Talk:Tungsten carbide

message: How do you make Tungsten Carbide?
:By reacting tungsten and carbon at high temperatures. I can't yet find a reference for exactly how high. Physchim62 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why isn't this explained better then ???? 
I found this patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7108831.html which seems to suggest that it can be produced by high temperature reaction of tungsten oxides with a carbon dioxide/monoxide mixture.  This one in particular mentions the inclusion of hydrogen in the gas mixture, but several other patents do not.  I'm not sure of the exact industrial method that is most widely used. Naffer 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The method most commonly used in the industry is sintering followed by grinding.
Veddan 10:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparation 

message: There was a "trivia" section here mentioning the death of Louis Slotin; I removed it, since trivia sections suck. (Except maybe for articles on episodes of television shows, where nobody cares. :-) What is worth adding to the article is that tungsten carbide has been/is used as a neutron reflector, but I have no idea how to put in any more than "tungsten carbide has been used as a neutron reflector", which is a bit lacking. If anyone has more details (besides the lame "there once was a criticality accident involving tungsten carbide"), do add. JRM · Talk 10:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutron reflector 

message: This series of additions seems to have grabbed information directly from hardmaterials.sandvik.com (like this page. --Splarka (rant) 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the copyrighted material and warned the user with . —Keenan Pepper 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy(paste)vio? 

message: Is this "Ditungsten Carbide" business legit? —Ben FrantzDale 05:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  71.113.22.200's "Ditungsten Carbide" edits 

message: The "In fiction" section adds nothing to our knowledge of tungsten carbide; if they are of interest to anyone at all, it would be Monty Python fans or Halo fans, not tungsten carbide users. Tungsten carbide is probably mentioned thousands of times in fiction of various sorts, why would an encyclopedia mention any of them? How does one decide which fictional mentions are encyclopedic and which aren't? I think this section should be deleted, any other opinions? Sparohok 06:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction ??? 

message: The bulk of information regarding the Applications comes from http://www.tungstenchina.com/product/Tungsten-Carbide-Products-763.html, so someone should take a further look at that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.24 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That section was added here some 3 years ago, while the above page says "addtime:2010-10-13 15:21:58", thus I believe they've copied WP text. Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armor-piercing ammunition? 

message: In other languages tungsten-carbide is called 'vidia' from German expression "vie diamant" (like diamond) - Valdez from Hungary  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.192.174 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: We have two interstitial compounds known colloquially as tungsten carbide- but only one article with one chembox. It would be better if this article was split into two separate ones (for WC and W2C) with a disambiguation page for tungsten carbide. --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  one article - two compounds 

message: I made a boo-boo on the references, and i don't know how to fix it
i was trying to get the jewelry citation to go to http://www.forevermetals.com/jewelry-tungsten-carbide-ring/ because it talks about the cobalt in Tungsten carbide jewelry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.209.24 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  jewelry 

message: This section in particular sounds awkward due to the addition of the last paragraph which intentionally conflicts with other information.  This info needs to be integrated, and preferably be properly sourced. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic uses cleanup 

message: I am honestly unclear whether machine tools are solid carbide or just a coating, perhaps the article should clarify. If I have a small triangular "carbide insert" for a turning tool, is that a solid hunk of tungsten carbide-cobalt composite? If I have a "carbide" endmill, is the whole thing including the shank one big piece of tungsten carbide-cobalt composite? What about a "carbide" saw blade? Are any of these tools made with just a coating of tungsten carbide-cobalt on top of some other material? Or are they available in either coated or solid versions?
Also, how big are the particles of WC in the composite? I would think they must be really small, because carbide tools are sometimes fairly reflective, and big grains would give a more matte appearance.66.92.68.214 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of your endmills are C2 solid carbide.  Saws can be either solid carbide, or be of steel with carbide 'tips' inserted on each cutting surface.  Some endmills are coated with TiN (that gives them a golden yellow color), which will decrease tool wear.  Your higher quality endmills are made of micrograin material which has an average grain size of .8 microns.  Depending on the application, some endmills may be manufactured with a grain size of .5 microns.  Most of the saws that i have seen have had a grain size of 2-5 microns.  Saws are generally made from a 6% Co mixture, while endmills are generally made from a 10% cobalt mixture (ie 10%Co, 90%WC).  Other elements (refractory carbides) may be added to control grain growth during sintering (Cr3C2,TiC, TaC, etc), but this is usually kept at 5% of the binder (Co) content for endmills...any higher and you run the risk of compromising the Transverse Rupture Strength.         R. Duffield
In short: not all cutting tools are solid carbide, not all cutting tools are coated, and not all solid carbide cutting tools are coated. And as I understand, machine tools refer to the equipment that actually makes use of the carbide cutting tools (for example, the lathe for your triangular insert is the machine tool, but the insert is the cutting tool). But to address the other questions:
# If they're sold as "solid carbide", the cutting tools used in machine tools are almost entirely made of tungsten carbide. Coating is an option you can have to prolong tool life, increase material removal rate etc.
# If you have a small triangular carbide insert, you probably have some manufacturer's proprietary mix of tungsten, carbon, cobalt and their special spices (in less than 1% amounts) which has been pressed together in a mold, sintered, ground if required, and coated if desired.
# If you have a carbide end mill (and it's not a "brazed carbide end mill") the whole thing including the shank one big tungsten carbide rod that's been formed to your specification.
# I do not know of any tools with "just a coating of tungsten carbide on top". Knowing how these tools are made, I can't imagine a cost-effective way to deposit tungsten carbide onto HSS (the alternative to carbide). Your standard coatings for carbide tools are things like TiN, TiCN, TiAlN, AlCrN, AlTiN, DLC etc., and you can get real fancy with the proprietary blends and colors; but the important thing here is that these coatings are there to improve chip evacuation with a lower coefficient of friction than the tool material itself, increase temperature resistance (with faster chip evacuation and creating a barrier between workpiece and the tool), and decrease the amount of wear the tool takes. It would be more economical to just use the existing coating systems than to take what is one of the densest metals in the world and powder it to below 1 micron to try to deposit a thin film of it over a steel drill tip.
# Since the size of the particles has already been answered, I'll just elaborate and say that for high precision technologies, sizes below 0.2 microns is not uncommon. And don't be fooled by the reflective appearance of the tools - in the industry that is just called a "bright" surface finish and it can be achieved on large grains just as easily and is no indication of the grain size. The only way to truly tell is to take samples under a microscope, and destructive material tests for a more thorough analysis. Ermendrud (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are machine tools solid carbide or coated? 

