It’s not necessarily as blunt as, fact or fiction, but there are some blurred lines when it comes to claims made by some seemingly technical articles.
It’s what an article in Gear Solutions by Justin Michaud, seeks to tackle. Admittedly, he does have an interest here as CEO of REM Surface Engineering, but it’s useful to hear him present his case.
He wants to highlight the risks involved in giving ‘too much trust to gear surface finishing white papers and similar non-technical reviewed content.’
So, his article develops the theme by expanding on examples and highlighting what he sees as inaccuracies, over claims and incorrect assertions.
The author tackles false and misleading claims regarding chemically accelerated technologies – one of the familiar and occurring claims against the technologies is the danger of the chemicals used.
The other claims he seeks to dispel is relative to worker safety when chemicals are used in vibration processes. The types of chemicals stated as being used are apparently inaccurate.
He also cites grinding and super finishing articles that present non- isotropic and isotropic methods of surface finishing to having similar outcomes ignoring data relating to issues such as pitting and contact fatigue.
The detail of the author’s contentions and issues are presented in the following link.