Sherwin: For us, it doesn’t really matter. It’s a furnace, and it’s about how best to control that furnace. It starts with the analog input card. You have to get that right for everything else to follow. Much of the development was around how we make a card that meets the requirements of not just a process controller, but also a field test instrument. How can we get that accuracy level in that card so it can be used across anything and isn’t restricted? And, obviously, we need to do it in a cost-effective manner so a commercial or captive heat treater can actually afford it.
We had an R&D project that looked at various ways of doing this. The analysis concluded that errors with the cold junction compensation (CJC) had the biggest impact on accuracy, so we developed a method of CJC. Essentially, it’s like having a very accurate sensor at every junction. That’s what we have on our IO cards. It’s patented, so anyone can go out and look at the details of the patent. Ultimately, it meets process control requirements and field test requirements, which then means you have the possibility, per furnace, to do process control, SAT, and TUS on the same platform. There are some restrictions on Nadcap. You have to mark that this module’s doing an SAT, these modules are doing a TUS, but it’s all common, so you can then share that information, which improves compliance.
AI and Running Processes (28:25)
Doug Glenn: I want to come back to AI. How is this platform going to help end users in running processes? Is there anything in the system, as far as AI goes, that would help?
Peter Sherwin: The ability to pull data and control together means we can start to look at the set-point program as the cycle is running. One of the new functions we’re creating is something called Batch Validator. Think from an operator’s point of view about what they need to do as the process is running, when it finishes, and to sign off and make sure it meets all its requirements. Typically, today, they may need to refer to some other guidance that specifies that this run must be within this tolerance at this level or that it’s had a guaranteed soak between these soak time points. It’s not easy for an operator to see whether the requirements has been met or not, because it’s just a line. That’s the one thing AI and Batch Validator will do — overlay the specifications for that run of the process and show very clearly if it’s deviated or not. It takes that kind of human error and guesswork away from an operator and gives them more information.
Doug Glenn: Do the current standards allow for an automated check on the validation of the load, or will that have to change?
Peter Sherwin: I fully believe in “human in the loop.” Obviously, I’m human. So, there will always be a check. But this really helps as an operator aid, because it’s just checking the screen. Ultimately, the person signing off has to be a real person.
The Future of Heat Treating (31:11)
Doug Glenn: To wrap up, tell us what you think the future of heat treating will look like.
Peter Sherwin: That’s a really good question. It depends on the time scale. I think we’re kind of clear about efficient and reliable running for the next few years. We know we can help with that, but how is it going to structurally change?
I think the operator is going to have a much, much bigger role. There have been less operators in plants. But think about maintenance skills, quality experience, and personnel retiring from the industry. We will have a real problem unless we arm the operator with the ability to do quality, a level of maintenance, and even purchasing.
I think the operator of the future is going to be very multi-skilled but also assisted by AI. We’re seeing it in different areas of our business, how people are moving and taking on more responsibility because of AI. Correlate that with a future where the operator’s going to be that key person and may not require anyone else around to fully run that furnace and run it profitably, with a minimum amount of energy, and making sure it has all the right consumables to keep on running. They’ll manage that whole operation. I think that will be a trend into the future.
Doug Glenn: That is actually a very interesting trend, because with the use of AI, I would expect to see less operators, but I like your perspective. We’ll have to come back in ten years and see how well it panned out.
About the Guest
Peter Sherwin Director of Strategic Marketing Watlow
Peter Sherwin leads strategic marketing at Watlow and brings more than 30 years of experience across heat treatment, industrial technology, business development, and product marketing. His career has included leadership roles with Watlow, Schneider Electric, DOWA HighTemp Furnaces, and Aalberts surface technologies, with experience spanning the United States, United Kingdom, and India. He also holds an MBA from Henley Business School.
Ask The Heat Treat Doctor® has returned to bring sage advice to Heat Treat Today readers and to answer your questions about heat treating, brazing, sintering, and other types of thermal treatments as well as questions on metallurgy, equipment, and process-related issues. In this installment, Dan Herring explores the heat tint colors that form on stainless steel during heating and cooling — how the surface oxide layer thickens and shifts through straw, bronze, peacock, and blue hues at specific temperatures — and explains the factors, such as chromium content, oxygen levels, time, and surface roughness, that influence how and when these colors appear.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sJune 2026 Sixth Annual Buyers Guide Issue print edition.
