Two-body and three-body abrasion: A critical discussion

It is argued that the common classification of abrasive wear into 'two-body abrasion' and 'three-body abrasion' is seriously flawed. No definitions have been agreed upon for these terms, and indeed there are two quite different interpretations, the implications of which are mutually inconsistent. In the dominant interpretation, the primary thrust of the two-body/three-body concept is to describe whether the abrasive particles are constrained (two-body) or free to roll (three-body). In this view, two-body abrasion is generally much more severe than three-body. The alternative interpretation emphasises the presence (three-body) or absence (two-body) of a rigid counterface backing the abrasive. In this view, three-body abrasion is equated to high-stress (or grinding) abrasion and is generally more severe than two-body (low-stress) abrasion. This paper recommends that the 'two-body/three-body' terminology be abandoned, to be replaced by an alternative classification scheme based directly upon the manifest severity of wear. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science S.A.

Modelling the distribution of stamp paper thickness via finite normal mixtures: The 1872 Hidalgo stamp issue of Mexico revisited

Izenman and Sommer (1988) used a non-parametric Kernel density estimation technique to fit a seven-component model to the paper thickness of the 1872 Hidalgo stamp issue of Mexico. They observed an apparent conflict when fitting a normal mixture model with three components with unequal variances. This conflict is examined further by investigating the most appropriate number of components when fitting a normal mixture of components with equal variances.