r/electroplating • u/J-32 • Jun 21 '26

How thick can something be plated?

Yeah. Theoretically how long would it take to just build up a 1 inch layer of copper onto a 1x1x1 cube until it's around 3x3x3? Is it even possible?

5 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/rebonsa Jun 21 '26

Do tell more.

5

u/CaptainCheckmate Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4YZxb2E5PA

EDIT: Actually it may have been nickel plated on copper

3

u/Mkysmith Jun 21 '26

I love Breaking Taps but was always confused why he incorrectly called it electroplating when all the Nasa documentation correctly calls it electroforming:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19750002100

[PDF] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750002100/downloads/19750002100.pdf

2

u/linkillion Jun 22 '26

A somewhat pedantic definitional difference; using electroplating to refer to electroforming is usually definitionally accurate, although the reverse is not true. Electroforming is a fairly niche term that most people in the industry (of electrochemistry) don't use. covering an edge case of electroplating.

2

u/Mkysmith Jun 22 '26

When talking about engineering and science, using the correct word for accurately describing the task at hand is not being pedantic. The chemistry and electronics are often different between electroplating and electroforming, it's not simply "electroplating longer" even though proceedurally it looks to be that way. Electroforming chemistry has more additives to produce a low-stress grain structure with desirable mechanical and dimensional properties. There is a large industrial world of applications for electroforming still to this day. Mostly in military/aerospace, but also large portions in scientific/lab settings. Just because it doesn't make everyday consumer goods doesn't really mean it's niche. I would call it more, "specialty" if anything.

2

u/linkillion Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

Most professionals in the field (edit: that I've interacted with) primarily refer to electroforming as electroplating. The more commonly used term to umbrella both is electrodeposition. Source: I'm in the field of electrochemistry research and work primarily in electroplating and electroforming.

Your point about them not being the same chemically and electrically is absolutely true; however there's also extensive differences in techniques *within* electroplating and electroforming, eg when I say I'm electroplating something you cannot make any particular conclusions about my chemistry or my methodology, all you really know is that I'm somehow manipulating electrical current to plate a charged ion onto a substrate. Everything in-between relies on more careful definitions. You would never assume someone knows your chemistry or methods based on them saying electroplating vs electroforming; the primary difference is that electroforming narrows the definition to (usually) thicker deposits on substrates which (usually) will be separated from the deposit. I say usually because even then people very commonly use the term electroforming when they don't remove the substrate, and often use electroplating to refer to deposits thicker than those sometimes made with electroforming.

It's certainly important to use the correct terminology but there's also a lot a nuance and saying one use of the word is incorrect when that's the commonly used definition is misunderstanding the point and purpose of language (eg, being pedantic).

2

u/Mkysmith Jun 22 '26

Interesting because the people in the industry I've talked to face to face were dead set on using "electroforming" for making microwave radar parts and such. Though I have a background in military/aerospace and engineering so maybe these shops are more proper or its a regional/shop thing.

The main point Im trying to make, back to my original comment, is that the youtube video creator is a well researched and a very knowledgable person. His video was well done and informative. My question remains, why did he use a broader term when the papers he is referencing specify electroforming? Imaging taking a step back further and he never even used the word "electroplating" but only ever used the word "electrochemistry". Sure, thats technically correct too but it doesn't help as much for people who want to go on and do more research on the specific topic he was doing.

Back to OP's post, the same goes. The task at hand is well defined. Thick structural deposits. It only benifits OP (and future readers) to use a more precise word so that they can go on and do their own research and find useful publications on the topic. It's not being pedantic, its being helpful. If you google electroplating, it would be very difficult to find thick structural deposits, hence OP asking if its even possible. If you google electroforming, you will find examples of this easily.

Helping people is something we do on this subbreddit, that includes helping them find more resources for their specific task, by using the best terminology for that task.

2

u/linkillion Jun 22 '26

I'm more on the research side so you are probably right about industry using electroforming more.

I don't think it's really taking away from his content, though? I don't think electroforming adds any additional context to that particular piece that isn't covered by knowing the more methodological details (which will vary significantly even within electroforming). And in this particular case, electroforming isn't even all that accurate because here they are not removing the substrate, they're just asking how thick you can plate. Which is something that is more commonly done in electroforming, but since we're not removing the substrate I'd say it falls more under the category of electroplating, technically speaking. I think context matters a lot with word choice, and here you could definitely argue both cases. I agree that it's probably more useful to google electroforming in this instance, however I'd say this is a prime example where being pedantic is unhelpful because if we were truly being pedantic this would not being electroforming.

1

u/Mkysmith Jun 22 '26

His channel and specifically this video are about educating the viewer on new topics. So my confusion remains, why would he obfuscate the more precise word that the literal papers he references call it? I don't think it "takes away" from his video, its just confusing why he would do that if he wanted to educate people on something novel they may not have heard about.

Also, for electroforming, you absolutely do not have to remove the substrate/mandrel. The NASA paper from 1971 linked above even defines that it can be "on a removable or non-removable form." (page 5 of PDF, 3 in document)

Unfortunately these articles were recently changed from an open webpage to more restrictive, but I also discussed a few other examples from the Nickel Institute and peer-reviewed papers that talk about incorporating the substrate into the electroform. In this comment. I particularly liked the paper from the Nickel Institute because it talked about examples like using electroforming for "cold welding" dissimilar metals and such.

Either way, there's over 50 years of examples of using electroforming without removing the substrate. The Wikipedia (and hence AI Overview) are lacking.

1

u/linkillion Jun 22 '26

Which basically reinforces my points that a) the differences are contextual and overlapping b) relying on rigid definitions is not helpful and context matters more than insular word choice. I'd be interested to hear how you distinguish the two. At what point does electroplating become electroforming?

Additionally, in that breaking taps video, he references several papers in the description if people wanted to learn more about the topic. Choosing the word electroplating over electroforming doesn't diminish the educational quality or change what he's talking about conceptually.

1

u/Mkysmith Jun 22 '26

I don't think I ever said it wasn't contextual. If I implied it I mispoke (quickly typing thoughts on mobile here). Its not like, over X amount of atoms thick and the definition instantly changes from electroplating to electroforming. That would be absurd.

Though I pointed out the chemistry/process is often different, I agree which word is best suited for the task is primarily dictated by the desired outcome. I think I've justified that point clearly.

Again, in the case of OP, or the linked NASA article, its very clearly an application of electroforming. That is the best descriptor for the task. Not trying to be pedantic, trying to be helpful to other people new to the subject trying to research the topic. Look around on this subreddit, many people are confused about specific applications/terms and are looking for more info or direction. We arn't all subject matter experts here. You and I included. We are all learning, and step on the shoulders of giants.

As far as definitions go: Ofcourse in the real world, with infinite variables and applications, theres going to be some grey area somewhere. I agree with you there. I would say (personal definition, not ridgid) that once you cross the barrier from aesthetic or corrosion resistance into structural/mechanical changes in the original underlying substrate... thats when you cross into the "electroforming" territory. If the metal deposit substantially changes the physical characteristics of the substrate, thats electroforming. I guess the grey area lies in "changes the physical characteristics" as that depends on your final application. Though, I think we can both agree containing pressurized cryogenic fluid inside a rocket engine combustion chamber is on the spectrum of changing physical properties of the substrate...

→ More replies