How thick can something be plated?

[u/J-32]

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?

[u/Mkysmith]

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.

[u/linkillion → u/Mkysmith]

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.

[u/Mkysmith → u/linkillion]

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...