"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...

"William Longyard" wrote in message
m...
Can anyone tell me the weight of a steel slab that is 3/4" x 31.5" x 42"
?

Thanks,
Bill

The density of most grades of steel averages around 0.283 pounds per cubic
inch, so your slab weighs about 992 lb.

--
Ed Huntress

Jeez. Hand slipped punching calculator buttons. g That's 992 cubic inches,
or 281 pounds.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed,
Do you have a table of specific weights by alloy? All I have is a metric
reference and it is not specific enough to be able to identify unknown
material well.
Steve

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...

"William Longyard" wrote in message
m...
Can anyone tell me the weight of a steel slab that is 3/4" x 31.5" x 42"
?

Thanks,
Bill

The density of most grades of steel averages around 0.283 pounds per
cubic inch, so your slab weighs about 992 lb.

--
Ed Huntress

Jeez. Hand slipped punching calculator buttons. g That's 992 cubic
inches, or 281 pounds.

--
Ed Huntress

"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message
...
Ed,
Do you have a table of specific weights by alloy? All I have is a metric
reference and it is not specific enough to be able to identify unknown
material well.
Steve

I haven't looked very deeply into it (I had the density of steel written on
the cheat-sheet I keep with my engineering calculator), but here's a short
list from Bal-Tec in lb./in.^3 and in metric:

http://precisionballs.com/ball_weight_and_density.html

To get into the alloys would require some digging. Cast iron is lighter than
steel; stainless is heavier than carbon steel; I don't know where to find
the individual alloys. Maybe someone else knows.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed,
Thank-you very much!

Bill L.



"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...

"William Longyard" wrote in message
m...
Can anyone tell me the weight of a steel slab that is 3/4" x 31.5" x 42"
?

Thanks,
Bill

The density of most grades of steel averages around 0.283 pounds per
cubic inch, so your slab weighs about 992 lb.

--
Ed Huntress

Jeez. Hand slipped punching calculator buttons. g That's 992 cubic
inches, or 281 pounds.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:06:06 +0200, "Steve Lusardi"
wrote:

Ed,
Do you have a table of specific weights by alloy? All I have is a metric
reference and it is not specific enough to be able to identify unknown
material well.
Steve



http://www.matweb.com/


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Apr 6, 10:49*am, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:06:06 +0200, "Steve Lusardi"
wrote:

Ed,
Do you have a table of specific weights by alloy? All I have is a metric
reference and it is not specific enough to be able to identify unknown
material well.
Steve

http://www.matweb.com/

Mark Rand
RTFM

You need to know the precise weight and volume, which rules out
checking metal in scrapyards and very likely at home unless you are
equipped as an analytical chemist (or a drug maker). The quick,
traditional method for steel is to grind it and compare the sparks to
known samples or a chart. For scrapyards bring a magnet and a small
file.

Jim Wilkins

On Apr 6, 1:06 am, "Steve Lusardi" wrote:
Ed,
Do you have a table of specific weights by alloy? All I have is a metric
reference and it is not specific enough to be able to identify unknown
material well.
Steve

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...



"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...

"William Longyard" wrote in message
news:97adnXcODMt2z2XanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@earthlink. com...
Can anyone tell me the weight of a steel slab that is 3/4" x 31.5" x 42"
?

Thanks,
Bill

The density of most grades of steel averages around 0.283 pounds per
cubic inch, so your slab weighs about 992 lb.

--
Ed Huntress

Jeez. Hand slipped punching calculator buttons. g That's 992 cubic
inches, or 281 pounds.

--
Ed Huntress

From Machinery's Handbook, 24th Edition, page 356:

Metal Density, lb per cubic inch
Aluminum .098
Beryllium .067
Brass(80/20 cu/zn) .310
Bronze .317
Chromium .260
Cobalt .310
Copper .295
Cast iron .260
Lead .397
Magnesium .066
Manganese .268
Mercury .4892
Molybdenum .341
Nickel .308
Platinum .775
Silver .379
Carbon steel .283
Tin .275
Titanium .170
Tungsten .630
Vanaduim .221
Zinc .230

Interesting that tungsten is nearly half again as heavy as mercury.
Explains the weight of those carbide inserts, huh? I wish they'd
included uranium; it's really heavy, too. And magnesuim's weight
explains why it's popular in aircraft applications.

Dan

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

You need to know the precise weight and volume, which rules out
checking metal in scrapyards and very likely at home unless you are
equipped as an analytical chemist (or a drug maker). The quick,
traditional method for steel is to grind it and compare the sparks to
known samples or a chart. For scrapyards bring a magnet and a small
file.

I am kind of new to this but learned quickly to carry a small magnet around
the garage sales. How does the file help? Would a battery-powered Dremel
with an abrasive wheel be enough for the spark test?
I bought some brass pieces and wanted to see if they were solid brass or
just something plated. I ducked into water and measured the displaced
volume. Then I weighed each piece and calculated their density. None of the
pieces were close to the 8.5gm/cm3 that brass is supposed to be. The figure
spread was such that I abandoned this procedure on future items.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On Apr 6, 4:52*pm, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message

...

