Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Electropolishing and cleaning stainless steel and aluminum

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • metalmagpie
    replied
    zombie

    Leave a comment:


  • CCWKen
    replied
    Did you just wake up from nearly a six year coma?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kiwi
    replied
    Fantastic post Evan thank you

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Most Interesting

    Evan,

    I too appreciate the posts and the extensive information.

    Regards

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    From the search that I did I don't think it is infringing anything simply because of the prior art in electroplating and electrocleaning.


    Anyway, I am doing some more testing. I have diluted the solution considerably and am using only 12 volts instead of 24 to see what happens. Processing times will be longer but results may be better. It may be a few days before I have anything to report but when I do I will post it.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan
    Go to court and you will be restricted to what you claimed.
    But you won't, because you don't have the $2 million door charge. That was the estimate we were given.

    That boilerplate was intended to avoid the "pink wheelbarrow" effect, small "technical" changes meant to evade a patent. They get slapped down regularly.

    Of course these days the patent office will issue you a patent on air, or the doorknob...... they don't do any research, apparently. I've found prior patents that would be infringing on recently issued patents..... BOTH WERE ACTIVE AND IN EFFECT.

    Nevermind......

    Nobody is going to bust your door down for infringement by contraband electropolishing in your garage, regardless of whether or not it is a "real" infringement.

    And I think in Kansas you are allowed to own books without paying the tax on them now, too. I had heard they used to be taxed.

    Leave a comment:


  • tdmidget
    replied
    Evan if your stainless has Cobalt 60 in it you have way more problems than disposal of used solutions. Note the Oak Ridge article was for solutions used on IRRADIATED items. If you have Cobalt 60 in yours you need to get your affairs in order.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    if the patent does not seem to depend on 'e", it might be found to be a variation "obvious to one skilled in the art", and still be covered.
    I love that little bit of patent boilerplate. All it really means is that "If you think of something I didn't and I can somehow stretch my claims to include it then I might try to take it away from you..."

    It really doesn't mean much and is included in every patent. Go to court and you will be restricted to what you claimed.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan
    I am slightly bored so I'll reply with one factoid.

    In order to be considered infringing the item you make/use must incorporate every single one of the claims made either exactly or as a substantially and functionally exact substitute. For instance, I have left out sulphuric acid in my solution and that immediately makes it non infringing to any electropolishing bath that uses sulphuric acid.
    Likewise, and the answer really is "it depends".

    You do not need "all" the claims, but you need all the claims linked by "and"...... Most patents have several "trees" of claims, with variations. Usually these will emanate from a base claim, which is normally the first.

    Claim one might be "A floszzy widget comprising A, and B, and C, having D, and E, and F."

    Claim two might be "the floszzy widget of claim one with G and H."

    claim 3 "the ... of claim two with ........ " and so forth for many other claims, based directly on claim one, or based on any of the other claims.

    if you make a floszzy widget comprising A, and B, and C, having D and E and F, you infringe, as you have made the claimed device. The fact that claim 2, 3.... through 35 are not involved, is of no matter. Any added things you incorporate are of no matter.

    but if the claim says that the widget comprises items a,b,c,d,e,f,and g, while you leave out e, you MAY be not infringing. it depends on whether the patent can be said to anticipate leaving that out.

    if the patent appears to have "e" as an important feature, you are likely OK, although it might cost you to prove it. You may have superseded the "prior art" which "teaches" the necessity of "e".

    if the patent does not seem to depend on 'e", it might be found to be a variation "obvious to one skilled in the art", and still be covered.

    Regardless, the act of making and using a patented device for your own purposes, OR for commercial purposes, constitutes infringement, aka thievery.

    A private thief is unlikely to be caught, but he is still a thief.

    personally, I think electropolishing is interesting, and potentially useful, if reasonably easy to do, as it seems may be the case. At the moment I have no application, but I expect I will someday.

    The guy who posted about making taillights a few months ago might need to read this thread....... I bet it would improve the reflectors... weren't they turned aluminum?
    Last edited by J Tiers; 11-30-2009, 10:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peter N
    replied
    Originally posted by aboard_epsilon
    Yep, but the point is :- traditional polishing is blinking hard work ,tedious...and dangerous if you have an funny shaped item on the wheel....hard to get into knucks and crannies..
    You should see some of the mould cavities we have to polish Mark. Very hard work and all done by hand without buffing wheels, as we can't chance taking too much off and a wheel can be a bit uncontrollable.
    Have a look on e-bay for a **** (reciprocating, not rotary) as I imagine they come up occasionally - this might help you.

    Peter
    Last edited by Peter N; 11-30-2009, 04:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • aboard_epsilon
    replied
    Originally posted by TheAndroid
    Great minds think alike. I messed with this a few years ago:
    http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/...olish_Info.txt

    There are several places where you can find adequate Phosphoric Acid. I've even experimented with hydrated DPSO(?). It reaches a ph of around 2.3 which is consistent with the 85% Phosphoric Acid solution I initially used.

    When I did put Al in the bath, I got mostly the same cleaning action you are seeing. I seem to remember high current and high time in the fluid finally produced a mirror finish. For the amount of time it took, I think traditional polishing would be more effective.
    Yep, but the point is :- traditional polishing is blinking hard work ,tedious...and dangerous if you have an funny shaped item on the wheel....hard to get into knucks and crannies..
    That's why I'm interested.

    all the best.markj

    Leave a comment:


  • TheAndroid
    replied
    Great minds think alike. I messed with this a few years ago:
    http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/...olish_Info.txt

    There are several places where you can find adequate Phosphoric Acid. I've even experimented with hydrated DPSO(?). It reaches a ph of around 2.3 which is consistent with the 85% Phosphoric Acid solution I initially used.

    When I did put Al in the bath, I got mostly the same cleaning action you are seeing. I seem to remember high current and high time in the fluid finally produced a mirror finish. For the amount of time it took, I think traditional polishing would be more effective.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Aluminum: It cleans aluminum well but it does not level the surface. I am pretty sure that is because it doesn't have any sulphuric acid. I am pretty sure it would work well as a brightener and polish if the bath contained sulphuric acid.

    However, it works very well to clean and brighten mild steel. It appears it will work well on any ferrous alloy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    I am slightly bored so I'll reply with one factoid.

    It's rather expected that if even if you are 'in the field', you're going to build that invention, play with it, and see if you can work around some of the patent 'claims' to circumvent the patent.
    In order to be considered infringing the item you make/use must incorporate every single one of the claims made either exactly or as a substantially and functionally exact substitute. For instance, I have left out sulphuric acid in my solution and that immediately makes it non infringing to any electropolishing bath that uses sulphuric acid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    I am sure that would be the case. This works at a very fine scale so if the scale is small to start with then it will carry on from there. I have a piece of floor scrap aluminum in the bath right now.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X