Tom McDonald wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 04:54:31 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

snip

Actually, I can make the claim, because heavily alloyed copper is no longer
native copper.


You are assuming that ALL native copper is of high purity. In fact
much Michigan copper ore is smelted to remove impurities. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/J...95/58.txt.html

Eric,

My understanding is that 'native copper' is a term meaning
'pure copper' (well over 99% pure as found), and not a reference
either to copper 'native' to, say, the Keewenaw Peninsula of the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan, or to copper used by 'native'
peoples. By that definition, copper that needs smelting is not
'native' copper.

Sort of like 'meteoric', init?

Well, that's what happens when a term is abused.

In any event nothing prevents the pure copper from also being melted -
specially not a badly though up term. The point being making small
pieces into big pieces.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:06:21 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
How do you explain the well known welding at ambient temperatures of
precision slip-gauges made of hardened steel? Leave them in contact
overnight and you will be lucky to get them apart in the morning.

No. While true cold welding can occur, that's not the mechanism(s)
responsible for wringing gage blocks together.

Frankly, the exact details are still in dispute. Part of it is atmospheric
pressure differential between the outside and the area where air has
been forced out from between the blocks. (up to 14 PSI) Part of it is
often due to the stickiness of oil on the blocks. (roughly 2 or 3 PSI)

But neither mechanism is strong enough to account for the amount of
force typically needed to separate the blocks. (typically on the order of
100 PSI)

Most experts believe that Van der Waals forces (the same forces that
give water surface tension, or make solder adhere) are responsible for
the bulk of the effect. Others now point to the Casmir force (a quantum
effect). Lively disputes still continue.

A true weld is as strong as the parent materials. (up to 200,000 PSI for
tool steel gage blocks) When you break a true weld, parts of the parent
materials are ripped out. That doesn't happen when separating wrung
gage blocks. So that's not an example of actual welding.

To do an actual weld, the atoms of one piece of material have to be
brought as close to the atoms of the other piece of material as the
atoms of one of the pieces are to each other. At room temperature
this requires a lot of force, on the order of the yield strength of the
material.

This is a few thousand PSI for relatively low yield materials like copper,
or more than 100,000 PSI for materials like tool steel. Of course, as
you increase the temperature, the yield strength of the material declines,
and less force is needed. When a material melts, the yield strength goes
to virtually zero, so little or no force is required to achieve a weld.

Gary

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 05:07:36 -0400, Gary Coffman
inadvertantly omitted:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 02:36:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

---- snip ----

"It is the sudden impact pressure that causes the
molecules to move rapidly, that causes FRICTION, which in turn causes
heat and if sufficient sudden pressure is applied (eg hammer blow to
already hot metal) it CAN melt the material. To "weld" something by
definition requires bringing part of it to a liquid state - ie melted
in the portion being welded.

.... when he quoted my response to it.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:06:21 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
How do you explain the well known welding at ambient temperatures of
precision slip-gauges made of hardened steel? Leave them in contact
overnight and you will be lucky to get them apart in the morning.

No. While true cold welding can occur, that's not the mechanism(s)
responsible for wringing gage blocks together.

Frankly, the exact details are still in dispute. Part of it is atmospheric
pressure differential between the outside and the area where air has
been forced out from between the blocks. (up to 14 PSI) Part of it is
often due to the stickiness of oil on the blocks. (roughly 2 or 3 PSI)

But neither mechanism is strong enough to account for the amount of
force typically needed to separate the blocks. (typically on the order of
100 PSI)

Most experts believe that Van der Waals forces (the same forces that
give water surface tension, or make solder adhere) are responsible for
the bulk of the effect. Others now point to the Casmir force (a quantum
effect). Lively disputes still continue.

You are discussing the underlying welding mechanism. The point is
that, in those circumstances, welding occurs without either heat or
significant pressure, irrespective of whether it is due to Van der
Waals forces, the Casimer force, atmospheric pressure or whatever. I
do know that if such gauges are left in contact for sufficiently long
it is virtually impossible to separate them.

A true weld is as strong as the parent materials. (up to 200,000 PSI for
tool steel gage blocks).

That is very rarely the case.

When you break a true weld, parts of the parent
materials are ripped out. That doesn't happen when separating wrung
gage blocks. So that's not an example of actual welding.

It depends upon how long you leave them together.

To do an actual weld, the atoms of one piece of material have to be
brought as close to the atoms of the other piece of material as the
atoms of one of the pieces are to each other. At room temperature
this requires a lot of force, on the order of the yield strength of the
material.

So?

This is a few thousand PSI for relatively low yield materials like copper,
or more than 100,000 PSI for materials like tool steel. Of course, as
you increase the temperature, the yield strength of the material declines,
and less force is needed. When a material melts, the yield strength goes
to virtually zero, so little or no force is required to achieve a weld.

But we (Seppo and I) were discussing welds at ambient temperature. See
http://www.twi.co.uk/j32k/protected/.../ksedn002.html



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:27:39 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Gary Coffman wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 07:53:30 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:10:10 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:05:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote:
This has a good story about the Great lakes Copper deposits.
http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/copper.html

As that article notes, 14 billion pounds of copper have been removed
from the area since the ancients were working copper there. Let the
enormity of that number sink in. There was an *awful lot* of copper
there in ancient times, much of it easily accessible from the surface.

My main interest was to show the formation of the copper deposits -
the volcanic activity that melted it (and other minerals with it).
Silver is/was found in fair quantities alongside the copper. What
isn't known - because nobody cares to find out, is the composition of
the metal used in the artefacts. It is ASSUMED to be pure copper.

The presence of silver inclusions *proves* the native copper was not
melted after being deposited.

...but only for that piece - not for any other piece. Further more
IIRC there is a method of laminating copper and silver sheet and
carving through one into the other. It is a Japanese technique IIRC.
It requires being heated under pressure, to the point the silver just
starts "sweating" and it brazes the sheets together. So silver in
copper can also be deliberate - as decoration.

It is called silver brazing (or more commonly, but incorrectly, called
silver soldering).

I already said it was brazing. I couldn't think of the specific
decoration name before, but it is used in making "mokume gane" as
found, and originating on samurai sword handles from about 1600 -
1800.

It is a common technique used to join pieces of
copper. Pressure is not required. A temperature in excess of 800F
is required for brazing to occur (by ASTM definition).

Are you suggesting silver "sweats" (forms liquid beads) way below its
melting point?

Native copper is deposited by chemical
means, not volcanic melting and extrusion.

I already posted this earlier. It disagrees with you:

http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/copper.html

"chemical" doesn't get a single mention.

Actually, it doesn't disagree with me. It says the copper
was carried in an aqueus solution from great depths
and deposited in the vents, fissures, and voids of the
iron bearing rocks above. The pertinent chemical
reaction involved is

CuSO4 + Fe(Metal) = FeSO4 + Cu (Metal)

If you were knowledgeable of the chemistry of copper, this
would have been obvious to you. If you had read any of the
many geochemical references in the links already provided
in this thread, it would have been spelled out for you in
excruciating detail.

If you had not been so intent on being snaky you would know that
"aqueous" (correct spelling) also means "water like", "watery" as well
as "of or containing water" - therefor it is NOT a clear explanatory
term in itself. Further to that, you would NOT have written that
formula up there - but if you want to argue that particular formula
(A) point out how two solids, suddenly for no given reason, decides to
react and change (B) how they get together in the first place when
they are NOT ambulatory in any way.

http://www.cop.ufl.edu/safezone/prok...5100/eumix.htm illustrates
the basic mechanism. The same kind of thing happens with copper and
silver. The presence of silver will lower the melting point of the
copper and a solid solution will be formed. In the case of copper and
silver

Yeah well..... that isn't really what happened despite there being
several substances in that same solution - as they would all have
ended up in one glorious mix.

http://www.bipm.fr/metrologia/ViewAr...=25&PAGE=41-47
gives the lowest melting temperature as 779.583 plus-minus 0.060 which
is lower than the melting point of either copper or silver.

Many metals will form similar eutectic mixtures with copper,
particularly aluminium and zinc. Some tin-lead solders will form
eutectic mixtures with high alloy steels at quite low temperatures,
which is why at an early stage they stopped soldering identifying
labels onto aircraft undercarriage legs. :-)

Never had anything fly off an aircraft that wasn't intentionally
thrown out of it..... or a mob of disgruntled passengers who decide to
get off in mid air at some 4000 ft as it is the fastest way to the
pub....

Oh and where are these pure iron
deposits, hmmm? It sure as hell would have saved on building blast
furnaces if that existed...

You could have instead pointed to this section in that same article:
"Into the lava flows of Keweenaw, Houghton, and Ontonagon counties
percolating hot waters rising from great depths brought copper and
silver in solution. As it cooled, the waters filled the fissures and
the gas cavities (amygdules) of the lavas (trap rocks) with pure
copper and silver..."

Now here we see something totally different from your "formula". There
IS a mention of a "solution" - most likely the copper portion was
CuSO4.5H2O. There is not a single mention of iron. It also refers to a
heat source - not two ambulatory minerals meeting in the dark for a
bit of kissy kissy, saliva swapping or any other hanky-panky!

So what have we here - we have the result of hot lava, the water
"evaporates" leaving what would be known as, Blue copper, Blue stone
or Blue vitriol (among other things) or CuSO4. Indeed it does exist,
but it isn't your pure Cu, is it.

BUT if I again go back to your "formula" and introduce some "Fe" into
the equation, it has to be as "FeSO4.H2O" solution - 100% water
soluble (used in animal feeds as a supplement). Perhaps more
interesting is the FeSO4.7H2O (copperas), also water soluble, but is
blue in colour similar to copper sulphate and in its solid form it
melts at 64 deg. C! Only problem is that this requires no hanky-panky
at all.... the Fe is pregnant with SO4 already!

