| Author |
Message |
Thomas Watt
|
 Posted: Mon 04 Jun, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | Some years ago I was allowed to examine one of the samples made at Livermore, which matches the old stuff for carbon content and basic metallurgical structure (some slight differences caused by using rollers rather than hammers to refine the structure, and of course no silicious inclusions), which was of great interest to me as I had spent a great deal of time researching the scientific literature on the subject, and had planned to make some myself. In an ANNEALED state, it was as springy and hard as a fully heat-treated piece of 1050. This showed me that making armour out of it would be immensely difficult, as it would have to be hotworked almost all the time using the correct techniques (stuff is very fussy about temperature range). Needless to say, there is a reason DOD was interested in the stuff.
By contrast, Dr. A. R. Williams has shown that the metallurgy of poorer quality European swords was pretty bad, indeed. It is quite possible that a very good Wootz blade could destroy a bad European blade, particularly if they met when cavalry formations passed through each other. The forces involved are several times greater than two men having it out on foot. |
Hi Mr. Gillaspie,
Very interesting post. Can you be a bit more specific about which samples you are speaking of for those of us who are not familiar with the Livermore study you are referring to ?
J |
I believe he is referring to Lawrence Livermore Labs. (forgive me for jumping in on this, but the context of his statement makes it seem clear to me he is talking about Defense Department research)
There are several other defense laboratories working steel and composite issues as well.
DoD has been working all sorts of materials issues for a long time.
It still always boils down to "make sure your soldiers have better weapons and armor than the guys they face."
Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Mon 04 Jun, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomas Watt wrote: |
I believe he is referring to Lawrence Livermore Labs. (forgive me for jumping in on this, but the context of his statement makes it seem clear to me he is talking about Defense Department research)
There are several other defense laboratories working steel and composite issues as well.
DoD has been working all sorts of materials issues for a long time.
It still always boils down to "make sure your soldiers have better weapons and armor than the guys they face." |
Yeah, i surmised that as well, what i didn't understand is precisely what metal they was under analysis here, was he saying that DoD or Lawrence Livermore was anylizing medieval armor or weapons for research into modern military applications of some sort?
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Thomas Obach
Industry Professional
Location: Elliot lake Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
i think theres alot of directions you can go with in terms of wootz steel... it was manufactured in many areas, not just India.
- there are soft and hard varieties... i believe due to low and high carbon... ofcourse the best is up around 1.5 to 1.7 % ... but they hardly had the ability to plug it into a mass spectrometer, so their definition of crucible steel was just that...
-- also the size of the pattern varies... by how long/slow the cool time is.... and how long the roast time is.... ... as the slow cool times will produce a larger pattern.... and you can't produce a large pattern from a small pattern ingot...... it doesn't work that way to my knowledge...
as for a sword cutting another sword in half.........well... i suppose weapons fail all the time for all sorts of reasons... even a well made sword can have a bad day... 
Greg
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | John Cooksey wrote: |
I don't think historical swordsmiths were measuring carbon contents in percentages. . |
No but modern analysis of what we are calling "wootz" steel is based on this carbon content. They had no idea what that was in say, 300 AD.
Yes I'm arguing that it's the high carbon content which makes "wootz" "wootz" and yes I'm arguing that its the trace elements such as Vanadium, the latter apparently allowed the former.
We appear to be arguing semantics at this point. I understand the term "Wootz" to mean one thing, you seem to believe it means another (any crucible steel). The carbon content criteria and the terms "ultra-high carbon steel' are not something I've invented.
This paper for example from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangladore,
http://materials.iisc.ernet.in/~wootz/heritage/WOOTZ.htm
...states that wootz steel is between 1.5%-2% in carbon content.
So does this paper from 9th International Metallurgical and Materials Congress in Istanbul, Turkey in 1997
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:nB-qitUH...&gl=us
Just to quickly cite two examples of many, basically everything I have ever read on the subject.
This is the critical factor of wootz. Most steel used in swords is closer to 1% carbon. Anything below 0.15% is wrought Iron, far too soft to ever hold an edge, anything above 2% is cast iron, way too brittle to withstand the punishment a sword must endure. The unique thing about wootz if I understand correctly is that it was such high carbon content while retaining a high degree of plasticity or flexibility.
Now there are many types of crucible steel, that doesn't mean it had these qualities which made "Damascus Steel" weapons so famous. If you have evidence that they were making swords with these properties in Iran or anywhere else past 1700 AD it would be very interesting to a lot of people on this forum I'd wager.
Jean |
|
|
  |
|
Thomas Watt
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
Yeah, i surmised that as well, what i didn't understand is precisely what metal they was under analysis here, was he saying that DoD or Lawrence Livermore was anylizing medieval armor or weapons for research into modern military applications of some sort?
J |
Based on what I know as the result of current contact with a DoD laboratory, the answer is "yes".
Beyond that, I would not know...
Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic