Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Sometimes in unusual ways, too; it's not rare for an alloy to have a melting point higher or lower than the melting points of all the constituent metals.

[Arrkhal]

Sometimes in unusual ways, too; it's not rare for an alloy to have a melting point higher or lower than the melting points of all the constituent metals.

That's a really minor difference, though, when you compare how much magic carbon adds to iron. (note: I'm not talking about you at all, G-Flex)

Steel actually is pretty unique in multiple ways.  But I suppose certain peoples' brains are broken by that fact.

I don't even want to know how inorganic solution chemists react to carbon nanotubes or buckyballs.  Or kevlar.  Or spider web.  Or aluminum chloride.

[slink]

Frankly, no, that's not how it works.  You're trying to understand structural chemistry from, apparently, a mixture of an aqueous inorganic chemistry background, and complete ignorance of the gross physical properties of metal as well.  No offense, but you're failing miserably.

You're just going to ignore or intentionally misinterpret any scientific data I may throw at you, so you're on your own to find your own citations, or to remain argumentatively ignorant if you'd rather do that.

I have to wonder just what kind of strength difference this person thinks there is between wrought iron (or the misnamed "low-carbon steel" which isn't really a steel at all) and high-carbon steel.

Is it really that unprecedented in solution chemistry that 0.6% by weight of an impurity will fundamentally change the properties of a solution?

That's a really minor difference, though, when you compare how much magic carbon adds to iron. (note: I'm not talking about you at all, G-Flex)

Steel actually is pretty unique in multiple ways.  But I suppose certain peoples' brains are broken by that fact.

I don't even want to know how inorganic solution chemists react to carbon nanotubes or buckyballs.  Or kevlar.  Or spider web.  Or aluminum chloride.

My background includes a doctorate in physical and organic chemistry as well as years of chemical research experience in various industries.  The advanced inorganic chemistry was just a course requirement along the way.  The course was specifically on the elements in their elemental forms, as well as in their most common inorganic compounds, which last time I checked included bulk metals.  I've been trying to be kind to you, but it has been evident for our entire discussion that your understanding of chemistry, both theoretical and practical, is perhaps secondary school level, if that.  I don't expect you to be able to produce any scientific citations.  I was willing to credit you with some working knowledge of metalworking, but if you need to bolster your position with personal insults then I have to conclude that the information on the Wiki does indeed represent the depth of your knowledge.

[Arrkhal]

It's amazing how people with (claimed) degrees can be so incredibly ignorant of things outside their specialties, but oh, well.  Frankly, your understanding of metallurgy and the interactions between alloying elements made me seriously think you were still in chem 101, at first.  That's the approximate understanding level that your conclusions show, anyway.

Once again, you're on your own to find "better" sources (meaning ones written by people who club you over the head with their degrees).  I've explained how steel actually works, in incredibly basic terms.  If you don't believe it because it doesn't match your incredibly rudimentary understanding of elemental metals, tough cookies.

I'm willing to bet you won't bother to look, because you know you'll be proven wrong.

I'm just going to add this to my list of "Things Arrkhal has been told by other PhDs" and call it a day.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1. Photons are the exact same thing as electrons.  Photovoltaic cells operate by capturing photons and turning them into electrons on a 1:1 ratio.  Light bulbs operate by emitting electrons in the form of photons, on a 1:1 ratio.

2. The "vacuum force" (exact words) pulls water apart into elemental hydrogen and oxygen, which is why water is such a serious contaminant in vacuum systems.

3. Helium-neon lasers emit strongly in "the white wavelength" of light, which is "about 800," (exact words), and also in infrared, which is why all lasers heat things.

4. Heat-treated steel is nothing more than work-hardened iron.

5. Gyroscopic stabilization makes objects less stable on an axis perpendicular to their direction of spin.

Crap I forgot the real #1 on that list, how could I forget that one?

I wonder what #6 will be?

http://www.feine-klingen.de/PDFs/verhoeven.pdf

This is from an actual accredited metallurgist and bladesmith, and pretty clearly and simply explains the distinct molecular differences between iron and steel.  It even starts out by describing the ways in which iron and steel actually are similar, and how low-carbon steels work (which actually are just iron with a slight carbon impurity), before transitioning into the high-carbon, hardenable steels.  It's obvious your education was only equivalent to the first handful of chapters there.

Ferrite and austenite are common between iron and high-carbon steel.  Cementite, otherwise known as iron carbide is not.  Unhardened steel or iron contains no iron carbide.  Work-hardened steel or iron contains no iron carbide.  Heat treated high carbon steel does.  It's really impossible to make it any simpler than that.

[NRN_R_Sumo1]

You are both acting like children.
stop it.
play nice.

