Phil Mastro said:
As far as the oxidizing part goes, it can't really oxydize, because it already is oxidysed (how many spellings can I get wrong for the word 'oxidise'?). It should stay that way for ever, until regular wear and tear comes in. The natural oxidation 'coating' is usually a few angstroms thick, or thin rather, while anodizing will thicken that to a few nanometers.
Here's a link that explains briefly oxidation and anodizing:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Well, if you follow the whole story, you see that the naturally forming oxide layer is not well bonded, removes with handling, and thus would not be a factor in preventing wear.
There is, however, the likelihood that in the area of string contact, there is a galvanic response, which may, depending on the polarity, either increase and deepen the oxidizing, or conversely, prevent it alltogether in that local area.
For the billet vs. cast argument, I'd have to look into that a bit, cuz you can still (up to a certain point) have the same basic aluminum alloy (say 6061) and produce it in different ways (casting or extrusion). I'm assuming by billet you mean extruded stuff right?
"Billet" is what most people use to mean something that is cut from a larger block. The term is is pretty much abused to death with motorcycle parts.
In any case, my point (which I failed to explain sufficiently) with the nut vs. cast bridge base and whammy arm was not that there might be a difference due to alloy; rather that the cast parts in this case were highly polished, and I wondered whether Ham could reinforce if the act of polishing made the surface less prone to visible oxidation.
The article makes it seem as though an oxide layer forms immediately. My experience with millions of pounds of it tells
me that it builds up over time. And that it does come off easily. And at the same time, the dust can have an abrasive effect. (polishing alumina)