I suggest you read the opening paragraphs of
http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/collecto...r/vft/mi2c.htm
Please don't take this as a contradiction. I intend it as an
elucidation. :-)

Actually that is a page I had found... but lost again, as I wanted to
use an image from there to demonstrate the NEED to melt even pure
copper:

http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/collecto...hitepinecu.jpg

A good site!!

So lets add the bit of "mood" to the situation and heat it up with the
cooling lava. The result would indeed be ferrous and cupric oxides,
respectively, giving off water and sulphur trioxide, which combine to
produce a dilute solution of sulphuric acid.

So IF there is either some "copperas" or Ferrous Sulphate Monohydrate
in the CuSO4.5H2O - then one can expect IRON to be present with the
copper - well.... yes but not in the same place by the look of it. But
then if we take both the copper and Iron out of the soup we end up
with H2SO4.... or masses of sulphuric acid (oil of vitriol)! Therefor
Lake Superior is a lake of acid. Then the Moral of the Story is:
don't eat the fish as they will eat your insides out!

Now, I have to admit I have have happily forgotten 99% of what I ever
learned about chemistry (except that needed to make moonshine), but
then again, why on earth am I required to know any of it.....?? To
prevent you getting all snooty by suggesting things??


[..]

Eric Stevens

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...



I already said it was brazing. I couldn't think of the specific
decoration name before, but it is used in making "mokume gane" as
found, and originating on samurai sword handles from about 1600 -
1800.

Actually, Mokume Gane is not a brazing process, but a diffusion bonding
process similar to forge welding.

By definition "welding" does refer to melting of material to be joined
- be it in a forge, oxyacetylene or mig welding or whatever.

It occured well below the melting point of all the alloys involved.

Actually no "alloys" are involved - they are pure materials laminated
in mokume gane.

I cannot speak to the state of the science now, but back in the late 70's,
when I was doing research on it in college, our theory was this.

I'm pretty sure that will be close enough still :-)

At elevated temperatures the grain structure of the metal undergoes enormous
changes (this is what causes annealing) as the grains grow they can grow
between separate but closely associated pieces of metal, Assuming that the
junction is chemically clean and free from oxides.

Isn't this what "brazing" refers to?

Are you suggesting silver "sweats" (forms liquid beads) way below its
melting point?

Actually it can. metals alloyed together have an Gestalt proportion called
the eutectic. In the case of silver and copper it melts at a lower
temperature then either.

I'm aware of that, but these are not alloys - these are pure metals
made into a "Dagwood" sandwich - therefor the "eutectic" thingo
doesn't apply. If on the other hand you speak about a real
copper/silver alloy, as per your experiment - that is a different
story.

But the term sweats as it applys to Mokume gane is kind of a misnomer. It
comes from the amount of blacksmiths we had on the project.

Whoever it was that said this, it was a person familiar with making
mokume gane. It is a visual indication of having reached the desired
point "when the silver starts to sweat" not the copper, but silver,
that has a lower melting point - a method that was used in ancient
times before thermometers and fancy little bench top gas kilns were
invented.

It was a term they used in forge welding iron, and refered to the surface
geting a greasy or oily appearance as the welding temperature is acheived.

....which is only just below melting point - yes THAT look I recognise.

For Mokume, the rule of thumb that we used was that this temperature was
roughly 2/3 of the eutectic temperature of the alloys involved.

That would be fine IF you were using "alloys" - in my example no
alloys are involved.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:14:36 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 05:07:36 -0400, Gary Coffman
inadvertantly omitted:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 02:36:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

---- snip ----

"It is the sudden impact pressure that causes the
molecules to move rapidly, that causes FRICTION, which in turn causes
heat and if sufficient sudden pressure is applied (eg hammer blow to
already hot metal) it CAN melt the material. To "weld" something by
definition requires bringing part of it to a liquid state - ie melted
in the portion being welded.

... when he quoted my response to it.

Actually, there was nothing inadvertent about trimming the message
of older quoted material which anyone with a proper threaded newsreader
has already seen, and can access again if they care. It is just good
netiquette to only quote enough material to show the statements to
which one is responding.

Not doing such trimming is poor netiquette, and results in deeply nested
reposted material, causing posts to be of excessive length, which are
tedious to wade through to find the relevant new material. Some participating
in this thread seem prone to do that. It is bad form.

Any nesting of quotes greater than two levels is generally excessive, with
rare exceptions. (Complaining about excessive quoting is one of those rare
exceptions.)

Now on to the factual dispute.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:06:21 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
How do you explain the well known welding at ambient temperatures of
precision slip-gauges made of hardened steel? Leave them in contact
overnight and you will be lucky to get them apart in the morning.

No. While true cold welding can occur, that's not the mechanism(s)
responsible for wringing gage blocks together.

Frankly, the exact details are still in dispute. Part of it is atmospheric
pressure differential between the outside and the area where air has
been forced out from between the blocks. (up to 14 PSI) Part of it is
often due to the stickiness of oil on the blocks. (roughly 2 or 3 PSI)

But neither mechanism is strong enough to account for the amount of
force typically needed to separate the blocks. (typically on the order of
100 PSI)

Most experts believe that Van der Waals forces (the same forces that
give water surface tension, or make solder adhere) are responsible for
the bulk of the effect. Others now point to the Casmir force (a quantum
effect). Lively disputes still continue.

You are discussing the underlying welding mechanism.

No, I am not. I'm telling you welding is *not occurring* when gage blocks
are wrung. Perhaps I need to use smaller words and shorter sentences
when trying to communicate with you.

A true weld is as strong as the parent materials. (up to 200,000 PSI for
tool steel gage blocks).

That is very rarely the case.

It may be the case when an incompetent is doing the welding, but any
sound weld is as strong as the parent material.

When you break a true weld, parts of the parent
materials are ripped out. That doesn't happen when separating wrung
gage blocks. So that's not an example of actual welding.

It depends upon how long you leave them together.

Leave them together until hell freezes over, they still aren't welded.

To do an actual weld, the atoms of one piece of material have to be
brought as close to the atoms of the other piece of material as the
atoms of one of the pieces are to each other. At room temperature
this requires a lot of force, on the order of the yield strength of the
material.

So?

So, wringing gage blocks doesn't produce forces that even remotely
approach the levels necessary for pressure welding to occur. I thought
that would be obvious in context, but if you need it spelled out in smaller
words, I'll try to oblige.

This is a few thousand PSI for relatively low yield materials like copper,
or more than 100,000 PSI for materials like tool steel. Of course, as
you increase the temperature, the yield strength of the material declines,
and less force is needed. When a material melts, the yield strength goes
to virtually zero, so little or no force is required to achieve a weld.

But we (Seppo and I) were discussing welds at ambient temperature. See
http://www.twi.co.uk/j32k/protected/.../ksedn002.html

Indeed, and you used the wringing of gage blocks as an example. It is a
faulty example, as I explained.

I didn't bother to "me too" your good example of copper electrical line
splices, since such piling on is considered bad netiquette.

The pressure generated by the hydraulic swaging tools used by linemen
is sufficient to cold weld clean copper. That was a good example. But your
choice of the wringing of tool steel gage blocks as another example of cold
welding was not. No welding at all is occurring in the latter case.

Gary

In article , Eric Stevens says...

A true weld is as strong as the parent materials. (up to 200,000 PSI for
tool steel gage blocks).

That is very rarely the case.

Bwaa haa haaa haa.

I should check in on threads like this more often.
A little bit of howling funnies is good now
and again.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

n Members of the Graduate Program Southern Illinois University Carbondale:
Marvin Jensen, Philip Baldwin, Stephen Brunst, Lori vanHouten, William Ard,
Janice Nathan, Randy Jones, Prof. L. Brent Kington, Prof. Richard Mawdsley;
“Return to the Forge: Extended Research into Mokume-Gane and Granulation”
Society of North American Goldsmiths 1979
Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...


"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...



I already said it was brazing. I couldn't think of the specific
decoration name before, but it is used in making "mokume gane" as
found, and originating on samurai sword handles from about 1600 -
1800.

Actually, Mokume Gane is not a brazing process, but a diffusion bonding
process similar to forge welding.

By definition "welding" does refer to melting of material to be joined
- be it in a forge, oxyacetylene or mig welding or whatever.



I didn't say it wasn't welding, I said it wasn't brazing.



It occured well below the melting point of all the alloys involved.


Actually no "alloys" are involved - they are pure materials laminated
in mokume gane.

Horse hockey.

Here's a quote from;

http://www.mokume-gane.com/Papers/Sa...Fe%20Paper.pdf

The sword was one of the main areas of decorative metalwork in feudal Japan.
Some of the finest and most skillfully wrought metalwork in the world was
used
in the creation and outfitting of many of these swords. The innovation of
this
decorative technique is attributed to Denbei Shoami (1651-1728) a master
smith
from Akita prefecture.
Shoami’s first piece is comprised of layers of copper and shakudo (a
Japanese copper alloy that contains 2.5% to 4% pure gold) laminated to
create a tsuba (sword guard) that was carved and flattened. The effect is
similar to Chinese and Japanese lacquer work known as quiri-bori
“where thick parallel layers of alternating red and black lacquer are
built up to a considerable thickness and grooves are deeply incised to
expose colored lines on their sides” Shoami gradually learned to
flatten and to produce wood-grain patterns that lie on the surface of the
laminated mass.

I cannot speak to the state of the science now, but back in the late
70's,
when I was doing research on it in college, our theory was this.

I'm pretty sure that will be close enough still :-)

At elevated temperatures the grain structure of the metal undergoes
enormous
changes (this is what causes annealing) as the grains grow they can grow
between separate but closely associated pieces of metal, Assuming that
the
junction is chemically clean and free from oxides.



Isn't this what "brazing" refers to?


No, brazing requires a filler metal with a melting point below the metals
being joined


Are you suggesting silver "sweats" (forms liquid beads) way below its
melting point?