[slink]

It's amazing how people with (claimed) degrees can be so incredibly ignorant of things outside their specialties, but oh, well.  Frankly, your understanding of metallurgy and the interactions between alloying elements made me seriously think you were still in chem 101, at first.  That's the approximate understanding level that your conclusions show, anyway.

Once again, you're on your own to find "better" sources (meaning ones written by people who club you over the head with their degrees).  I've explained how steel actually works, in incredibly basic terms.  If you don't believe it because it doesn't match your incredibly rudimentary understanding of elemental metals, tough cookies.

I'm willing to bet you won't bother to look, because you know you'll be proven wrong.

I'm just going to add this to my list of "Things Arrkhal has been told by other PhDs" and call it a day.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1. Photons are the exact same thing as electrons.  Photovoltaic cells operate by capturing photons and turning them into electrons on a 1:1 ratio.  Light bulbs operate by emitting electrons in the form of photons, on a 1:1 ratio.

2. The "vacuum force" (exact words) pulls water apart into elemental hydrogen and oxygen, which is why water is such a serious contaminant in vacuum systems.

3. Helium-neon lasers emit strongly in "the white wavelength" of light, which is "about 800," (exact words), and also in infrared, which is why all lasers heat things.

4. Heat-treated steel is nothing more than work-hardened iron.

5. Gyroscopic stabilization makes objects less stable on an axis perpendicular to their direction of spin.

Crap I forgot the real #1 on that list, how could I forget that one?

I wonder what #6 will be?

http://www.feine-klingen.de/PDFs/verhoeven.pdf

This is from an actual accredited metallurgist and bladesmith, and pretty clearly and simply explains the distinct molecular differences between iron and steel.  It even starts out by describing the ways in which iron and steel actually are similar, and how low-carbon steels work (which actually are just iron with a slight carbon impurity), before transitioning into the high-carbon, hardenable steels.  It's obvious your education was only equivalent to the first handful of chapters there.

Ferrite and austenite are common between iron and high-carbon steel.  Cementite, otherwise known as iron carbide is not.  Unhardened steel or iron contains no iron carbide.  Work-hardened steel or iron contains no iron carbide.  Heat treated high carbon steel does.  It's really impossible to make it any simpler than that.

Thank you very much for that excellent reference document.  I consider that to be a reputable source of information and I will read through it.  I can even forgive the source of the link!   

[sunshaker]

Thank you very much for that excellent reference document.  I consider that to be a reputable source of information and I will read through it.  I can even forgive the source of the link!   

So let me see if I understand this correctly, you continued this argument because you don't view wiki as a valid source of information? Even if the people giving you the wiki links are familiar with the material in question through schooling and careers and can vouch for it being mostly or completely right?

[guale]

Am I the only one that has noticed how derailed this thread has become?

[NRN_R_Sumo1]

Am I the only one that has noticed how derailed this thread has become?

I noticed that two pages ago, and by making this comment we derail it even further.

[Arrkhal]

So let me see if I understand this correctly, you continued this argument because you don't view wiki as a valid source of information? Even if the people giving you the wiki links are familiar with the material in question through schooling and careers and can vouch for it being mostly or completely right?

Precisely.  That's why I had to look so long and hard for a good cite.  Wikipedia doesn't say anything that disagrees with it, but it's a more "scholarly" source.  Also, I checked Encyclopedia Britannica, and holy crap those guys are smoking crack!  The EB article says the purpose of heat treating steel is to prevent carbide formation!

Anyway, I'm also suspecting a lack of very common metallurgical knowledge, namely:

1. Low-carbon/mild steels and high-carbon steels are in no way comparable in how they can be heat-hardened (the intermediate medium-carbon steels are much more rarely seen, and do show the transition between low-carbon and high-carbon properties).
2. Low-carbon/mild steels can be strengthened by a maximum of about 50% via heat-treating and 100% via work-hardenening, whereas high-carbon steels can be strengthened about fivefold to tenfold by heat treatment.
3. Low-carbon/mild steels were invented in the early 20th century (maybe late 19th?) as a low-cost alternative to wrought iron, so any discussion of low-carbon/mild steel whatsoever is irrelevant to DF.
4. Low-carbon/mild steels cover nearly the exact same range of carbon content that's present in wrought iron; 0.01% to 0.29% for low-carbon/mild steels, 0.01% to 0.25% for wrought iron.  That actually is one of those commercial steel industry obfuscations; either "mild steel" is a misnomer, or "wrought iron" is.
5. Low-carbon/mild steels are not intended to be used in very high-stress applications like weapons, hand tools, armor, etc., thus their inclusion in a discussion on DF weaponsmithing is doubly irrelevant.
6. Low-carbon/mild steels are actually slightly weaker than wrought iron, even given the same manufacturing techniques, due to their lack of silaceous slag.  Low-carbon/mild steels also corrode faster, for the same reason.  For the same carbon content, low-carbon/mild steel will be equally as hardenable as wrought iron, only lacking slag strands.

