FW: Chrome plating

[terry.manchester@xxxxxxx]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	REUBEN ERICKSON [SMTP:heyrube@domain.elided]
> Sent:	Friday, December 04, 1998 5:38 AM
> To:	Manchester, Terry
> Subject:	Fw: Chrome plating
>=20
> Terry - For the last 2 -3 months I have not been able to send =
anything
> to Alfa Digest.  ... perhaps you might try sending it. If you can see
> what I've been doing wrong, let me know.
> =A0
> =A0-----Original Message-----
> From: REUBEN ERICKSON < heyrube@domain.elided
> <mailto:heyrube@domain.elided> >
> To: alfa-digest@domain.elided <mailto:alfa-digest@domain.elided>  <
> alfa-digest@domain.elided <mailto:alfa-digest@domain.elided> >
> Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 5:27 PM
> Subject: Chrome plating
>=20
>=20
> Seems everybody agrees that chrome plating is a no-no if you have
> concerns about strength. So it won't make any difference if my 2 =
cents
> worth is wrong. I have heard since time before time, that chrome has
> minute, microscopic cracks in that beautiful shiny, glossy surface.
> These little cracks are fatigue starters and will cause failure of =
the
> part if it is subject to repeated loadings. The loadings would be =
less
> than that required for an un-chromed part to break it. How those
> cracks in the chrome propagate thru the usual copper and nickel under
> layers beats me. I have never seen any stressed parts in the aircraft
> industry that were chrome plated. Chrome alloys, yes, almost all the
> time. One exception that I know of was the chrome plating of the
> inside of cylinder walls to bring them back to size after wear and
> re-boring. Also, there was a thought that those little cracks in the
> chrome would make nice little oil holders so that the rings and all
> would hold up better thus improving reliability which, for the light
> weight Wright R-3350 engine, was rather disappointing.=A0 I do not
> recall that it worked. Platinum plugs didn't work either.
> =A0
> Rube E in Nevada

------------------------------