"Tim Williams" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
Without remelt capabilities (electroslag or vacuum-arc remelt; don't
even
consider it), the quality you could produce would be so much lower than
any
European- or American-made tool steel that it wouldn't be worthwhile.

But not necessarily not worth trying...
Could do it the way they did in the 1700s - take mild steel bars (they
used wrought iron), chop them up into 1/4" cubes, rods, whatever, bury
in charcoal and heat for a few days to give a good thick case hardening
on the stuff, then melt in a crucible furnace (yes you can melt steel
with coal or charcoal). Hopefully the center will still be soft and
mild, while the outer layer will be near cast iron in carbon content;
when these melt together, you get something inbetween.

Begs the question, why didn't they just take wrought and a little cast
iron, melt the one and pour the other into it. Maybe they couldn't
get it quite hot enough to melt the nearly-pure steel. (What a difference
just 100°F makes!) Or they didn't make the connection.. but this was
still going on during the 19th century when they had the chemistry.
And then Bessemer came along...

If the idea is to recreate the processes that produced the tool steels of
the 19th century, then have at it. If the idea is to save money by making
your own tool steel, and if you're comparing it with a modern tool steel,
then it ain't gonna happen.

Those experiments are fun and satisfying. But I got the impression that the
poster was just trying to save money.

Ed Huntress