Third project: results, good and bad

Computation only. No data, no experiment. Five industrial scaling calculations were run to check the leads the catalogue ranks highest, and one negative control was run to check the technique rather than the physics. Four results are useful; one is a failure of my own assumed parameter; the control passes. All figures from run_25k_tests.py.

1. Galvanic couple: the geometry is the rate

Anodic corrosion current scales with the cathode-to-anode area ratio:

Cathode/anode area ratioRelative anodic rate
11
1010
100100

Useful. A stainless fastener in an aluminium structure is not "a galvanic couple" — it is a couple with a specific area ratio, and that ratio is the rate. The audit is geometric, not electrochemical: measure the exposed area of each metal before blaming the materials.

2. Creep relaxation: preload loss is nearly linear in log time

Time (h)Fraction of preload lost
0.10.37
10.55
100.72
1000.84
1,0000.93
10,0000.97

Useful. A 24-hour torque-retention test captures roughly two-thirds of the total loss. A joint that passes at 24 h can still fail at 1,000 h, and the curve says so before any long test is run.

3. Thermal-cycle fatigue: a doubling of ΔT costs a factor of four

ΔT (K)Relative cycles to failure
30111,111
6027,778
1206,944

Useful. With the standard Coffin–Manson exponent n = 2, halving the thermal excursion quadruples life. A qualification test that passes at one ΔT says nothing about another, and the scaling is steep enough to matter at ordinary design margins.

4. Cavitation: erosion is sixth-power in velocity

Relative velocityRelative erosion rate
1.01.00
1.511.4
2.064.0

Useful. A 50% speed increase raises erosion elevenfold. Any pump or valve compared across duties must be compared at matched tip speed, or the material ranking is a speed ranking in disguise.

5. Outgassing: my own assumed rate was unrealistic

With an illustrative outgassing rate of 10⁻⁹ Pa·m³/s per m², 0.5 m² of surface in a 0.02 m³ volume gives:

TimePressure rise (Pa)
1 min2×10⁻⁶
1 h9×10⁻⁵
1 day2.2×10⁻³

Failure of my parameter. These pressures are far too small to matter. Either the rate is 1,000× too low or the geometry is wrong — a real vacuum outgassing problem needs rates near 10⁻⁶ Pa·m³/s per m², three orders above what I used. The scaling is right; the number I chose was not, and the calculation exposed it. This is the kind of error that survives if only the formula is checked and not the magnitude.

6. Negative control: the derived-variable technique does not fire on independent data

Two independent random series, 300 points: derived-variable check gives R² = 0.0001, not flagged. Passes. A technique that fires on everything is worthless; this one stays quiet when there is nothing to find.

7. Summary

ResultOutcomePractical use
Galvanic area ratiousefulmeasure exposed areas before blaming materials
Creep preload lossusefula 24 h test is not a lifetime test; the curve says how far it gets
Thermal fatigueusefulhalving ΔT quadruples life; qualifications do not transfer across ΔT
Cavitationusefulcompare at matched tip speed or the ranking is a speed ranking
Outgassingparameter wrong by 10³check magnitudes, not only formulas
Negative controlpassesthe technique stays quiet on independent data

8. What this does and does not say about 25,000 leads

Six computations do not validate a catalogue of 25,000. What they do is establish that the kinds of question in it are answerable with arithmetic and existing measurements — and that one of them, when actually computed, exposed an error in the person doing the computing.

Of six items tested, one failed on my own parameter and one was a control. That ratio — one real failure per four useful results — is the honest expectation for the rest of the catalogue.

9. Limits


Method · Top 40