Evaluation of galling resistance for some selected combinations of tool steels/stainless steel sheet materials/lubricants using pin-on-disc testing

Stainless steels are well known to be prone to cold welding and material transfer in sliding contacts and therefore difficult to cold form unless certain precautions as discussed in this paper are taken. In the present study different combinations of tool steels/stainless steels/lubricants has been evaluated with respect to their galling resistance using pin-on-disc testing. The results show that a high galling resistance is favored by a high stainless steel sheet hardness and a blasted stainless steel sheet surface topography. The effect of type of lubricant was found to be more complex. For example, the chlorinated lubricants failed to prevent metal-to-metal contact on a brushed sheet surface but succeeded on a blasted sheet surface of the same stainless steel material. This is believed to be due to a protective tribofilm which is able to form on the blasted surface, but not on the brushed surface.

Preparers’ and non-preparers’ lobbying on the proposed prohibition of goodwill amortisation in ED3 ‘business combinations’

In this paper preparers’ and non-preparers’ positions regarding accounting for goodwill are examined through studying submitted comment letters on ED3 ‘Business Combinations’. Preparers have, because of economic consequences, incentives to lobby for the non-amortisation approach and non-preparers for the amortisation approach. As hypothesised, non-preparers are found to support amortisation of goodwill to a greater extent than do preparers. Moreover, the two groups’ supportive arguments, i.e. how they argue for or against the non-amortisation or amortisation approach, are studied. Again, as hypothesised, the results show that the two groups use the same type of ‘sophisticated’ framework based arguments instead of economic consequences arguments. Taken together the examination of the comment letters thus indicates that both preparers and non-preparers point at conceptual strengths and weaknesses, instead of pointing at the real cause of the lobbying activities, i.e. perceived economic consequences, when they try to affect the final outcome of the standard. These findings confirm earlier research which has suggested that self-interested lobbyists use accounting theories and concepts as useful justifications.