METHOD / EVIDENCE & SCOPE
Clarity includes
the limits.
A compelling picture and a qualified prediction are different milestones. Here is what the current free example contains.
One example, three distinct views.
Recorded blade film. A coarse three-dimensional run supplies temperature, phase fractions, linear strain components, displacement and stress over 0–24 seconds. The film uses an explicit time mapping and shows displacement at ×5. Its saved solution changes from reverse to normal curvature at about 0.83 seconds and ends near +3.06 mm sori. Agreement with a published four-stage sequence is not asserted.
Interactive schematic. The historical three-system view is explanatory artwork. Its shape and timing are qualitative; its display mesh is not an analysis mesh.
Separate numerical references. The cylinder viewer preserves MTLP103A thermal–metallurgical output and HSNV101B constitutive output. Their 116 recorded assertions concern those two references, not the blade or a combined process model.
The water needs its own explanation.
The film’s diffuse vapor is an artistic heat-transport cue driven by recorded surface flux. It is not computed boiling CFD. The sampled temperature and velocity overlay comes from an independent, synthetic-flux single-phase reference over 1–10 seconds, at its original fixed coordinates. It is not coupled to the blade case.
Research preview — physical validation remains open.
The current example is not qualified for manufacturing decisions. No fracture verdict, material-strength guarantee, or process recommendation is offered.
Explore the evidence.
Browse the existing public reference data and catalog, or inspect the separate numerical reference cases. The original study citations remain on the example page.
- Inoue (1997): historical quenching study
- Inoue (2002): English overview
- COMSOL: a separate differential-quenching demonstration — a presentation reference; no COMSOL model or fields were imported.