Actually it can. metals alloyed together have an Gestalt proportion
called
the eutectic. In the case of silver and copper it melts at a lower
temperature then either.

I'm aware of that, but these are not alloys - these are pure metals
made into a "Dagwood" sandwich - therefor the "eutectic" thingo
doesn't apply. If on the other hand you speak about a real
copper/silver alloy, as per your experiment - that is a different
story.

Again, they are not necessarily pure metals.
If they were (pure copper and fine silver) That bonding temperature would be
roughly 2/3 the liquidus temp of the silver/copper eutectic.


But the term sweats as it applys to Mokume gane is kind of a misnomer. It
comes from the amount of blacksmiths we had on the project.

I look through my notes and found the origin of the term sweats in this
context, and I was wrong. I thought it was the crew I worked with as an
undergrad grunt at SIU in


Members of the Graduate Program Southern Illinois University Carbondale:
Marvin Jensen, Philip Baldwin, Stephen Brunst, Lori vanHouten, William Ard,
Janice Nathan, Randy Jones, Prof. L. Brent Kington, Prof. Richard Mawdsley;
“Return to the Forge: Extended Research into Mokume-Gane and Granulation”
Society of North American Goldsmiths 1979


but it was the Pijanowskis in

Pijanowski, Hiroko Sato and Pijanowski, Eugene M. “Lamination of Non-
Ferrous Metals by Diffusion: Adaptations of the Traditional Japanese
Technique
of Mokume-Gane” Goldsmiths Journal August 1977 pg 21

The Pijanowskis used a liquid phase bond that required a melted surface.
However after Marv Jensen developed the torque plate clamping, I think that
even they went to the lower temp solid state diffusion



Whoever it was that said this, it was a person familiar with making
mokume gane. It is a visual indication of having reached the desired
point "when the silver starts to sweat" not the copper, but silver,
that has a lower melting point - a method that was used in ancient
times before thermometers and fancy little bench top gas kilns were
invented.

So you are saying that native Americans working with stone tools could
manage to cast a largely uncastable metal, but the Japanese, who raised
metalwork to an artform rarely duplicated, couldn't judge temperatures

As to people familar with making Mokume gane, I added two more photos to

http://tinyurl.com/3cw7p

Showing some of the Mokume gane I made during those years.


Paul K. Dickman




It was a term they used in forge welding iron, and refered to the surface
geting a greasy or oily appearance as the welding temperature is
acheived.

...which is only just below melting point - yes THAT look I recognise.

For Mokume, the rule of thumb that we used was that this temperature was
roughly 2/3 of the eutectic temperature of the alloys involved.

That would be fine IF you were using "alloys" - in my example no
alloys are involved.


Again an infinite number of alloys could be used.

And, unless you are merely bonding copper to copper alloys will be created
by the process.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:03:46 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:14:36 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 05:07:36 -0400, Gary Coffman
inadvertantly omitted:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 02:36:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

---- snip ----

"It is the sudden impact pressure that causes the
molecules to move rapidly, that causes FRICTION, which in turn causes
heat and if sufficient sudden pressure is applied (eg hammer blow to
already hot metal) it CAN melt the material. To "weld" something by
definition requires bringing part of it to a liquid state - ie melted
in the portion being welded.

... when he quoted my response to it.

Actually, there was nothing inadvertent about trimming the message
of older quoted material which anyone with a proper threaded newsreader
has already seen, and can access again if they care. It is just good
netiquette to only quote enough material to show the statements to
which one is responding.

Not doing such trimming is poor netiquette, and results in deeply nested
reposted material, causing posts to be of excessive length, which are
tedious to wade through to find the relevant new material. Some participating
in this thread seem prone to do that. It is bad form.

Any nesting of quotes greater than two levels is generally excessive, with
rare exceptions. (Complaining about excessive quoting is one of those rare
exceptions.)

Now on to the factual dispute.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:06:21 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
How do you explain the well known welding at ambient temperatures of
precision slip-gauges made of hardened steel? Leave them in contact
overnight and you will be lucky to get them apart in the morning.

No. While true cold welding can occur, that's not the mechanism(s)
responsible for wringing gage blocks together.

Frankly, the exact details are still in dispute. Part of it is atmospheric
pressure differential between the outside and the area where air has
been forced out from between the blocks. (up to 14 PSI) Part of it is
often due to the stickiness of oil on the blocks. (roughly 2 or 3 PSI)

But neither mechanism is strong enough to account for the amount of
force typically needed to separate the blocks. (typically on the order of
100 PSI)

Most experts believe that Van der Waals forces (the same forces that
give water surface tension, or make solder adhere) are responsible for
the bulk of the effect. Others now point to the Casmir force (a quantum
effect). Lively disputes still continue.

You are discussing the underlying welding mechanism.

No, I am not. I'm telling you welding is *not occurring* when gage blocks
are wrung. Perhaps I need to use smaller words and shorter sentences
when trying to communicate with you.

A true weld is as strong as the parent materials. (up to 200,000 PSI for
tool steel gage blocks).

That is very rarely the case.

It may be the case when an incompetent is doing the welding, but any
sound weld is as strong as the parent material.

There is NO weld technique which produces a weld with metallurgy
identical to the the parent metals. ANY weld technique leads to a
discontinuity in material properties in or around the weld zone which
ALWAYS results in a propensity for the welded structure to fail in or
around the weld zone rather than the parent metal.

When you break a true weld, parts of the parent
materials are ripped out. That doesn't happen when separating wrung
gage blocks. So that's not an example of actual welding.

It depends upon how long you leave them together.

Leave them together until hell freezes over, they still aren't welded.

They are merely immovably stuck together in such a way that it may
require an electron micrscope to detect the interface.

To do an actual weld, the atoms of one piece of material have to be
brought as close to the atoms of the other piece of material as the
atoms of one of the pieces are to each other. At room temperature
this requires a lot of force, on the order of the yield strength of the
material.

So?

So, wringing gage blocks doesn't produce forces that even remotely
approach the levels necessary for pressure welding to occur. I thought
that would be obvious in context, but if you need it spelled out in smaller
words, I'll try to oblige.

This phenomenon only occurs with precision gauge blocks for the simple
reason that their faces are so flat that the atoms of one piece of
material brought very close to the atoms of the other. When the
interface is broken an electron microscope will show the tears where
the asperities of one surface have welded to another before
separation.

No sudden impact is required to create such a weld. Neither is heat,
friction or any other mechanism to cause melting.

This is a few thousand PSI for relatively low yield materials like copper,
or more than 100,000 PSI for materials like tool steel. Of course, as
you increase the temperature, the yield strength of the material declines,
and less force is needed. When a material melts, the yield strength goes
to virtually zero, so little or no force is required to achieve a weld.

But we (Seppo and I) were discussing welds at ambient temperature. See
http://www.twi.co.uk/j32k/protected/.../ksedn002.html

Indeed, and you used the wringing of gage blocks as an example. It is a
faulty example, as I explained.

I didn't bother to "me too" your good example of copper electrical line
splices, since such piling on is considered bad netiquette.

The pressure generated by the hydraulic swaging tools used by linemen
is sufficient to cold weld clean copper. That was a good example. But your
choice of the wringing of tool steel gage blocks as another example of cold
welding was not. No welding at all is occurring in the latter case.

Electron microscopy says you are wrong.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:02:50 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:38:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:37:36 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

[..]
However if one considers that "bubbling" has been claimed to be caused
by "overheating" in a annealing process - then it is saying "melted"
at the same time, as it cannot bubble UNLESS a portion of it is
melted. Also "welding" requires the melting of the metal - or so
goddamned close to it that the friction heat generated by a blow on it
does melt the metal.

Reasonably pure copper can be welded at ambient temperatures merely by
pressure. MIllions of electrical connections rely on this property.

Anything can be welded at virtually any temperature by using pressure.
The Mini Minor crown wheel for the diff started off as a steel disc
cut off from a round billet. This was placed on a mould at the end of
a hydraulic ram, and the other half of the mould was on another
hydraulic ram. To form the crown wheel they were slammed together
under huge pressure - it made a very nice crown wheel - and fast!


You are confusing forging with welding.

Actually I referred to neither. I referred to the use of pressure only
as "merely by pressure" was your point.

You say it started off as a steel disc. You have not mentioned two
pieces which were welded together.

Didn't need to as "welding" wasn't involved in that case - "melting"
was - from a round flat disk to a crown wheel for a diff.

http://www.forging.org/Design/pg6_9.html describes the manufacture of
gears using a similar process to that used for the Mini.

Not quite - the Mini crown wheel blank was not preheated in any
(visible) way at any stage. The process in the URL differs in that
molecular friction alone isn't used to heat the blanks to a momentary
melting point.

In any event this is wandering off topic at the moment.


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 02:36:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

---- snip ----

And while copper can be welded, in
an inert atmosphere, by melting, it can also be welded at lower temperature
by pressure.

You are wrong, particularly in the case of copper. The power in your
house comes to through a large number of cold welds formed merely by
pressure. This is true irrespective of whether you are supplied via
copper or aluminium cables.

I suspect you snipped the wrong text there! What you left isn't mine.

But then explain how come each strand of a multi-strand cable can
easily be separated from each other - even if very fine strands? Also
electricity uses only the surface of any wire - so it isn't as if it
holds the wire together either. I think you are confusing something
with "welding".


No it can't. "Pressure" in itself does almost nothing. A loaded
freight train running over a "copper" coin only flattens it and does
nothing else. It is the sudden impact pressure that causes the
molecules to move rapidly, that causes FRICTION, which in turn causes
heat and if sufficient sudden pressure is applied (eg hammer blow to
already hot metal) it CAN melt the material. To "weld" something by
definition requires bringing part of it to a liquid state - ie melted
in the portion being welded.

How do you explain the well known welding at ambient temperatures of
precision slip-gauges made of hardened steel? Leave them in contact
overnight and you will be lucky to get them apart in the morning.