That's about the only thing I can possibly think of.  Slink was talking about low-carbon/mild steel, not high-carbon steel, and was ignorant of all of the above.  I guess that might make sense, as low-carbon/mild steel is a more "common" material (it's what steel building frames and cars are made of), and thus more likely to be covered by a basic class.  IIRC, even 300-level physics doesn't cover high-carbon steel, though 400-level physics does (as will any 200-level structural or material engineering class).  Even so, the above 6 facts are relatively common knowledge.

But that's my best guess, anyway.

[slink]

Thank you very much for that excellent reference document.  I consider that to be a reputable source of information and I will read through it.  I can even forgive the source of the link!   

So let me see if I understand this correctly, you continued this argument because you don't view wiki as a valid source of information? Even if the people giving you the wiki links are familiar with the material in question through schooling and careers and can vouch for it being mostly or completely right?

I continued to dispute statements which I considered to be inaccurate, whatever the source. However, I do consider this document more reliable than a secondhand retelling of a body of online information maintained by the general public.

The pdf document is a digitilized book written by an American author with decades of experience in both the theoretical and the practical aspects of metallurgy.  It is posted on a German smithing website, which is within the author's intent.  The book explains in very clear terms how the the crystalline structure of iron is affected by the carbon impurites which are present in the material known to metalworkers as steel.  I found it very informative.  I feel that it contradicts nothing of what I said.  It did add substantially to my understanding both of the jargon used by metalworkers, and of the scientific origins of the meetalworking of iron and its alloys.  I recommend the document to anyone who has come to the subject from a scientific background and has been struggling with the maze of trade secrets and layman's explanations available online.  I understand that the author intended the book to work in the opposite direction, ie to explain to the crasftsman the science behind the craft.  As a Rosetta stone, it works both ways. 

[Arrkhal]

Simplest possible explanation of cold-working I could find.

http://physics.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/phy381/coldworking.pdf

If you still can't understand how cold-working of iron and heat-treating of steel are distinct, then...

[sunshaker]

4. Low-carbon/mild steels cover nearly the exact same range of carbon content that's present in wrought iron; 0.01% to 0.29% for low-carbon/mild steels, 0.01% to 0.25% for wrought iron.  That actually is one of those commercial steel industry obfuscations; either "mild steel" is a misnomer, or "wrought iron" is.

My overtired, overworked brain is saying that Wrought Iron contains up to 3% glass slag as a side effect of the manufacturing process  (which gives it the wood fiber appearance and different working properties from mild steel, it feels totally different from mild steel when you forge it) but I can't find a citation for that. Incidentally this slag posses problems for modern welding processes (forge welding works fine, oxy-acetylene works ok, but mig and trig have problems, some kind of reaction between the slag, gas and wire, again overtired, overworked brain lacks a cite but suggests one of the metal working forums or maybe usenet (actually given the age of the memory it is usenet)).

[Arrkhal]

Yuppers, exactly.  You might have missed #6.

6. Low-carbon/mild steels are actually slightly weaker than wrought iron, even given the same manufacturing techniques, due to their lack of silaceous slag.  Low-carbon/mild steels also corrode faster, for the same reason.  For the same carbon content, low-carbon/mild steel will be equally as hardenable as wrought iron, only lacking slag strands.

Also, IIRC, the slag makes wrought iron excellent for forge welding, as the glass strands make it self-fluxing.

I would guess that any kind of arc welding would have the problem that it would heat the material unevenly, as glass is an insulator and iron is a conductor.  I forget the currents involved (ridiculously high, I know that), but if they're high enough to blast through glass, then arc welding probably boils the slag strands away at the weld point, which would definitely be very problematic.

But yeah, my main point is that in "chemical" terms, the difference between "steel" and "iron" is the inclusion of carbon.  But in metallurgical terms, "iron" is actually "steel" with silicon oxide in the mix.  That's pretty crazy.  3% is a small enough alloying element that wrought iron would be more properly called something like "siliceous mild steel" (I've been spelling that wrong for awhile!).  Or, mild steel could be "mildly carboniferous iron."

From an historical perspective, anyway, the difference between "iron" and "steel" is heat treatability.

[Tellemurius]

Am I the only one that has noticed how derailed this thread has become?

already declared that 2 pages ago. at least the conversation has return to metals. searching around the internet i discovered Damascus steel. now the process for production is a pain in the ass plus testing for true products produced few but the results was a tough flexible steel that is able to hold its blade and cut though other metals without damage.