Cryogenic Treatment for Manufacturing Tooling

[RT_CINE]

Years ago, cryogenic treatment was first instituted for its use on tooling used in the manufacturing process. The only problem was that the first cryogenic treatments had these parts soaked in liquid nitrogen. As a result, these parts were subjected to thermal shock, leaving them in a brittle state. Needless to say, the parts were far less useful after the original form of this treatment.

Today, cryogenic treatment is computer controlled and does not rely on immersing parts in liquid nitrogen. Rather the parts are put in a chamber that is filled with gaseous nitrogen. This lowers the temperature to -300°F and allows the temperature to be held for 24 hours. Our ramps up and down to temperature are the slowest in the industry to maximize part stabilization.

The bottom line is tooling costs money. Some pieces cost a lot of money due to their complexity and design. The U.S. economy is slow and manufacturing orders are at the lowest they have been in 25 years. At this point you may be asking, why do I want to spend any more money on tooling? Cryogenic treatment extends tooling life significantly. Our customers normally see a 200% to 250% increase in tooling lifetime. However, you can always expect between 100% to 300% increase in lifetime after cryogenic treatment. Let’s say you have a particular CNC machine used just for drilling. The carbide drills you use last 40 hours of constant use. They cost $20.00 each. Now, you decide to get the drills cryo treated. Cryogenic treatment for each drill costs $4.00. Now they last 120 hours and you only paid $24.00 for each drill. Of course, there is shipping costs, but they are relatively inexpensive. But above all, think about all the down time you are missing. There are two setups that now do not occur, saving you even more money. Overall, you will save money on both tooling and downtime.

What kind of tooling should be cryogenically treated? Here at the Cryogenic Institute of New England, Inc. we have cryo treated thousands of pieces of tooling for many manufacturing companies. Tooling parts that have been cryo treated include dies, punches, cutting blades, saw blades, molds, broaches, end mills, heat sinks, electrodes, carbide tools, and other types of tooling. Spending just a little more money upfront will benefit you through the cost savings that cryogenic treatment offers.

For more information about cryogenic treatment, please visit http://www.nitrofreeze.com/cryogenic_treatment.html. Another good site to visit is our engineering data sheet section at http://www.nitrofreeze.com/datasheets.html.

If you have any other questions or comments about our services, please call 800-739-7949 or email me at rtaylor@nitrofreeze.com.

[beege]

20 years ago I used endmills (cobalt) that were freeze-treated. Lasted longer than the non-treated tools. Had to start with quality, though. Cheap yields cheap, no matter what. Piano wires, from what I heard, were better, too. Was a company called "Opporknockety". They called it that 'cuz they only tuned once.

[carbidecraters]

Its a little known fact that toolmakers dont want to use Cryogenic treatments because this slows their market. We use a local source that is pretty cost effective and who will remain annonymous so as not to take away from nitrofreeze. Cryogenic treatment is a great way to keep even simple HSS form tools in great shape for a long time.

[RT_CINE]

For some reason the engineering data sheets link is not working. Here it is again.

http://www.nitrofreeze.com/datasheets.html

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by carbidecraters Its a little known rumor that toolmakers dont want to use Cryogenic treatments because this slows their market. We use a local source that is pretty cost effective and who will remain annonymous so as not to take away from nitrofreeze. Cryogenic treatment is a great way to keep even simple HSS form tools in great shape for a long time.

Something about calling that a fact really bothers me. It would be like me saying it is a little known fact that carbidecraters is a liar. You can't prove or disprove this statement because I am sure like everyone there is some truth to it. It would have been much more truthful to state it was your opinion instead of calling it a fact.

Cryogenic treatment does improve various steels at the structual level. This is a well established fact but there is no solid evidence that Carbide tools benefit in tool life from cryogenic treatment.

Maybe it makes sense to treat punches, dies, molds, etc but end mills or form tools? Why waste that money on HSS treated tools when it could go towards coated carbide? I doesn't make business sense to waste money when carbide will cut for cut deliver a better bang for your buck.

[RT_CINE]

As far as wear tools go, cryogenic treatment is a better solution than carbide coatings. Cryo treatment is a full-bodied treatment rather than just a surface treatment.

Once, the carbide coating wears off then the part wears faster. This is not the case with cryogenic treatment, as the entire micro-structure has been changed.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by RT_CINE As far as wear tools go, cryogenic treatment is a better solution than carbide coatings. Cryo treatment is a full-bodied treatment rather than just a surface treatment. Once, the carbide coating wears off then the part wears faster. This is not the case with cryogenic treatment, as the entire micro-structure has been changed.

Prove it. I challenge you to a test then with your cryotreated uncoated tool against my new coated carbide tool. I'll even provide a tool. Lets see which tool will last longer! I'd wager it won't be your tool or we'd all be using cryo treated tools not TiAlN coated tools.

Just keep in mind your point is moot because carbide doesn't benefit from cryo treatment like HSS does. A cryotreated and TiAlN coated HSS bit will never meet the performance of a nanograin carbide tool. Why waste money on treating carbide if it doesn't work when I could spend that money on a better coating that will perform?

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to "bash" your services but you may want to reconsider telling people things like, " cryogenic treatment is a better solution than carbide coatings" with nothing to back it up but a sales pitch.