Ahhhh..... nothing to do with welding at all. You are barking up the
wrong tree - try simple air pressure. Two steel blocks each with a
perfectly smooth surface, and you place those surfaces together - you
can lift the bottom block solely by lifting the top one (momentarily
at least). Air pressure, is what is holding them together. I have a
set of dies made for me by a tool-maker mate that I can demonstrate
exactly that with.

Not knowing what a "slip-gauge" was, I looked it up and they tell the
same story.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~jcelce/sub...metrology.html
"The measuring faces of Slip Gauges have such a good surface finish
that when you place two gauges together with their measuring faces in
contact, and slide one gauge over the other, they will wring together.
Basically this means that they are almost stuck together, and that
they will not slide off each other easily."

Nothing at all to do with welding.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...


"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

In order to illustrate the nature of the porosity in melted copper I put
a
few
pictures up.

http://tinyurl.com/3cw7p

Very interesting!

The first labeled Casting is a small ingot cast of ca110 copper It
started
out
.......
The size of this is indicative of how much gas was dissolved in the
metal.
It is approximately 10% of the original volume of the ingot.


Essentially what you are saying is that a lot of the gases escaped
before it solidified.

Possibly, probably.
But more importantly, there is still an volume of gas bubbles trapped inside
the ingot, that is equivalent to the volume of the blob sticking out of the
upper left hand side.

Yes I understood as much.

The third picture, labeled forgings, shows it's workability.
The lower shot is from the pure copper ingot, You can see it is full of
fractures and tears.

I assume this is from the melted copper described above?

Yes

Are you suggesting the "tears" are the result of (A) the pure copper having
been melted (B) because it is pure copper?

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

Pure copper, direct from the mill, melted in a vacuum furnace, or a void and
inclusion free piece of native copper, would forge out as well as the upper
alloyed sample.

Indeed, and that is because it has no inherent flaws with in it, to
cause fracture points. Only it would appear, as I read various
replies, than in certain circumstances "welding/forging" etc occurs
without much temperature - Eric is even suggesting room temperature in
one reply. Only when copper has been melted and has these gas bubbles
occur, it can't be done - apparently.

I do understand the idea of oxidization, but that would result in
embedded impurities more than wholly prevent welding to occur. Granted
it wouldn't be as good a copper as modern melting techniques provides,
but then such techniques and quality wasn't known about then and
ignorance is bliss. They would have been happy with what they could
do.

If (A) how does it compare to not melted copper of equal grade? Would it
not also depend on the
handling of the material if it tears or not - eg more frequent
annealing - hot working etc?

I have added a 4th picture to the above mentioned url to address this.
It is of a forging made from manufactured bar. In fact it is made from the
same bar that made up most of the cast piece.

The cast piece was annealed 8 to 10 times in the course of it's forging.
That is a lot, considering it's length was only increased by 50%.
But the large crack on right the appeared in the first round of hammering
and I didn't want the piece to fall apart.

So it would appear that implied in the last statement is - the more
frequent annealing the better the outcome (for shape). Of course, in
this case you haven't trimmed the piece which might have been done in
that sort of situation of a severe crack by the ancients.

The piece made from manufactured copper was annealed twice. I probably could
have done the forging with out annealing at all, but it was a small piece
being held in my fingers. As the hammering hardens the metal, more
vibrations travel up the metal and into the hand. It can be quite painful.

That one I'm also familiar with - and it doesn't only apply to forging
:-)

If it is from the melted ingot - what has happened to the "myriad of
amorphous blobs" - they are no longer visible.


For the sake of orientation, the sectioned surface of the ingot is the small
end of the forging.

The outer surface of the casting solidifies very rapidly, and is usually
bubble free, the bubbles tend to be trapped inside.
Subsequent forging would mash these shut (although not bond them together)
making them difficult to see in a radiograph as they would either be smaller
than the resolution or look like regular forging flaws.

This is why radiographs are inconclusive an any piece that may have been
forged.

It is something I have been thinking as well.

The two metals are visually identical, but one casts like crap and the
other
doesn't.

If something is acceptable or not, depends on the use and views of
acceptability on the day. If something was melted to get a single
lump, to be later beaten into a sheet for further working to jewellery
for instance, then perhaps it really doesn't matter - perhaps it may
no longer even be obvious to have been cast.


This is true, but as cast copper is as soft as it can be and needs a
significant amount of hammering to harden it. For any edged tools or fish
hooks or awls, this would surely display the tendency to fracture. Sheet
goods also would require a lot of hammering.

Arrow and spear point are relatively small, and would want to be of a
medium hardness only - so the tips of retrieved arrows/spears would be
beneficial to NOT be too hard - so they will not break when missing
the target - and so they can be restored again when bent.

Heavier decorative items or
ceremonial pieces would require much less work and cast preforms would work
fine.

Certainly in Mexico casting was used even for very small items.

[..]

If you want to prove casting, stop stroking around with radiographs and
look
for alloying.

Well..... there is the problem. This information hasn't been gathered
of either kind to any extent to my knowledge. The radiography (or
analysis) of two items... or even a dozen items, is not representative
of the tens of thousands of artefacts found.


Yes, that appears to be the rub.
And is an area in which someone should undertake some real hands on
research.

Otherwise, it is like the old saw about the man who lost his keys late one
dark night.
He spent the rest of the night looking for them beneath the only street
light that he passed,
because if he lost them anywhere else, he wouldn't be able to find them in
the dark.

Exactly :-)

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:46:51 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:02:50 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:38:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:37:36 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

[..]
However if one considers that "bubbling" has been claimed to be caused
by "overheating" in a annealing process - then it is saying "melted"
at the same time, as it cannot bubble UNLESS a portion of it is
melted. Also "welding" requires the melting of the metal - or so
goddamned close to it that the friction heat generated by a blow on it
does melt the metal.

Reasonably pure copper can be welded at ambient temperatures merely by
pressure. MIllions of electrical connections rely on this property.

Anything can be welded at virtually any temperature by using pressure.
The Mini Minor crown wheel for the diff started off as a steel disc
cut off from a round billet. This was placed on a mould at the end of
a hydraulic ram, and the other half of the mould was on another
hydraulic ram. To form the crown wheel they were slammed together
under huge pressure - it made a very nice crown wheel - and fast!


You are confusing forging with welding.

Actually I referred to neither. I referred to the use of pressure only
as "merely by pressure" was your point.

But I was discussing welding. You seem to be confusing cold forging
with welding.

You say it started off as a steel disc. You have not mentioned two
pieces which were welded together.

Didn't need to as "welding" wasn't involved in that case - "melting"
was - from a round flat disk to a crown wheel for a diff.

Sorry. There is no melting in either hot or cold forging.


http://www.forging.org/Design/pg6_9.html describes the manufacture of
gears using a similar process to that used for the Mini.

Not quite - the Mini crown wheel blank was not preheated in any
(visible) way at any stage. The process in the URL differs in that
molecular friction alone isn't used to heat the blanks to a momentary
melting point.

In any event this is wandering off topic at the moment.

I'll say.

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/ama...ne/r5_1_1.html
discusses the role of dislocations in metal deformation. Forging is
possible as a result of the mobility of dislocations. All that heating
a billet does is increase their mobility. It is not necessary to cause
melting unless of course one is trying to undertake casting.




Eric Stevens

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 11:21:41 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...



I already said it was brazing. I couldn't think of the specific
decoration name before, but it is used in making "mokume gane" as
found, and originating on samurai sword handles from about 1600 -
1800.

Actually, Mokume Gane is not a brazing process, but a diffusion bonding
process similar to forge welding.

By definition "welding" does refer to melting of material to be joined
- be it in a forge, oxyacetylene or mig welding or whatever.

It occured well below the melting point of all the alloys involved.

Actually no "alloys" are involved - they are pure materials laminated
in mokume gane.

Hmm.

http://www.mokume-gane.com/Pages/What_is_Mokume.html

"The billets, composed of various combinations of gold, silver
and copper alloys ....

I cannot speak to the state of the science now, but back in the late 70's,
when I was doing research on it in college, our theory was this.

I'm pretty sure that will be close enough still :-)

At elevated temperatures the grain structure of the metal undergoes enormous
changes (this is what causes annealing) as the grains grow they can grow
between separate but closely associated pieces of metal, Assuming that the
junction is chemically clean and free from oxides.

Isn't this what "brazing" refers to?

No.

Are you suggesting silver "sweats" (forms liquid beads) way below its
melting point?

Actually it can. metals alloyed together have an Gestalt proportion called
the eutectic. In the case of silver and copper it melts at a lower
temperature then either.

I'm aware of that, but these are not alloys - these are pure metals
made into a "Dagwood" sandwich - therefor the "eutectic" thingo
doesn't apply. If on the other hand you speak about a real
copper/silver alloy, as per your experiment - that is a different
story.

A eutectic can a,d soes apply in some cases, at the interface. Copper
will do this with gold, silver, aluminium and zinc, and no doubt a few
other metals besides.

But the term sweats as it applys to Mokume gane is kind of a misnomer. It
comes from the amount of blacksmiths we had on the project.

Whoever it was that said this, it was a person familiar with making
mokume gane. It is a visual indication of having reached the desired
point "when the silver starts to sweat" not the copper, but silver,
that has a lower melting point - a method that was used in ancient
times before thermometers and fancy little bench top gas kilns were
invented.

It was a term they used in forge welding iron, and refered to the surface
geting a greasy or oily appearance as the welding temperature is acheived.

...which is only just below melting point - yes THAT look I recognise.

For Mokume, the rule of thumb that we used was that this temperature was
roughly 2/3 of the eutectic temperature of the alloys involved.

That would be fine IF you were using "alloys" - in my example no
alloys are involved.




Eric Stevens

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.