Most heat treaters, engineers, and clients are familiar with temper colors on steels (Herring 2014, ASM International 1991) and often assume that these color tints (hues) are the same for stainless steels (Table A). However, there are subtle changes that are worth noting. Let’s learn more.
Table A. Heat Tint Color Chart for Stainless Steels | Source: The HERRING GROUP, Inc.
The Science Behind Heat Tint Colors
Figure 1. Examples of color tints | Image Credit: Abbott Furnace Company
When stainless steel is exposed to an air atmosphere, or a high dew point moisture-laden atmosphere during heating or cooling, its surface changes color; that is, a thin oxide layer forms on the surface (Figure 1). This heat tint color (aka temper color) is caused by a progressive thickening of the surface oxide layer.
As most of us know, an invisible (aka passive) layer occurs naturally on stainless steels. It is extremely thin, typically in the order of 1 to 3 nanometers (3.93 x 10⁻⁸ to 1.18 x 10⁻⁷ inches) thick.
Upon exposure to air during heating or holding at temperature, this oxide layer grows in thickness. When it is approximately 20–30 nanometers (7.87 x 10⁻⁷ inches) thick, it starts to become visible to the human eye as a light-yellow or straw yellow color tint.
As the oxide layer becomes even thicker it transitions from almost transparent to a variety of different colors (e.g., bronze, peacock, blue).
As the oxide layer thickness increases from 20 nm to roughly 50–100 nm (1.97 x 10⁻⁶ to 3.94 x 10⁻⁶ inches), the colors deepen changing to a golden yellow, to a deep straw, to a bronze or golden brown, to peacock (a purplish-blue), to full blue, then light gray, and finally dark gray.
Above 100 nm (3.94 x 10⁻⁶ inches,) up to approximately 850 nm (3.35 x 10⁻⁵ inches) the tint transitions from dark blue/gray to black.
Such shallow oxides are known to enhance corrosion resistance on various stainless steel grades.
Factors Influencing Color Change
Several factors influence the type of oxide that forms on the surface, its adhesion to the surface, and how quickly the thickness of the oxide will grow (BSSA).
Chromium
From a purely material standpoint, the single most important element is the chromium (Cr) content of the stainless steel. To be classified as a stainless steel, it must contain a minimum of 10.5–11% Cr. The higher the chromium content, not only is the alloy more heat resistant, but the heat tint color formation mechanism is retarded.
Oxygen Content
Figure 2. Bright and discolored stainless steel parts run in a continuous brazing furnace. The discolored part was caused by room air infiltrating into the cooling zone at high levels (> 50 ppm) from the exit of the furnace. | Image Credit: The HERRING GROUP, Inc.
Another factor that influences the rate of oxide formation and the thickness of the oxide is the oxygen content of the atmosphere (Figure 2). Air is approximately 21% oxygen. Nitrogen, however, will typically have between 0.001%–1% oxygen depending on its source, while argon typically has between 0.0005%–1% oxygen. By contrast, water vapor contains around 89% oxygen.
As anyone who has run stainless steel in vacuum furnaces knows, stainless parts can be discolored due to such factors as an air leak during heating or cooling, a pinhole water leak in a heat exchanger which opens during cooling in one temperature range and close again at a lower temperature, or air infiltration in the backfill gas supply.
Time
Time plays a factor as well. The longer the exposure time, the deeper the heat tint color.
Surface Roughness
Finally, surface roughness influences both the rate of oxidation and the heat tint color formation. Rougher surfaces tend to oxidize at a higher rate and with all other factors remaining the same, deeper colors are produced.
Final Thoughts
Knowing the color tints that may form on the surface of stainless steel is invaluable in helping the heat treater explain this phenomenon to their clients and/or troubleshoot their equipment and processes in an attempt to minimize or eliminate undesirable surface tints on the stainless steel parts that they run.
References
Herring, Daniel H. 2014. Atmosphere Heat Treatment, Volume I (Section 5.8). BNP Media Group II.
British Stainless Steel Association (BSSA). bssa.org.uk.
About the Author
Dan Herring “The Heat Treat Doctor” The HERRING GROUP, Inc.
