Nomenclature suggestion

[bhellman]

Dear Colleagues,
My suggestion is to skip "HVOF" as the common superscription/ meaning of High Velocity Flame Spraying.
Many new solutions has been developed lately in this group of thermal spraying methods.
Why not give a new group abbreviation, like HVFS to incorporate all lately added solutions, or why not only HVF as High Velocity Flame.
Best regards and a prosperous New Year.
Bjarne

[Gordon]

Hi Bjarne

I certainly don't have objections to using abbreviated terms like HVFS or HVCS for a generic thermal spray process type , but as with all abbreviated terms, we should always state their true meaning to avoid confusion IMHO LOL

HNY

[bhellman]

Gordon Wrote:Hi Bjarne

I certainly don't have objections to using abbreviated terms like HVFS or HVCS for a generic thermal spray process type , but as with all abbreviated terms, we should always state their true meaning to avoid confusion IMHO LOL

HNY

As I'm said, the technique is beingness/proceeding the (any) language.
Of course we have the Oxygen in every flame spray process, but not as considerable (< 21 %), as demonstrated in many cases (HVAF).

All this toying with words is of course premature, still to be considered in the future.
Best regards to anyone reading this New Year occurrence.
Of course hoping a prosperous 2008.
bhe

[bhellman]

bhellman Wrote:

Gordon Wrote:Hi Bjarne

I certainly don't have objections to using abbreviated terms like HVFS or HVCS for a generic thermal spray process type , but as with all abbreviated terms, we should always state their true meaning to avoid confusion IMHO LOL

HNY

As I'm said, the technique is beingness/proceeding the (any) language.
Of course we have the Oxygen in every flame spray process, but not as considerable (< 21 %), as demonstrated in many cases (HVAF).

All this toying with words is of course premature, still to be considered in the future.
Best regards to anyone reading this New Year occurrence.
Of course hoping a prosperous 2008.
bhe

For instance, under which abbr. shall we put the OFI-process???
bhe

[bhellman]

bhellman Wrote:

bhellman Wrote:

Gordon Wrote:Hi Bjarne

I certainly don't have objections to using abbreviated terms like HVFS or HVCS for a generic thermal spray process type , but as with all abbreviated terms, we should always state their true meaning to avoid confusion IMHO LOL

HNY

As I'm said, the technique is beingness/proceeding the (any) language.
Of course we have the Oxygen in every flame spray process, but not as considerable (< 21 %), as demonstrated in many cases (HVAF).

All this toying with words is of course premature, still to be considered in the future.
Best regards to anyone reading this New Year occurrence.
Of course hoping a prosperous 2008.
bhe

For instance, under which abbr. shall we put the OFI-process???
bhe

Sorry, this is an education problem in ETS. One has to collect spraying processes in logical affinity groups, to simplify the working status.
Any comments would be appreciated.
bhe

[Gordon]

Hi Bjarne

To some extent you have highlighted my concerns over the use of abbreviated terms. "OFI-process", "ETS" probably thick, but I'm sure I'm not the only one

I know there are various attempts to place thermal spray processes into logical groups. Deciding how best to classify, by thermal energy source (electric, combustion), by source material type (wire, powder), by velocity (low, high) by process temperature or particle temperature etc..

I will have to come back to this topic with more input when time allows.

[janet986w]

(12-27-2007 06:00 PM)Gordon Wrote:  Hi Bjarne

I certainly don't have objections to using abbreviated terms like HVFS or HVCS for a generic thermal spray process type , but as with all abbreviated terms, we should always state their true meaning to avoid confusion IMHO LOL

HNY

I also think so.

[mkp]

Isn't this kind a of a silly post? Playing with abbreviation and options for it doesn't seem to be in keeping the kind of serious forum that is on here. But I guess things are being put in perspective and removed any doubts about what should be the abbreviation to be used. On the other hand wasn't that abbreviation like most of them using the first letters? The O was nowhere in the picture except for the o in velocity!