Eric Stevens

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:30:53 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 02:36:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

---- snip ----

And while copper can be welded, in
an inert atmosphere, by melting, it can also be welded at lower temperature
by pressure.

You are wrong, particularly in the case of copper. The power in your
house comes to through a large number of cold welds formed merely by
pressure. This is true irrespective of whether you are supplied via
copper or aluminium cables.

I suspect you snipped the wrong text there! What you left isn't mine.

But then explain how come each strand of a multi-strand cable can
easily be separated from each other - even if very fine strands?

The point is that they have not been forced together under pressure.

Also
electricity uses only the surface of any wire - so it isn't as if it
holds the wire together either.

You are thinking of the 'skin effect' which applies to high
frequencies. You can ignore it for DC of ordinary AC.

I think you are confusing something
with "welding".


No it can't. "Pressure" in itself does almost nothing. A loaded
freight train running over a "copper" coin only flattens it and does
nothing else. It is the sudden impact pressure that causes the
molecules to move rapidly, that causes FRICTION, which in turn causes
heat and if sufficient sudden pressure is applied (eg hammer blow to
already hot metal) it CAN melt the material. To "weld" something by
definition requires bringing part of it to a liquid state - ie melted
in the portion being welded.

How do you explain the well known welding at ambient temperatures of
precision slip-gauges made of hardened steel? Leave them in contact
overnight and you will be lucky to get them apart in the morning.

Ahhhh..... nothing to do with welding at all. You are barking up the
wrong tree - try simple air pressure. Two steel blocks each with a
perfectly smooth surface, and you place those surfaces together - you
can lift the bottom block solely by lifting the top one (momentarily
at least). Air pressure, is what is holding them together. I have a
set of dies made for me by a tool-maker mate that I can demonstrate
exactly that with.

I bet they weren'r of grade 0 or 00 quality. If they were, you
wouldn't want to leave them together overnight.

Not knowing what a "slip-gauge" was, I looked it up and they tell the
same story.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~jcelce/sub...metrology.html
"The measuring faces of Slip Gauges have such a good surface finish
that when you place two gauges together with their measuring faces in
contact, and slide one gauge over the other, they will wring together.
Basically this means that they are almost stuck together, and that
they will not slide off each other easily."

Nothing at all to do with welding.




Eric Stevens

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Are you suggesting the "tears" are the result of (A) the pure copper having
been melted (B) because it is pure copper?

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur.

Atmospheric oxygen actually dissolves in molten copper, much as CO2
is dissolved in a soft drink. Take a common Coke, put it in the freezer,
come back in 30 minutes and pop the top. You get a foamy mess. The
same thing happens when molten copper freezes. The oxygen tries to
common back out of solution, causing the foamy mess copper workers
call characteristic porosity.

What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

How about when the native copper was formed? Masses of native
copper typically have small inclusions, bits of rock, silver, etc. In
particular, in the Keewenaw range, calcium carbonate inclusions
are common (refer back to the frequently referenced article giving
the geology of the region).

When calcium carbonate is heated, it decomposes into CO2 and
calcium oxide fume. The CO2 will blow a blister if the inclusion is
near the surface of the piece of heated native copper being
annealed.

You have to understand that native copper is chemically pure
(99+%) metallic copper by definition, but it is deposited in a rock
matrix where it is later found and mined. Small inclusions are
common. They aren't *chemically* combined with the copper,
the copper is still pure, but they are *mechanically* combined
with it.

Gary

Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...
I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?


Simply over annealing one time should not cause bubbles where no flaw
existed.
However, over annealing can play havoc with the grain size, subsequent
forging can start and then enlarge a separation caused either the weakened
grain structure or possibly a preexisting flaw. If gas or moisture is able
to permeate this separation, heating will will cause that gas to expand,
forming a blister.

The piece in question was the blade that had one single blister clearly
visible on the surface as well as in the radiograph.
If this piece were able to be radiographed from the side, I would bet that
the blister would be lentil shaped, showing clearily that it was caused by
the expansion of what had been a flat flaw.

This is not to say that the piece could not have been melted and the flaw
flattened by forging, but it also doesn't conclusively prove that it was
cast.


The cast piece was annealed 8 to 10 times in the course of it's forging.
That is a lot, considering it's length was only increased by 50%.
But the large crack on right the appeared in the first round of hammering
and I didn't want the piece to fall apart.

So it would appear that implied in the last statement is - the more
frequent annealing the better the outcome (for shape). Of course, in
this case you haven't trimmed the piece which might have been done in
that sort of situation of a severe crack by the ancients.


Yes, with a lot of annealing you can coax a lot out of even bad metal.
but the closer the anneal is to the finished product, the softer the
finished product would be.



This is true, but as cast copper is as soft as it can be and needs a
significant amount of hammering to harden it. For any edged tools or fish
hooks or awls, this would surely display the tendency to fracture. Sheet
goods also would require a lot of hammering.

Arrow and spear point are relatively small, and would want to be of a
medium hardness only - so the tips of retrieved arrows/spears would be
beneficial to NOT be too hard - so they will not break when missing
the target - and so they can be restored again when bent.


Even at it's hardest, copper is pretty darn soft.

Heavier decorative items or
ceremonial pieces would require much less work and cast preforms would
work
fine.



Certainly in Mexico casting was used even for very small items.

I have no idea of what purity of copper they were using.
Native copper essentialy is crystalized out of a superheated and
supersaturated geothermal stew.
The longer it takes this stew to cool the bigger and purer the crystals are.
The native copper in the UP tends to be of abnormaly high purity.
This is were the casting problems come from. Were they to melt a piece of
half breed with sufficient silver, there would be few problems casting it.

Paul K. Dickman

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

n Members of the Graduate Program Southern Illinois University Carbondale:
Marvin Jensen, Philip Baldwin, Stephen Brunst, Lori vanHouten, William Ard,
Janice Nathan, Randy Jones, Prof. L. Brent Kington, Prof. Richard Mawdsley;
“Return to the Forge: Extended Research into Mokume-Gane and Granulation”
Society of North American Goldsmiths 1979
Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...


"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...



I already said it was brazing. I couldn't think of the specific
decoration name before, but it is used in making "mokume gane" as
found, and originating on samurai sword handles from about 1600 -
1800.

Actually, Mokume Gane is not a brazing process, but a diffusion bonding
process similar to forge welding.

By definition "welding" does refer to melting of material to be joined
- be it in a forge, oxyacetylene or mig welding or whatever.

I didn't say it wasn't welding, I said it wasn't brazing.

I refer you to your words: "forge welding" that I replied to.

It occured well below the melting point of all the alloys involved.


Actually no "alloys" are involved - they are pure materials laminated
in mokume gane.

Horse hockey.

Here's a quote from;

http://www.mokume-gane.com/Papers/Sa...Fe%20Paper.pdf

The sword was one of the main areas of decorative metalwork in feudal Japan.
Some of the finest and most skillfully wrought metalwork in the world was
used
in the creation and outfitting of many of these swords. The innovation of
this
decorative technique is attributed to Denbei Shoami (1651-1728) a master
smith
from Akita prefecture.
Shoami’s first piece is comprised of layers of copper and shakudo (a
Japanese copper alloy that contains 2.5% to 4% pure gold) laminated to
create a tsuba (sword guard) that was carved and flattened. The effect is
similar to Chinese and Japanese lacquer work known as quiri-bori
“where thick parallel layers of alternating red and black lacquer are
built up to a considerable thickness and grooves are deeply incised to
expose colored lines on their sides” Shoami gradually learned to
flatten and to produce wood-grain patterns that lie on the surface of the
laminated mass.

I have no problem with any of the above being accurate. However I
return to *my* words in reply to Gary talking about silver inclusions
in copper artefacts where he claimed: "The presence of silver
inclusions *proves* the native copper was not melted after being
deposited." the "after being deposited" is read as being done by
nature, I point, among other things, to other uses being possible:

"Further more IIRC there is a method of laminating copper and silver
sheet and carving through one into the other. .... So silver in copper
can also be deliberate - as decoration." (Note, "in" being a typo,
should read "on")

Therefor there is no reference to an alloy at all - but later (when I
remembered what it was called) it was a reference to a particular
process, a process that isn't limited to any particular metals,
alloyed or otherwise.

I cannot speak to the state of the science now, but back in the late
70's,
when I was doing research on it in college, our theory was this.

I'm pretty sure that will be close enough still :-)

At elevated temperatures the grain structure of the metal undergoes
enormous
changes (this is what causes annealing) as the grains grow they can grow
between separate but closely associated pieces of metal, Assuming that
the
junction is chemically clean and free from oxides.

Isn't this what "brazing" refers to?

No, brazing requires a filler metal with a melting point below the metals
being joined

Fair enough you are right of course - only that it may well be the
silver sheet can be considered to be "a filler" (the lower melting
point metal of the two).

[..]
Actually it can. metals alloyed together have an Gestalt proportion
called
the eutectic. In the case of silver and copper it melts at a lower
temperature then either.

I'm aware of that, but these are not alloys - these are pure metals
made into a "Dagwood" sandwich - therefor the "eutectic" thingo
doesn't apply. If on the other hand you speak about a real
copper/silver alloy, as per your experiment - that is a different
story.

Again, they are not necessarily pure metals.

Indeed, only that it is what I was speaking about.

If they were (pure copper and fine silver) That bonding temperature would be
roughly 2/3 the liquidus temp of the silver/copper eutectic.

I can't see silver "sweating" at a lower temp than melting point. I
don't see the logic for your claim when we are not talking about an
alloy but two dissimilar and independent metals. Merely the fact of
them being adjoining should have no effect on the individual melting
temperatures.


But the term sweats as it applys to Mokume gane is kind of a misnomer. It
comes from the amount of blacksmiths we had on the project.