Dan Herring has been in the industry for over 50 years and has gained vast experience in fields that include materials science, engineering, metallurgy, new product research, and many other areas. He is the author of six books and over 700 technical articles.
In this Technical Tuesday installment of Answers in the Atmosphere, David (Dave) Wolff, an independent expert focusing on industrial atmospheres for heat treat applications, examines how technical support has evolved from a value-added service into a key differentiator among industrial gas suppliers. Drawing on industry history and insights from Messer LLC, Wolff explores the range of support models available today and the factors heat treaters should consider when evaluating gas supply partnerships beyond price alone.
This informative piecewas first released in Heat Treat Today’sJuly 2026 Annual Super Brands Issue print edition.
Do you have the technical support you need? Not all industrial gas suppliers are the same when it comes to technical support and gas delivery offerings. A critical look must be taken to consider how much technical support you can be looking to your supplier for when signing a gas contract.
We’ll look at a bit of history of the differentiation of technical support offerings in the industrial gases space before homing in on how one specific has supplier, Messer LLC, offers their support so you can better evaluate the cost of gas supply alongside the level of technical support your operations may require.
A Bit of History
Industrial gases have long been treated as commodities, making differentiation among suppliers a persistent challenge. In the early years of the industry (through the 1950s), gas applications were narrowly utilized, especially for the primary steelmaking and refining industries, and most technical knowledge remained with these end user rather than the supplier.
To increase traction with their smaller manufacturing clients, industrial gas suppliers began pairing gas delivery with technical support to help these clients use gases safely and achieve productivity gains. This full-service model propelled increased industrial gas adoption across more general industries.
By the 1970s, the use of industrial gases had become more widespread to include industries like heat treating. Clients were increasing their knowledge of these gases and sought to improve labor and energy efficiency as well as reduce manufacturing costs.
This knowledge increase brought intensified competition for suppliers, prompting a shift toward offering range of service models. Some suppliers reduced or separated technical support to compete on price, while others continued to emphasize integrated service and application expertise. For example, in the 1980s Airgas reduced their technical support to provide a bare product approach at a lower price point. This action prompted other major gas suppliers to adjust their approach and offer technical support selectively, and at times for an additional cost.
Today, these technical support offerings are widely varied. The rest of the discussion is taken from an interview I was privileged to have with Grzegorz Moroz, program manager at Messer LLC.
Supporting Furnace Owners in a Changing Environment
Moroz first spoke about heat treaters’ long reliance on gases to maintain furnace atmospheres. Early-generation atmospheres, such as exothermic and endothermic gas, acetylene, and dissociated ammonia, were effective for their time. Over the past decades, industrial gas companies have advanced the safe use of nitrogen- and hydrogen-based atmospheres among others to deliver greater precision and tighter process control.
According to Moroz, furnace owners face multiple challenges:
Higher quality expectations with shorter lead times and reduced costs
Increasing safety and emissions regulations
Greater automation across operations
A less experienced and more transient workforce
Types of Support
Industrial gas companies, Moroz continues, vary widely in the level of support they may offer. Some focus on gas delivery or a specific expertise, while others offer comprehensive technical, safety, and application support as part of the overall supply relationship. For Messer, solutions are tailored from a team of technical and product experts that support heat treating from efficient, safe, and reliable operations as well as play review.
Access to Support
There are different commercial models industrial gas providers employ to enable their services, explains Moroz. While most will not provide ongoing assistance to facilities supplied by their competitors to avoid conflicts of interest, practices vary across the industry. Even so, contract structures often limit many suppliers from being flexible in delivering technical resources. Informal technical advice may be provided occasionally from gas suppliers that maintain in-house expertise.
Multi-supplier arrangements are common. This may be due to increased volume demands, supply security, strategies, or differing gas specifications, so Messer routinely navigates this reality. However, be aware that larger suppliers often prefer being the sole provider of all gas requirements at a site.
In part 2, we’ll talk more about what’s involved in an installation technical assessment and considering the right industry supplier expert.
About The Author:
David (Dave) Wolff Industrial Gas Professional Wolff Engineering
Dave Wolff has over 40 years of project engineering, industrial gas generation and application engineering, marketing, and sales experience. Dave holds a degree in engineering science from Dartmouth College. Currently, he consults in the areas of industrial gas and chemical new product development and commercial introduction, as well as market development and selling practices.
