- Joined
- Jul 11, 2014
- Messages
- 4,118
Please with the not wear assessment tool bs... he the
And, if 'wear' metals were 1000ppm+, we'd all just say, move along, nothing to see here, since its not a wear assessment tool, nothing to worry about. That blanket statement is foolish. It can be when used as such. Really are NO blanket statements with data that can be interpreted by too many all differently.
Nothing wrong with 'flopping' chemistries, probably not too drastic within a brand. All it is is an increase in HTHS that I'd wager this 'brand' needs. Flopping is just fine whenever as often as anybody wants. Only issue is some labs are useless.UOAs are not a wear assessment tool, and certainly not when flopping brands and chemistries back to back. What do you posit the OP would see that’s materially different?
And, if 'wear' metals were 1000ppm+, we'd all just say, move along, nothing to see here, since its not a wear assessment tool, nothing to worry about. That blanket statement is foolish. It can be when used as such. Really are NO blanket statements with data that can be interpreted by too many all differently.