I look through my notes and found the origin of the term sweats in this
context, and I was wrong. I thought it was the crew I worked with as an
undergrad grunt at SIU in

Members of the Graduate Program Southern Illinois University Carbondale:
Marvin Jensen, Philip Baldwin, Stephen Brunst, Lori vanHouten, William Ard,
Janice Nathan, Randy Jones, Prof. L. Brent Kington, Prof. Richard Mawdsley;
“Return to the Forge: Extended Research into Mokume-Gane and Granulation”
Society of North American Goldsmiths 1979

but it was the Pijanowskis in

Oh, and here I thought that a "Return to the Forge" would indeed
result in sweating :-)

Pijanowski, Hiroko Sato and Pijanowski, Eugene M. “Lamination of Non-
Ferrous Metals by Diffusion: Adaptations of the Traditional Japanese
Technique
of Mokume-Gane” Goldsmiths Journal August 1977 pg 21

The Pijanowskis used a liquid phase bond that required a melted surface.

It is this process the "sweating" would refer to, I expect

However after Marv Jensen developed the torque plate clamping, I think that
even they went to the lower temp solid state diffusion

Well... there is another instance were a misleading and inappropriate
term is used again -"diffusion"- .... I don't think so!

DIFFUSION - noun [mass noun] the spreading of something more
widely.... Anthropology: the dissemination of elements of culture to
another region or people...... OED.

Why on earth not use the term "bond" or "fuse" meaning to join or
blend to form a single entity or "fusion" meaning, the process or
result of joining two or more things together to form a single entity?

Whoever it was that said this, it was a person familiar with making
mokume gane. It is a visual indication of having reached the desired
point "when the silver starts to sweat" not the copper, but silver,
that has a lower melting point - a method that was used in ancient
times before thermometers and fancy little bench top gas kilns were
invented.

So you are saying that native Americans working with stone tools could
manage to cast a largely uncastable metal,

A metal that WAS being cast in North America in pre-Columbian times,
you mean - the evidence isn't available to say conclusively either way
for the Michigan Copper specifically.

Don't sell people short just because they used stone tools - they
achieved far far more with them than we could ever do.

but the Japanese, who raised
metalwork to an artform rarely duplicated, couldn't judge temperatures

In fact I said exactly the opposite - that they COULD judge
temperature and described the method as "when the silver starts to
sweat".

As to people familar with making Mokume gane, I added two more photos to

http://tinyurl.com/3cw7p

Showing some of the Mokume gane I made during those years.

I saw those and wondered about the items...... excellent work!

Still I wonder why a wood grain effect was sought after when actual
wood is (A) much cheaper (B) even more decorative.

Here is how to do it:

http://www.celtarts.com/mokume.htm


[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:46:51 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:02:50 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:38:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:37:36 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

[..]
However if one considers that "bubbling" has been claimed to be caused
by "overheating" in a annealing process - then it is saying "melted"
at the same time, as it cannot bubble UNLESS a portion of it is
melted. Also "welding" requires the melting of the metal - or so
goddamned close to it that the friction heat generated by a blow on it
does melt the metal.

Reasonably pure copper can be welded at ambient temperatures merely by
pressure. MIllions of electrical connections rely on this property.

Anything can be welded at virtually any temperature by using pressure.
The Mini Minor crown wheel for the diff started off as a steel disc
cut off from a round billet. This was placed on a mould at the end of
a hydraulic ram, and the other half of the mould was on another
hydraulic ram. To form the crown wheel they were slammed together
under huge pressure - it made a very nice crown wheel - and fast!


You are confusing forging with welding.

Actually I referred to neither. I referred to the use of pressure only
as "merely by pressure" was your point.

But I was discussing welding. You seem to be confusing cold forging
with welding.


No, it appears that there is an issue of splitting hairs into quarters
again. At what point is something "melted"? It appears that it has to
also need the "melted" + "a length of time" to qualify as such.

So if you want to go pick up one of those crown wheels, with your bare
hands immediately AFTER it is made - the same piece of metal you put
into the die BEFORE the event with your bare hand - well go for it,
you say it is "cold" after all!


[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...



--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote in message ...
I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

Simply over annealing one time should not cause bubbles where no flaw
existed.

..... or even more than one time "where no flaw existed"....

However, over annealing can play havoc with the grain size, subsequent
forging can start and then enlarge a separation caused either the weakened
grain structure or possibly a preexisting flaw. If gas or moisture is able
to permeate this separation, heating will will cause that gas to expand,
forming a blister.

Yep, that is quite possible too - only then one would expect, under
close inspection, it would show a crack to the outside. Still one more
thing is required - the metal be hot enough to be quite "plastic" for
it to expand and form the bubble. Which isn't a long way away from it
being fully melted to a liquid form


The piece in question was the blade that had one single blister clearly
visible on the surface as well as in the radiograph.
If this piece were able to be radiographed from the side, I would bet that
the blister would be lentil shaped, showing clearily that it was caused by
the expansion of what had been a flat flaw.

As you have demonstrated the bubble's shape isn't a governing factor
of its cause.

This is not to say that the piece could not have been melted and the flaw
flattened by forging, but it also doesn't conclusively prove that it was
cast.

The problem being two fold. One the radiographed picture showing the
bubble isn't large enough to see if it has any associated porosity
with it. Again forging can have reduced the visibility of such as well
as any telltale shape of the bubble. The only other "clue" is the text
claiming "proof" of "cast". Until proven to the contrary, one would
have to assume they had a better view of the radiograph and physical
inspection of the artefact than we have from the web page - secondly
that they have the knowledge of the effect of casting - as well as
forging of cast billets.

I for one am not prepared to reject their view on the basis of the
information able to be seen on the web page. Instead I would say even
IF it is cast, it is insufficient evidence to claim any common
practise of casting from those few artefacts without further
investigation.

The cast piece was annealed 8 to 10 times in the course of it's forging.
That is a lot, considering it's length was only increased by 50%.
But the large crack on right the appeared in the first round of hammering
and I didn't want the piece to fall apart.

So it would appear that implied in the last statement is - the more
frequent annealing the better the outcome (for shape). Of course, in
this case you haven't trimmed the piece which might have been done in
that sort of situation of a severe crack by the ancients.

Yes, with a lot of annealing you can coax a lot out of even bad metal.

Yes, I though it was probably the case - here it is worth noting that
the "bad" is a relative term and to the ancients it probably wasn't as
"bad" as it would be to modern craftsmen.

but the closer the anneal is to the finished product, the softer the
finished product would be.

Yep. Here again is information that isn't known or at least readily
available.

This is true, but as cast copper is as soft as it can be and needs a
significant amount of hammering to harden it. For any edged tools or fish
hooks or awls, this would surely display the tendency to fracture. Sheet
goods also would require a lot of hammering.

Arrow and spear point are relatively small, and would want to be of a
medium hardness only - so the tips of retrieved arrows/spears would be
beneficial to NOT be too hard - so they will not break when missing
the target - and so they can be restored again when bent.


Even at it's hardest, copper is pretty darn soft.

But they wouldn't know that. What they would note is that the tips
would break after having been bent and unbent several times. Sharpness
to the point and sides of a projectile tip would probably be more
important to them than the hardness.

Heavier decorative items or
ceremonial pieces would require much less work and cast preforms would
work
fine.

Certainly in Mexico casting was used even for very small items.

I have no idea of what purity of copper they were using.

It was mined in West Mexico, and exported to where it was used.

Native copper essentialy is crystalized out of a superheated and
supersaturated geothermal stew.
The longer it takes this stew to cool the bigger and purer the crystals are.
The native copper in the UP tends to be of abnormaly high purity.

So I believe. I have no idea of the purity of copper from Mexico, but
this is stated:

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/outrea...004_winter.pdf
"Bells of native copper were among the exotic goods excavated in
Chihuahua, Mexico ......" As I understand it "native copper" is a
reference to rather pure copper.

This is were the casting problems come from. Were they to melt a piece of
half breed with sufficient silver, there would be few problems casting it.

Paul K. Dickman

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors wrote:
"Paul K. Dickman" wrote:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Are you suggesting the "tears" are the result of (A) the pure copper having
been melted (B) because it is pure copper?

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur.

Atmospheric oxygen actually dissolves in molten copper,

Thank you that were the words I was looking for those that equals or
points to "melted".... and this I have no problem with.

[..]


What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

How about when the native copper was formed?

OH no you don't! You claimed "chemical" remember - not "melted".


Masses of native
copper typically have small inclusions, bits of rock, silver, etc. In
particular, in the Keewenaw range, calcium carbonate inclusions
are common (refer back to the frequently referenced article giving
the geology of the region).

....as I have been suggesting - small pieces made bigger via
melting....

When calcium carbonate is heated, it decomposes into CO2 and
calcium oxide fume. The CO2 will blow a blister if the inclusion is
near the surface of the piece of heated native copper being
annealed.

You have to understand that native copper is chemically pure
(99+%) metallic copper by definition, but it is deposited in a rock
matrix where it is later found and mined. Small inclusions are
common. They aren't *chemically* combined with the copper,
the copper is still pure, but they are *mechanically* combined
with it.

We were talking about so called "native copper" - ie PURE copper. My
pointing to inclusions of all sorts of other imperfections among the
"pure copper" veins has been rejected as it tends to point to a
necessity of purification via melting. Isn't this argument now
supporting my earlier suggestions, previously rejected? You are now
the second person to point to "melting" for the bubble to occur/form.




--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:18:46 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:46:51 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:02:50 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:38:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:37:36 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

[..]
However if one considers that "bubbling" has been claimed to be caused
by "overheating" in a annealing process - then it is saying "melted"
at the same time, as it cannot bubble UNLESS a portion of it is
melted. Also "welding" requires the melting of the metal - or so
goddamned close to it that the friction heat generated by a blow on it
does melt the metal.

Reasonably pure copper can be welded at ambient temperatures merely by
pressure. MIllions of electrical connections rely on this property.

