[Rondinone]

I sure do. It's much shinier than all six of mine (115k), indicating that it's pretty worn. Of course that just makes it a better test subject. Buffing an in-spec cylinder would get us nowhere. I'll get started on it this weekend.

I also have a surface tester, but we call it a profilometer. This one's accurate to a few angstoms in Z, and about 1 micron in X,Y. I'll run several important areas of Jerry's cylinder through it as soon as possible. As for the electron microscope, it's very accurate, with the added benefit of distinguishing ring material from cylinder material. The unfortunate aspect of the EM is that we can't look at an intact cylinder, which is why Jerry's our hero for providing the test subject.

I'm glad to read that information about the average surface roughness and industry standard. That's just the kind of information we need. Basically your expert is saying that with 60% roughness remaining, the new rings will seat fine. I really like the idea of defining a standard for cylinder re-use.

In the interest of cost, expediency, and availability, I've decided to finish hone, or buff, or whatever we should call it, using a quarz-based polish rather than getting the Sunnen AN-30. Although I can get the AN-30, it may take a while and the winter won't last forever (It took Sunnen almost a day just to get me a price quote). 3M makes a paint cutting polish with about 40% quartz powder in oil (The AN-30 is 50% silicon powder in oil.). Quartz has a hardness very close to silicon (Mohs 7). I can get the 3M product locally at Pep Boys. If the 3M product fails then I'll go ahead and get the AN-30. I'll do the physical polishing with an engine hone and some felt pads.

Since this is a group project, I'll leave this discussion open for the night, and if you guys object to the 3M switcharoo then I'll get the AN-30, with the understanding that it may be a few weeks before we have some meaningful results.