Untitled[edit]

no one here has mentioned that when used in aircraft that it has a allclad coating about 30/1000ths thick of pure aluminum Alloy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe nobody mentioned that because it isn't true. 6061 is not clad; Alclad aluminum is generally 2024. I will add some text about this because there is often confusion about it, and why one would use one or the other. Altaphon (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats why american airlines planes can be polished so whell because 6061 naturally is more of a gray color — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6061 can be polished too, just not to as shiny a surface. Altaphon (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can induction hardening used for 6061 grade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.19.160 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The strength values for T-0 temper seem too high. Unless I am misinterpretting something, a zero temper has strength comparable to T4 or T6, despite later in teh article it states that it has lost 80% of its strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.198.78 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, it might be nice to add a section that explains where the term "6061" comes from. What is its significance? 78.148.82.68 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IADS - International Alloy Designation Series/System?
It's a list of magic numbers. The first two digits indicate a "family", i.e. for 60xx it's the magnesium / silicon family and the second two indicate a composition range, but you have to look it up from a table. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"T6 temper 6061 has an ultimate tensile strength of at least 42,000 psi (300 MPa) and yield strength of at least 35,000 psi (241 MPa). More typical values are 45,000 psi (310 MPa) and 40,000 psi (275 MPa), respectively.[4] In thicknesses of 0.250 inch (6.35 mm) or less, it has elongation of 8% or more; in thicker sections, it has elongation of 10%." <<<Does this mean t6 at 0.250 inches can handles 241 MPa. Elongation is described but a hollow tube with an outer diameter of 6.35 mm and 16 swg, would that be able to withstand a 250 MPa hoop stress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.173.56 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History[edit]

Please add the date of discovery, date of first application and when it came into mainstream use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.50.7 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 6061 aluminium alloy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 6061 aluminium alloy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling[edit]

So this has been done to death but the article is full of "aluminum" when the title is "aluminium". Not very consistent. 121.45.222.200 (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed ehn (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wtshymanski, why did you rename the article and revert my edit that made the spelling consistent? The article title is now inconsistent with the many other aluminium alloy articles. ehn (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put an edit commment "spelled as per specification" - the cited documents all spell it this way. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wtshymanski: Regardless: you should not have changed the spelling variant without obtaining a consensus here first. The spelling in a specification is irrelevant as the article has used the British English variant when the article was first written and that is the variant that should be retained (per WP:RETAIN). Now change it back. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's OK to fix old errors in Wikipedia. We've had fake scientist, imaginary ham radio band allocations, and many other errors that have persisted for years.These should be fixed when found. Thank you for your attention. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not an error. The article was originally written in British English and you had no right whatsoever to change it. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's an error, as I explained. The American standards spell it "aluminum". Thank you for your continued interest in this topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it's not an error. Nobody gives a flying fuck how the standard spells it. The article was written in British English and it was spelt correctly for that variant. You are just one of these yanks who is determined to change every spelling into American. 81.154.179.214 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The war ended by 1815 so take it easy guys! 172.103.222.67 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your continued attention to this topic. Wikipedia uses the spelling appropriate to the national context of the article; U.S. subjects get U.S. spellings, for example. The standard that we so minutely discuss here, is promulgated by an American organization. It was an error to use a non-US spelling for this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It turns out that Wikipedia requires the IUPAC spelling ('aluminium' in this case) in articles discussing chemical makeup - and this article comprehensively qualifies. (per WP:ALUM) 81.154.179.214 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refimprove Uses section[edit]

The section Uses needs more citations:

Adakiko (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6061 aluminum alloy → 6061 aluminium alloy – I'm suggesting this move per the discussion above. Wikipedia requires the IUPAC spelling ('aluminium' in this case) in articles discussing chemical makeup - and this article comprehensively qualifies. (per WP:ALUM) Another reason would be consistency, since the other pages in this family already follow this convention: 6005 aluminium alloy, 6009 aluminium alloy, 6010 aluminium alloy, 6013 aluminium alloy, 6060 aluminium alloy, 6063 aluminium alloy, 6066 aluminium alloy, 6082 aluminium alloy, 6105 aluminium alloy, 6063 aluminium alloy, 6066 aluminium alloy, 6162 aluminium alloy, 6262 aluminium alloy, and 6463 aluminium alloy. TimSmit (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:RMUM Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:
No article exists at the new target title;

There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

IP did not request a technical move as far as I know, but they did ask Wtshymanski that the move be reverted. This was a move that never should have been, as it was clearly already controversial, based on the fact that they directly reverted another user's changes some instances of "aluminum" to "aluminium" for consistency with the rest of the article. Basically, Wtshymanski should not have moved the page in the first place, and should have moved it back when challenged, so the move by Wtshymanski should be reverted.
Then the next part. The IP above has a point that this is actually the right title, but this needs to be discussed at a request which considers moving the others too (which will be a mess unless they are all use the same spelling). The reason I say it needs discussion, is that, whilst I loathe the ghastly mutilation of spelling that is "aluminum" this topic isn't clearly connected to chemistry more than it is to say, engineering or physics. WP:ALUM states that [Aluminium] should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article. The article on metallurgy links it to materials science, an interdisciplinary field which includes aspects of chemistry. However, I don't know that it is all that closely connected to it, since the sort of metallurgy being dealt with here is more closely connected with engineering and physics, not chemistry. However, at the same time, this is about an alloy, something inherently connected to chemistry. That's my bit said. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mako001 also worth pointing out that the article falls under the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, so it is definitely 'Chemistry related'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point there, I'd now have to agree that this is chemistry related.
The main alternative argument was "this is how it is spelled in the standard" (or a variation thereof). But given that the standard is also used in other countries, with a different name, and is referred to as "aluminium" everywhere else, that argument doesn't really hold much weight in my opinion, particularly given that this article is primarily about the alloy, not the standard that defines it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories