I have tested as part of my work the corrosion resistance of a number of steels and other alloys, I thought the comparison between the stainless steel 316L (used by virtually majority of manufacturers watch) and 904L (used by Rolex for the Sub) will interest you
Protocol testing: aging and accelerated corrosion of different alloys: sample of different tests
30 minutes 120 ° C 100% humidity was saturated saline
24 hours in acid chromosulphuric
24 hours in hydrochloric acid
48 hours in the ammonium bifluoride has saturation
Verdict ....
the 904L has left virtually intact, except for a slight surface passivation, has the right 316L .....
the corrosion resistance of 904L is not a legend, it is noted that the most severe tests were the resistance has a high salt saturation temperature (which perfectly simulates a saline mist): 316L after the test showed traces of bites, and the bath of ammonium bifluoride daunting for almost all steel
of course we rarely bathes in the ammonium bifluoride or hydrogen chromosulphuric but these tests are interesting as premature aging and has seen how it is important to rinse his watch after a bath of seawater ... . and yes the steel corrodes and the 904L is definitely a little more (the flat near the rate of nickel and therefore important allergenic and hardness slightly less than 316L)
cwlan 在 星期六 2009-11-21 13:28 作了第 4 次修改
