The piezo electric pressure system and any data changes are the result of the more sophisticated and accurate pressure information available using the new systems (The copper crusher apparently wasn't capturing peak pressures in some cases). There's also the established fact that CUP and piezo electric PSI have no consistant realtionship. X CUP is not X PSI and no conversion factors exist.
Here is something else that to be quite polite about is, well, ignorant. Not stupid, just ignorant.
I have been tasked on more occasions than I can count to calibrate sophisticated electronic sensing devices. I will just simply say that to rely on them as the most accurate of measuring devices because you cannot see what is going on inside those little electronic chips is very ignorant.
It all depends on the calibrator, period. Whether it is temperature, pressure, length or what have you, a sensor's ability to accurately provide information is not "unquestionable". Personally, after 35 years of doing this kind of work, I can tell you, I would rather have something to test with that people didn't try to "guarantee" was set up correctly, as in a piece of copper that can be tested with a BHN probe and a microscope.
Not to mention, calibration techniques and standards. Where and how are these devices calibrated? Can you imagine storing a gas in a test tank at 60,000psi? What do you rely on to tell you what pressure is in that tank? An analog or dial gage? How wide is the needle? How accurate is that gage? +/- what psi or percent?
No, there is no doubt that today, heat treating is more uniform, nor that more metal is being treated because of the cost coming down (relatively) because of better methods of doing so.
I've been around this block more than once, let me tell you.
Case in point: I was working for a calibration firm. We had a client that wanted to see a certain "level" on their data collection PC because that was a "good number". The technician before me, the one that was tasked with calibrating everything at that site, made that "good number" appear over a VERY WIDE RANGE. Then, the site was handed over to me and within a week, the company I worked for was dismissed. WHY? Because I made their "good number" go away. I calibrated a "flow meter" just as it was supposed to be calibrated, in fact, all of the flow and pressure sensors were restored to their respective correct calibrations.
No more "good numbers" so to speak. And, it just isn't that hard to do simply by human error and not maliciously as in the case above.
In this instance, if I purchase a new Smith & Wesson M25 or M625 or M29 or M629 or M686 or whatever, I am going to rest assured that it will stand up to whatever data is out there. Whether it was derived via CUP methods or PSI.
That just seems to make better sense logically to me than any other conclusion.