[RT_CINE]

I appreciate you not bashing me. However, metals with carbon react best to cryogenic treatment.

How much more is the coated tool versus the uncoated tool? I am more interested in offering cost-effective solutions. Let me know as I am interested.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by RT_CINE I appreciate you not bashing me. However, metals with carbon react best to cryogenic treatment. How much more is the coated tool versus the uncoated tool? I am more interested in offering cost-effective solutions. Let me know as I am interested.

That largely depends on the specific coating. ZrN which is well suited for machining Aluminum and Titanium costs me about $6 on a 1/2" tool with a 1-1/4" LOC. The coating more than doubles tool life in aluminum which is already good with carbide at 1400-2000sfm. A TiAlN & AlTiN coating are usually somewhere around $3-5 for a 1/2" tool. If you are charging $4 per tool (I'd imagine makes for a good margin) it is cheaper for me to simply coat a tool. My coated tool in every instance will last longer than your cryotreated uncoated tools.

The real advantage of the various coatings is the ability to run higher SFM than uncoated tools. Your cryogenic processing will not have a substaintual effect on the tool that would allow it to run 900sfm in mild steel and still last as many or more linear feet as an uncoated tool running 600sfm in the same material and parameters. Otherwise I can run the tool at the same 600sfm and consistantly see the tool last 2 - 3 times longer than uncoated carbide. This principle is also true of HSS tools just at lower SFM.

Even in the case of HSS or CoHSS where there are benefits to cryo treatment in these materials : When the tool is worn out, it is worn out. It doesn't matter than the treatment affected the entire core of the tool… that isn't the part cutting. Heavily reground tools don't perform as well as new tools. So saying it permanitately affects the tool is also a moot point to the end user.

Stay away from sales and marketing speak and learn how your process can ACTUALLY help your customers. If I came to you today interested in your service and you told me today what you said in this thread I would have walked out the door and found someone else who knew what they were doing to help me. This means keeping up on current research in your field.

If you are looking to process tools stick with molds, dies, stamps, punches, HSS, etc that are made out of steel. Other materials get a benefit from processing but on bang for your buck steel is the only material that is really worth the effort of cryo processing.

[carbidecraters]

Here are my facts. A well known industry first for -300 cryogenic treating chamber used by nasa was also used a long time ago by a tooling company who will remain anonymous and after the results were the tooling was lasting much longer they pulled away from cryo treatment. Then the chamber/oven was rebuilt and was sold to one of the partners and used at his company which will remain anonymous and he tried to get tool mfgs to use his chamber and they said they didnt want to improve the life of their tools it makes no economic sense. Call me a liar I dont mind I know my facts as far as this chamber and those mfgs goes.

The oven still in use today is one that we use frequently and works well for every application we have a need for.

[carbidecraters]

Originally Posted by Gumby Even in the case of HSS or CoHSS where there are benefits to cryo treatment in these materials : When the tool is worn out, it is worn out. It doesn't matter than the treatment affected the entire core of the tool… that isn't the part cutting. Heavily reground tools don't perform as well as new tools. So saying it permanitately affects the tool is also a moot point to the end user. .

How much do you know about material integrity at a molecular level? Can you say with 100% scientific certainty that the edge of the tool doesnt maintain its sharpness better when the stresses are out of the tool? I think you may have to look at the core of why a tool dulls and you can see how cryogenic treatment helps.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by carbidecraters Here are my facts. A well known industry first for -300 cryogenic treating chamber used by nasa was also used a long time ago by a tooling company who will remain anonymous and after the results were the tooling was lasting much longer they pulled away from cryo treatment. Then the chamber/oven was rebuilt and was sold to one of the partners and used at his company which will remain anonymous and he tried to get tool mfgs to use his chamber and they said they didnt want to improve the life of their tools it makes no economic sense. Call me a liar I dont mind I know my facts as far as this chamber and those mfgs goes. The oven still in use today is one that we use frequently and works well for every application we have a need for.

Too abigious. What kind of tools? What material was the tooling made out of? What application?

I am honestly not trying to call you a liar, my point is you are making grandious claims about an entire industry with nothing to back it up other than anoymous this and anoymous that.

Originally Posted by carbidecraters How much do you know about material integrity at a molecular level? Can you say with 100% scientific certainty that the edge of the tool doesnt maintain its sharpness better when the stresses are out of the tool? I think you may have to look at the core of why a tool dulls and you can see how cryogenic treatment helps.

How do you know that pink faries aren't actually what power your oven? Or that there really aren't magical creatures inside of your car engine pushing it up and they need food and air to do work? Do you see what I am getting at here?

What material are you talking about? Material integrity of what? Different metals, plastics, etc all respond differently to cryogenic treatment. So try to be specific because if you are talking about HSS then yes it does improve the tool. However testing has been done with carbide and there was neither consistant or significant improvement in tool life. John @ 300 below admits this and they are currently researching to find the why but currently it is a waste of money.

The reason I use TiAlN on carbide tools cutting steel is that I will get twice the tool life for only an extra 5 bucks in cost. If your friends theory was correct, which it isn't, then they would have never introduced TiN to the market years ago.