In this installment of Technical Tuesday, Jim Roberts of U.S. Ignition engages readers in a Combustion Corner editorial about the role of velocity in heat treating — breaking down how faster burner speeds create more turbulence in the furnace, which helps parts heat up faster and more evenly.
This editorial was first released in Heat Treat Today’sJune 2026 6th Annual Buyers Guide Issue print edition.
A furnace guy walks into a heat treat plant and looks around. While it all looks calm and controlled, the agitation inside the furnaces is rampant.
So many times, we forget to slow down, look over our shoulders, and see all we’ve accomplished or learned. Combustion Corner series began with the intent to take a simple, almost primer-level look at what combustion-related issues the modern heat treater — furnace technicians, production managers, and really everybody involved in the process — may encounter.
The focus has been on burners and flame-related items. Occasionally, we get questions for an opinion on considering gas-fired versus electric furnaces or other similar questions. That’s dangerous ground to tread because so many different processes can use both. In fact in most cases, the method of heating is really moot to the process goal: Get heat delivered, cleanly, and all will be well with the parts and the process.
With that in mind, let’s take a peek at what really matters in heat treating. It’s the heat. Specifically, it’s how to get heat delivered as quickly as possible and with as much control as is possible. I know, kind of obvious that heat is important in heat treating. There are “four modes of heat transfer,” but we’ll just look at one of them today.
Convective Transfer
Convective transfer is an easy one because we see so many practical applications in our own homes. The new ovens in the modern home are often convection ovens and seemingly everybody has an air fryer. In the kitchen alone, you can see this how heat transfer increases can happen via convection increases. Take this principle to the shop floor and you can see how critical it is in processes that allow contact with flue gases or hot air.
We used to heat up the box of bricks, and once it got to the needed temperature for the metallurgy requirement, we would push in a basket of parts and wait for them to catch up to that temperature. The thermal mass of the load would literally suck the heat right out of the box, and the temperature would crash. Then, we’d wait for the temperature to stabilize. Once there, the old rules of time and temperature would apply.
But what if we wanted to speed up the process? What if we wanted more even temperature delivery and more temperature uniformity? The word that comes to mind in most burner intrinsic processes is velocity.
Velocity
We talked about how some direct-fired burners are now designed to give fantastic exit velocities from the burner and into the furnace chamber. And when I say fantastic, it has to do with comparing what was an acceptable burner design back in the early days of industrial America when burner flame/flue gas exit velocity of direct-fired heat treating was like 40 MPH. New burners of today have exit velocities of almost 500 MPH!
Here is why it matters: Velocity will have a direct effect on the heat transfer, firstly by blasting into the “boundary layer” of gases that circulate around parts in the furnace. And most flue gases have been laminar in nature, but with this increased turbulence, the agitation of these gases allows more direct contact with the actual part.
The Reynolds Number
This increased turbulence results in a higher Reynolds number. The Reynolds number (Re) is a dimensionless quantity in fluid mechanics that predicts flow patterns — laminar (smooth) or turbulent (chaotic) — by calculating the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces.
The word viscous reminds us that all things flowing around in the furnace are considered fluid from a scientific viewpoint. Interestingly, all this turbulence also results in greater mass transport. Remembering that the part or load has some mass, once it begins to heat up, it actually begins to emit heat as well. This mass transport mechanism is a result of the turbulence moving the heated molecules away from the surface of the part more quickly, which maintains a higher temperature differential, and again, increases heat transfer.
I guess what we are doing here is starting with velocity on a burner-level discussion, and we will discuss multiple methods and scientific quirks regarding the big picture — heat transfer. We will discuss some of the basics of heat transfer and explore comparisons between conduction, radiation, and convection, and more.
Till next time…
About The Author:
Jim Roberts President US Ignition
Jim Roberts president at U.S. Ignition, began his 45-year career in the burner and heat recovery industry focused on heat treating specifically in 1979. He worked for and helped start up WB Combustion in Hales Corners, Wisconsin. In 1985 he joined Eclipse Engineering in Rockford, IL, specializing in heat treating-related combustion equipment/burners. Inducted into the American Gas Association’s Hall of Flame for service in training gas company field managers, Jim is a former president of MTI and has contributed to countless seminars on fuel reduction and combustion-related practices.
