Mark Gibson - I don't mind at all having any information that I present being upgraded - or upbraided. I'd rather be corrected than propagate misinformation.
I had gleaned my information about a year ago from the Batson Enterprises website cited above, which I have not re-visited since. Nor did I do a Google Search and find some Vickers Hardness values from Engineering Journals. I too had thought it was suspiciously high in the Vickers Hardness scale, because I had found a MOHR Hardness scale which gave cubic Zirconium and Aluminum Oxide as having a relative hardness value of 7.5 verses 8.0 respectively.
MOHR HARDNESS SCALE (sometimes spelled "Moh's"):
Zircon, cubic - 7.5
Aluminum Oxide - 8.0
Silicon Carbide - 9.0
VICKER'S HARDNESS SCALE (per Batson Enterprises):
Aluminum Oxide: 1200-1400
Alconite: 1700
NANOLITE: 1800
Zirconia: 1800-2000
SiC: 2200- 2400
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the VH values at B.E., because I was assuming that a special fusion process could improve the crystal structure enough to raise the relative value of the zircon above the aluminun oxide. And I had thought that the fishing tackle industry should know more about the VH values for zircon on the guide ring than some engineering journal that only cares about zircon as a blasted abrasive for preparing bridges for re-painting.
But clearly, Mark, as you are suggesting, that may be wishful thinking to say that Zircon is harder than ALOX. It may only be that the zircon makes a better substrate for PVD (Physical Vapor Deposition) because of its finer crystal structure, as you said. Maybe only AFTER the PVD is the zirconium surface harder than the ALOX surface to any realistic extent.
Anyway, thanks, Mark Gibson, for your input. By the way, I was hoping you would send me your e-ddress. It is "Hidden" in your User Profile. I have been trying to do an analysis of the kinetic energy and frictional losses involved in casting, especially in spinning rods. I was hoping I could consult with you, and other trained mechanical engineers (M.E.), who know the right equations to use for such systems. As of now, by my current estimates, the magnitude of the frictional losses, even in the worst case scenario, seems to be less than 1% of the kinetic energy of the flying lure, and I wanted to make sure that I was not missing something dramatic.
With all our discussions in rod-building on guide placement and the reduction of friction, it has been hard to acccount for all the controversy, if the proportional magnitude of these frictional losses is indeed as low as 1%. Your (plural) M.E. input would be greatly appreciated. ... Thanks for your consideration, Mark, and for your critical review of these Hardness values. -Cliff Hall, Gainesville, FL-USA+++ . E-ddress:
cmkmhall@ufl.edu .