Anything can be welded at virtually any temperature by using pressure.
The Mini Minor crown wheel for the diff started off as a steel disc
cut off from a round billet. This was placed on a mould at the end of
a hydraulic ram, and the other half of the mould was on another
hydraulic ram. To form the crown wheel they were slammed together
under huge pressure - it made a very nice crown wheel - and fast!


You are confusing forging with welding.

Actually I referred to neither. I referred to the use of pressure only
as "merely by pressure" was your point.

But I was discussing welding. You seem to be confusing cold forging
with welding.


No, it appears that there is an issue of splitting hairs into quarters
again. At what point is something "melted"? It appears that it has to
also need the "melted" + "a length of time" to qualify as such.

So if you want to go pick up one of those crown wheels, with your bare
hands immediately AFTER it is made - the same piece of metal you put
into the die BEFORE the event with your bare hand - well go for it,
you say it is "cold" after all!


As in so many other areas, your knowledge of metallurgy appears to be
unique.



Eric Stevens

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.
In much the same way hydrogen is soluble in iron at ambient
temperatures. Look up 'hydrogen embrittlement' if you don't believe
me.




Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:30:53 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 02:36:09 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

---- snip ----

And while copper can be welded, in
an inert atmosphere, by melting, it can also be welded at lower temperature
by pressure.

You are wrong, particularly in the case of copper. The power in your
house comes to through a large number of cold welds formed merely by
pressure. This is true irrespective of whether you are supplied via
copper or aluminium cables.

I suspect you snipped the wrong text there! What you left isn't mine.

But then explain how come each strand of a multi-strand cable can
easily be separated from each other - even if very fine strands?

The point is that they have not been forced together under pressure.

If you add enough pressure to distort metal you cause friction and
friction causes heat, the heat is sufficient to "weld" - whatever you
are joining.

Also
electricity uses only the surface of any wire - so it isn't as if it
holds the wire together either.

You are thinking of the 'skin effect' which applies to high
frequencies. You can ignore it for DC of ordinary AC.

You tell that to my brother-in-law and nephew (both electricians), and
they will have a good laugh..... of course it matters for both AC and
DC - it governs the current the cable can carry. I refer you to fuse
wire as an example.

[..]

Ahhhh..... nothing to do with welding at all. You are barking up the
wrong tree - try simple air pressure. Two steel blocks each with a
perfectly smooth surface, and you place those surfaces together - you
can lift the bottom block solely by lifting the top one (momentarily
at least). Air pressure, is what is holding them together. I have a
set of dies made for me by a tool-maker mate that I can demonstrate
exactly that with.

I bet they weren'r of grade 0 or 00 quality. If they were, you
wouldn't want to leave them together overnight.

A reference to a "set of dies" does rather tell you of harsh use - eg
subject to impacts therefor excessively fine tolerances are not
wanted/needed. Further to that the tools are much finer than
commercially bought similar items. They are quite sufficient to
demonstrate the effect.

[..]


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

There are two ways to bond mokume. Three if you count a melt down as one

Difusion bonding, done under pressure and under the mealting temp. of the
resulting alloy at the bond surface.

The 'sweating' way, where it is done under much less pressure and idealy
right at the melting temp of the alloy made at the juntion of the base
metals. If too hot the base metals start to melt and that happens too often
to me But I have learned better too hot than too cold.

Les

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:18:46 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:46:51 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:02:50 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:38:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:
[..]
Anything can be welded at virtually any temperature by using pressure.
The Mini Minor crown wheel for the diff started off as a steel disc
cut off from a round billet. This was placed on a mould at the end of
a hydraulic ram, and the other half of the mould was on another
hydraulic ram. To form the crown wheel they were slammed together
under huge pressure - it made a very nice crown wheel - and fast!


You are confusing forging with welding.

Actually I referred to neither. I referred to the use of pressure only
as "merely by pressure" was your point.

But I was discussing welding. You seem to be confusing cold forging
with welding.


No, it appears that there is an issue of splitting hairs into quarters
again. At what point is something "melted"? It appears that it has to
also need the "melted" + "a length of time" to qualify as such.

So if you want to go pick up one of those crown wheels, with your bare
hands immediately AFTER it is made - the same piece of metal you put
into the die BEFORE the event with your bare hand - well go for it,
you say it is "cold" after all!


As in so many other areas, your knowledge of metallurgy appears to be
unique.

So "unique" that you cannot find a hole in the arguments I put to you,
instead you find a need attack me personally not only on this but also
"in so many other areas" - your mere assertions amounts to nothing.
Remember the last time you resorted to something like this - can I
just mention "slide rule" to remind you, hmmm?



--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.


"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/solid%20solution

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:18:41 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:18:46 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:46:51 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:02:50 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:38:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:
[..]
Anything can be welded at virtually any temperature by using pressure.
The Mini Minor crown wheel for the diff started off as a steel disc
cut off from a round billet. This was placed on a mould at the end of
a hydraulic ram, and the other half of the mould was on another
hydraulic ram. To form the crown wheel they were slammed together
under huge pressure - it made a very nice crown wheel - and fast!


You are confusing forging with welding.

Actually I referred to neither. I referred to the use of pressure only
as "merely by pressure" was your point.

But I was discussing welding. You seem to be confusing cold forging
with welding.


No, it appears that there is an issue of splitting hairs into quarters
again. At what point is something "melted"? It appears that it has to
also need the "melted" + "a length of time" to qualify as such.

So if you want to go pick up one of those crown wheels, with your bare
hands immediately AFTER it is made - the same piece of metal you put
into the die BEFORE the event with your bare hand - well go for it,
you say it is "cold" after all!


As in so many other areas, your knowledge of metallurgy appears to be
unique.

So "unique" that you cannot find a hole in the arguments I put to you,
instead you find a need attack me personally not only on this but also
"in so many other areas" - your mere assertions amounts to nothing.
Remember the last time you resorted to something like this - can I
just mention "slide rule" to remind you, hmmm?

The question then was whether 43/7 equalled 18/3. I said it didn't.
You insisted it did. I think I abandoned that argument at the point
when you effectively resorted to arguing that 'approximately' is
identical to 'exactly'.

Apart from that, those forging blanks were NEVER hot enough to melt.
It was NOT NECESSARY that they be melted for them to be reformed. One
of the reasons for forging is to presever the original grain flow of
the lank and that would be lost if the blank was melted.



Eric Stevens

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."

The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:18:41 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:18:46 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:46:51 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:02:50 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 07:38:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:
[..]
Anything can be welded at virtually any temperature by using pressure.
The Mini Minor crown wheel for the diff started off as a steel disc
cut off from a round billet. This was placed on a mould at the end of
a hydraulic ram, and the other half of the mould was on another
hydraulic ram. To form the crown wheel they were slammed together
under huge pressure - it made a very nice crown wheel - and fast!


You are confusing forging with welding.

Actually I referred to neither. I referred to the use of pressure only
as "merely by pressure" was your point.

But I was discussing welding. You seem to be confusing cold forging
with welding.


No, it appears that there is an issue of splitting hairs into quarters
again. At what point is something "melted"? It appears that it has to
also need the "melted" + "a length of time" to qualify as such.

So if you want to go pick up one of those crown wheels, with your bare
hands immediately AFTER it is made - the same piece of metal you put
into the die BEFORE the event with your bare hand - well go for it,
you say it is "cold" after all!


As in so many other areas, your knowledge of metallurgy appears to be
unique.

So "unique" that you cannot find a hole in the arguments I put to you,
instead you find a need attack me personally not only on this but also
"in so many other areas" - your mere assertions amounts to nothing.
Remember the last time you resorted to something like this - can I
just mention "slide rule" to remind you, hmmm?

The question then was whether 43/7 equalled 18/3. I said it didn't.
You insisted it did.

I can no longer recall the number, and care even less - FACT is that
they are close enough to being equal. So in ancient times if they used
**** houses as one set of measurements, and yard arms for the other,
they are close enough considering no fractions were used - a
measurement for which an APPROXIMATE conversions was given - a
measurement for which that level of accuracy is more than adequate.

You came unstuck on that one and still are all at sea with it - as
your recent argument about a nautical mile and "great circle"
circumference measure, which is ANY circle around ANY part of the
globe, when the specific circumference given was at the equator -
nowhere else. Something that varied sometimes by a few meters - like
WOW!!

I think I abandoned that argument at the point
when you effectively resorted to arguing that 'approximately' is
identical to 'exactly'.

When ONLY approximates were given then only an approximate can be
VALID and can NEVER mean your petty hair splitting "accurate" claimed
to be achieved FROM an "approximate" - it can't. Simple as that. You
are resorting to the same sort of nonsense game again!!

Apart from that, those forging blanks were NEVER hot enough to melt.

Prove it!

It was NOT NECESSARY that they be melted for them to be reformed.

Prove it! Remember you are talking about a fraction of a second in
time as well.

One
of the reasons for forging is to presever the original grain flow of
the lank and that would be lost if the blank was melted.

(I have no idea what relevance "long, limp, and straight" (lank) has
to anything here so I'll ignore the term.)

Not true for the particular example given - other similar items are
cast and machined in the traditional manner. Again you only make
totally unsubstantiated assertions and do not speak about the reason
WHY at all! You know, that thing that makes it work and proves your
claims. Haven't you found it on the net yet?

So let is look at this "grain flow" claim:

This is advertising spoof for a Japanese made Golf club:
"Grain Flow Forging exceeds the conventional forging process by
repeating the high pressure compression process to ensure a tight
uniform grain structure through the clubhead. Each head is forged from
one piece ensuring an uninhibited grain flow through the head and
neck."

So there of forging and "grain flow forging" - apparently... but - no
hammering - hydraulically pressed from a single small billet - ie mass
produced by machines where SPEED of production is of prime importance.
Another source says:

"Forging refines the grain structure and improves physical properties
of the metal. With proper design, the grain flow can be oriented in
the direction of principal stresses encountered in actual use. Grain
flow is the direction of the pattern that the crystals take during
plastic deformation."