You need to know the precise weight and volume, which rules out
checking metal in scrapyards and very likely at home unless you are
equipped as an analytical chemist (or a drug maker). The quick,
traditional method for steel is to grind it and compare the sparks to
known samples or a chart. For scrapyards bring a magnet and a small
file.

I am kind of new to this but learned quickly to carry a small magnet around
the garage sales. How does the file help? Would a battery-powered Dremel
with an abrasive wheel be enough for the spark test?
I bought some brass pieces and wanted to see if they were solid brass or
just something plated. I ducked into water and measured the displaced
volume. Then I weighed each piece and calculated their density. None of the
pieces were close to the 8.5gm/cm3 that brass is supposed to be. The figure
spread was such that I abandoned this procedure on future items.

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

If you can't file it, you can't machine it without annealing. It also
cuts through the crud or plating so you can see the color underneath.

I didn't suggest a Dremel because you can't see the tiny sparks very
well outdoors, and some junkyard smells make me nervous about starting
a fire.

To measure density with any sort of accuracy you need a balance that
will resolve to at least 1 part in 1000 and preferably -much- better.
For a coin or washer this is about 0.5 milligram, assuming the
displaced water weighs half a gram. You can do better if the sample is
close to the weight limit of the balance.

You don't measure the displaced water, you weigh the part in air and
then hanging in water. The difference in grams equals the volume in
milliliters.

Jim Wilkins

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

If you can't file it, you can't machine it without annealing. It also
cuts through the crud or plating so you can see the color underneath.

I didn't suggest a Dremel because you can't see the tiny sparks very
well outdoors, and some junkyard smells make me nervous about starting
a fire.

***OK, that makes sense.

To measure density with any sort of accuracy you need a balance that
will resolve to at least 1 part in 1000 and preferably -much- better.
For a coin or washer this is about 0.5 milligram, assuming the
displaced water weighs half a gram. You can do better if the sample is
close to the weight limit of the balance.

You don't measure the displaced water, you weigh the part in air and
then hanging in water. The difference in grams equals the volume in
milliliters.

*** Not technically feasible here. Most of the pieces were of the order of
100 gm and my scale weighs to 1 gm. The water displacement was measured with
a 12 cc syringe. Either way, the shapes are irregular and one is always
wondering about air pockets. Some of the pieces I suspect are hollow. So it
is a waste of time either way.

I was fascinated to read in another thread about machinery which can analyze
metal composition by "shooting it" - whatever that means? Does anyone know
how this works?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On Apr 6, 6:21*pm, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message

...

If you can't file it, you can't machine it without annealing. It also
cuts through the crud or plating so you can see the color underneath.

I didn't suggest a Dremel because you can't see the tiny sparks very
well outdoors, and some junkyard smells make me nervous about starting
a fire.

***OK, that makes sense.

To measure density with any sort of accuracy you need a balance that
will resolve to at least 1 part in 1000 and preferably -much- better.
For a coin or washer this is about 0.5 milligram, assuming the
displaced water weighs half a gram. You can do better if the sample is
close to the weight limit of the balance.

You don't measure the displaced water, you weigh the part in air and
then hanging in water. The difference in grams equals the volume in
milliliters.

*** Not technically feasible here. Most of the pieces were of the order of
100 gm and my scale weighs to 1 gm. The water displacement was measured with
a 12 cc syringe. Either way, the shapes are irregular and one is always
wondering about air pockets. Some of the pieces I suspect are hollow. So it
is a waste of time either way.

I was fascinated to read in another thread about machinery which can analyze
metal composition by "shooting it" - whatever that means? Does anyone know
how this works?

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

Probably a spark spectrometer. This used to be a really large chunk
of equipment, they've got it down to something that's wheelable now.
Google on "portable spark spectrometer". Uses an electrical spark
against the test material to obtain a spectrum, a photosensor reads
it, microcomputing does the rest. It's replaced wet methods of
analysis in foundries and would be really handy for junkyards if they
weren't so expensive. I keep hoping to find a pocket-size model...

Stan

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 05:47:06 -0700, stans4 wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:21Â*pm, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
...
I was fascinated to read in another thread about machinery which can
analyze metal composition by "shooting it" - whatever that means? Does
anyone know how this works?
....
Probably a spark spectrometer. This used to be a really large chunk of
equipment, they've got it down to something that's wheelable now. Google
on "portable spark spectrometer". Uses an electrical spark against the
test material to obtain a spectrum, a photosensor reads it,
microcomputing does the rest. It's replaced wet methods of analysis in
foundries and would be really handy for junkyards if they weren't so
expensive. I keep hoping to find a pocket-size model...

http://www.directindustry.com/indust...zer-65505.html
shows a bunch of hand-held spectrometers. Third entry in list (Thermo
Scientific) has links to a smaller-than-usual x-ray fluorescence analyzer,
Thermo Scientific XLi. Pocket size, but a little heavy at 0.8 kg.