The Supposed Reversal Of Inheritance Of Ferrite Grain Size From That Of Austenite

THE data which are collected in Table 1 show that the ferrite of low-carbon steel and of electrolytic iron, like the network of hypo- and hyper-eutectoid carbon steel, inherits, either absolutely or relatively, the, grain size of the mother austenite from which it is born in cooling through the transformation range. This evidence is so abundant and concordant as to cast doubt on Prof. Jeffries' 1 hypothesis of what might be called reversed inheritance, by which he explains Mr. Ruder's observation2 that the grains of a "slug of pressed pure electrolytic iron powder"were coarser, perhaps 12,000,000µ2, after a 3-hr. exposure to 1000° C. than after a 3-hr. exposure to 1250-1300°, when they were about 35,000µs. His explanation implies a natural tendency of coarser austenite grains to yield finer ferrite ones than spring from finer austenite grains, so that the inheritance is reversed. What seems to me a simpler explanation is that the enormous grains which followed the 1000° heating were not inherited from the mother austenite, but were formed by the process of natal coarsening, by means of which Stead and Carpenter developed grains of this same order of magnitude in this same kind of material, on heating to 950° or to 1000°, the temperature used by Mr. Ruder, provided the exposure was not unduly prolonged, and it does not seem to have been in Mr. Ruder's case. That their coarsening was natal and not through inheritance is shown first by the fact that their grain coarseness was out of all proportion to their relatively low temperatures and short periods, and hence was very far in excess of the grain size which the mother austenite must have had, and second and more cogently by the fact that the shape of these coarsened grains was evidently determined by the temperature distribution which existed during and immediately after the Ar3 transformation, that during the passage from the gamma to the non-gamma state.