message: --Dojarca (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it may be nonstoichiometric. Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it alloy? 

message: In the structural drawing of WC or tungsten carbide, it looks to me as if there are five bonds from each carbon (gray atoms in drawing), which stands at odds with all of my learning that carbon has a total of four bonds per atom.  What gives?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.68.236 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WC structure drawing has five carbon bonds? 

message: The article doesn't make much distinction between cemented carbide and tungsten carbide. Much of the uses section on;y relates to cemented carbide but is presented as though it is about tungsten carbide. I think people are likely to be confused about this, as I am/was. Furthermore, the picture in the infobox is of (I think...) cemented carbide, not TC. Efcmagnew (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cunfusing 

message: Silicon Carbide is NOT harder than Tungsten Carbide.
I work at a place that makes Pump Seals for the nuclear industry - We polish many different materials using many different abbrasives. I can tell you for sure that SILICON CARBIDE WILL NOT CUT TUNGSTEN CARBIDE. SC lapping paste and SC 'sand'paper will not scratch our WC parts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.152.202 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardness Error in Opening Paragraph 

message: Hi, is the ISBN for reference 10 really correct. The reference is Introduction to Solid State Physics by Charles Kittel (7th ed)
I found this ISBN for it:
ISBN-10: 0471111813 
ISBN-13: 978-0471111818 
And could not find the listed ISBN. Please check if this needs correction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.61.129 (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: wp:sofixit - Shajure (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is to the Kittel (7th edition) Wiley -India edition- the isbn is correct (isbn-10 81-265-1045-5) - unless there is a misprint in my copy! Axiosaurus (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 10, ISBN not found 

message: Since WC is understood in way too many countries to mean water closet (i.e. restroom, washroom, toilet, loo, "John", can, crapper) 
and since CW as "continuous wave" has largely fallen out of use and since, even on Wikipedia, WC (at this moment) doesn't even mention tungsten carbide, shouldn't we change the name to "CW" (and then update the cw page to also link here)?
Think of how many students would be spared the subliminal urge to go to the toilet during metallurgy or manufacturing courses. 
Also, "TC" is not a good name either, since T is not a chemical symbol (Tungsten is called Wolfram in chem-speak).
At any rate, I don't have time to argue or change it myself, so you guys can discuss it and change it when you have time.
70.54.202.152 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it's the actual chemical formula, it's valid to remain as-is. — ¾-10 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Isn't that the definition of organic? ScienceApe (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can it be inorganic if it has carbon in it? 

message: After reading the page about tungsten carbide guitar slides I'm questioning if this an important use of this material. The main advantage seems to be their hardness which prevents them from beeing scratched by the steel wound guitar strings. Why is this significant? 77.13.106.88 (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guitar  Slides 

message: Currently $42/kg for 3-4 micron powder, http://www.metal-pages.com/metalprices/tungsten/
Majermike (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Addition: Cost 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tungsten carbide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mustadhoofnails.com/subcat/40/product/1369/page/0/road_nail/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 09:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Could some informed person improve the historical part of this article so as to indicate the approximate dates when some of the uses discussed became common?  Thanks. Mark K. Jensen (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that would require some published source to say the use had become common... which just isn't... commonly done.  Usually there will be publishing when it becomes possible... then maybe when it is practical... then sometimes it will be mentioned more often but that won't let us say "and it became common by x date".  Just generally.Shajure (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: What is electric resistivity of Tungsten carbide? I have seen various figures from https://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=1203 (417 - 1000 nΩ⋅m) and http://www.wesltd.com/divisions/hardmetal/html/Tungsten-carbide.html (160 - 200 nΩ⋅m , depending on binder content; units on that site are in μΩ⋅cm). In the text of the article I see a figure of 200 nΩ⋅m, which is a bit weird). http://www.sapub.org/global/showpaperpdf.aspx?doi=10.5923/j.cmaterials.20120203.04 show some alloys with Cu, but I couldn't decipher units used. http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=e68b647b86104478a32012cbbd5ad3ea&ckck=1 shows other values too (530 - 800 nΩ⋅m). http://www.carbideprocessors.com/pages/carbide-parts/tungsten-carbide-properties.html says it is similar to tool steel and carbon steel. http://www.goodfellow.com/E/Tungsten-Carbide-Cobalt.html says 20 nΩ⋅m ("Volume resistivity?"). https://www.generalcarbide.com/assets/pdf/GCDesignerGuide.pdf page 16 says 200 nΩ⋅m. It is very confusing. 2A02:168:F609:0:C38D:4039:F7BF:4885 (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric resistivity and speed of sound in the box? 

message: Borium redirects here without explanation. In other languages, borium is the name for boron so this may be worth explaining. I expected to find some words on this in the Naming section, but there is nothing. What to write? Rp (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borium?