So a lot of gobbledegook in reality if compared to your "expert" claim
of "preserves the original grain flow" and "cold". Which is a load of
nonsense for the example I provided - it isn't important. What IS
important is unit speed of production and therefor unit cost of the
production. So slam two dies together and form a crown wheel for a
Mini in a fraction of a second at tremendous pressures like up to
some 50,000 tons and tell me no part of it did melt at any stage! Oh
and you call this "cold forging", when the more correct term is
"Open-die forging" or "Closed-die forging" or even "Two stage
closed-die forging". There is nothing "cold" about it.

Oh and to finish off with the golf club:

"Ageing the head at elevated temperature optimizes strength and
softness." Oh well...... so much for the "cold"....


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.

It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".

SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."

See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!

The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.

The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:03:39 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

--- snip ----

One
of the reasons for forging is to presever the original grain flow of
the lank and that would be lost if the blank was melted.

My apologies. I should have typed

"One of the reasons for forging is to preserve the original grain
flow of the blank and that would be lost if the blank was melted."

http://www.efunda.com/processes/meta...ng/Forging.cfm explains
it very concisely.


(I have no idea what relevance "long, limp, and straight" (lank) has
to anything here so I'll ignore the term.)

Not true for the particular example given - other similar items are
cast and machined in the traditional manner. Again you only make
totally unsubstantiated assertions and do not speak about the reason
WHY at all! You know, that thing that makes it work and proves your
claims. Haven't you found it on the net yet?

See above

So let is look at this "grain flow" claim:

This is advertising spoof for a Japanese made Golf club:
"Grain Flow Forging exceeds the conventional forging process by
repeating the high pressure compression process to ensure a tight
uniform grain structure through the clubhead. Each head is forged from
one piece ensuring an uninhibited grain flow through the head and
neck."

So there of forging and "grain flow forging" - apparently... but - no
hammering - hydraulically pressed from a single small billet - ie mass
produced by machines where SPEED of production is of prime importance.
Another source says:

"Forging refines the grain structure and improves physical properties
of the metal. With proper design, the grain flow can be oriented in
the direction of principal stresses encountered in actual use. Grain
flow is the direction of the pattern that the crystals take during
plastic deformation."

All fairly straightforward.

So a lot of gobbledegook in reality if compared to your "expert" claim
of "preserves the original grain flow" and "cold". Which is a load of
nonsense for the example I provided - it isn't important. What IS
important is unit speed of production and therefor unit cost of the
production. So slam two dies together and form a crown wheel for a
Mini in a fraction of a second at tremendous pressures like up to
some 50,000 tons and tell me no part of it did melt at any stage! Oh
and you call this "cold forging", when the more correct term is
"Open-die forging" or "Closed-die forging" or even "Two stage
closed-die forging". There is nothing "cold" about it.

Nor is there any melting.

Oh and to finish off with the golf club:

"Ageing the head at elevated temperature optimizes strength and
softness." Oh well...... so much for the "cold"....

700C is elevated but still far below melting.

More than enough of that subject. If you won't learn, then you won't.



Eric Stevens

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".


SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!


The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.


Seppo,

Read and absorb:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/solid%20solution

Including:

"Noun 1. solid solution - a homogeneous solid that can exist
over a range of component chemicals; a constituent of alloys
that is formed when atoms of an element are incorporated into
the crystals of a metal"

And:

"solution - a homogeneous mixture of two or more substances;
frequently (but not necessarily) a liquid solution; "he used a
solution of peroxide and water"".

Tom McDonald

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:03:39 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:

--- snip ----

One
of the reasons for forging is to presever the original grain flow of
the lank and that would be lost if the blank was melted.

My apologies. I should have typed

"One of the reasons for forging is to preserve the original grain
flow of the blank and that would be lost if the blank was melted."

http://www.efunda.com/processes/meta...ng/Forging.cfm explains
it very concisely.

Seen it - it doesn't advance your claims at all cnosidering the "grain
flow" is not a consideration.

(I have no idea what relevance "long, limp, and straight" (lank) has
to anything here so I'll ignore the term.)

Not true for the particular example given - other similar items are
cast and machined in the traditional manner. Again you only make
totally unsubstantiated assertions and do not speak about the reason
WHY at all! You know, that thing that makes it work and proves your
claims. Haven't you found it on the net yet?

See above

Nothing there - doesn't discuss the process I mentioned.

So let is look at this "grain flow" claim:

This is advertising spoof for a Japanese made Golf club:
"Grain Flow Forging exceeds the conventional forging process by
repeating the high pressure compression process to ensure a tight
uniform grain structure through the clubhead. Each head is forged from
one piece ensuring an uninhibited grain flow through the head and
neck."

So there of forging and "grain flow forging" - apparently... but - no
hammering - hydraulically pressed from a single small billet - ie mass
produced by machines where SPEED of production is of prime importance.
Another source says:

"Forging refines the grain structure and improves physical properties
of the metal. With proper design, the grain flow can be oriented in
the direction of principal stresses encountered in actual use. Grain
flow is the direction of the pattern that the crystals take during
plastic deformation."

All fairly straightforward.

So why is it that you are totally unable to explain it?

So a lot of gobbledegook in reality if compared to your "expert" claim
of "preserves the original grain flow" and "cold". Which is a load of
nonsense for the example I provided - it isn't important. What IS
important is unit speed of production and therefor unit cost of the
production. So slam two dies together and form a crown wheel for a
Mini in a fraction of a second at tremendous pressures like up to
some 50,000 tons and tell me no part of it did melt at any stage! Oh
and you call this "cold forging", when the more correct term is
"Open-die forging" or "Closed-die forging" or even "Two stage
closed-die forging". There is nothing "cold" about it.

Nor is there any melting.

A parrot on a cage can do just as good as that - therefor it is
arguable the parrot's knowledge is comparable to yours :-)

Oh and to finish off with the golf club:

"Ageing the head at elevated temperature optimizes strength and
softness." Oh well...... so much for the "cold"....

700C is elevated but still far below melting.

You cannot know what they have in mind for "elevated" it is a relative
term and all you can relate it to is the melting point. In that case
it is far more likely the "elevated" is far greater then 700C!!

More than enough of that subject. If you won't learn, then you won't.

Learn what? You have provided nothing to learn from! On the other
hand, you are in the process of learning youself. Here is another
lesson for you:

"A material exists as a solid when it is below its freezing point."
and "Keep in mind that a material's freezing point is the same as its
melting point." - Steve Gagnon, Science Education Specialist!

Please don't confuse "solid" with "solution" again.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".


SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!


The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.


Seppo,

Read and absorb:

I already ignored that nonsense before.

CONTEXT - you missed the CONTEXT that governed the terminology and
therefor its meaning.

Eric's reply was:

"At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper" to the question
"How does the gases get in that causes the bubbles?" in relation to
annealing.

Therefor it is NOT possible Eric was referring to the chemistry of a
solid mixture containing a minor component uniformly distributed
within the crystal lattice of the major component because:

(A) it doesn't "dissolve" into the copper because of annealing the
reasons being
(i) It requires the movement of the crystal structure to create
spaces to "dissolve" into

(B) IF spaces exist there already is something in these spaces as a
vacuum cannot exist.
(i) It means the material is porous enough to use as a filter.
(ii) The copper is not pure.
(iii) If the substance in (i) is oxygen, then it would revert to a
copper oxide in no time and couldn't exist as pure.

(C) Your term fails completely as in the annealing process it is NOT
possible to get anything "uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice" of a piece of copper, as is required by the term you attempt
to use.

(D) The (whatever) that is uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice has to be there from the moment of the crystal formation.
(i) Then it cannot be the answer given by Eric.
(ii) There is no proof there IS any space to contain anything in
pure copper (remember it includes MODERN melted pure copper) in the
aforesaid form.


All this is something that really needs no thinking about - it is self
evident and obvious from the moment of seeing the term. Your attempt
was another of those "Good morning - Axe handle" type cases.


[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 11:44:08 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
There is NO weld technique which produces a weld with metallurgy
identical to the the parent metals. ANY weld technique leads to a
discontinuity in material properties in or around the weld zone which
ALWAYS results in a propensity for the welded structure to fail in or
around the weld zone rather than the parent metal.

Incorrect. Consult a good welding text such as "Modern Welding" by
Althouse and Turnquist (the most widely used, and most authoritative,
welding textbook).

It is true that fusion welding produces a HAZ (Heat Affected Zone) around
the actual weld joint. This can significantly alter the properties of *some*
materials, namely medium and high carbon steels, some alloy steels, and
some aluminum alloys. But *part of the welding process* in those cases is
post-weld heat treatment to restore those properties to their original pre-
weld state. In other words, you haven't completed the welding process for
those materials until you've done the post heat treatment.

For materials such as mild steel, the most commonly welded material,
there is no such concern. The HAZ doesn't affect the material properties.
That's because mild steel has too little carbon in the solid solution to
produce the phase changes that could alter its crystaline structure.
A *competent* welder will also choose an appropriate alloy filler material
so that the fusion zone won't have different properties from the parents
either.

It is well to note too that different welding techniques produce differing
size HAZ. TIG welding produces less than arc, MIG produces less than
either, and exotic techniques such as laser welding produce practically
none at all.

Now you are postulating *cold welding* for the gage blocks, and that
produces *no HAZ at all*. So the material properties surrounding the
weld joint would not be altered *at all*. Of course cold welding isn't
what's actually happening when you wring gage blocks together, but
if it were, you'd still be wrong.

Gary

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:33:03 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:


On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:21:22 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:


On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:49:44 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:



They are a result of the small air bubbles trapped throughout the metal
caused by melting it in less than controlled conditions.

I can understand that during a melting process where molecules are at
their most active, some reaction to air and a certain amount of mixing
can occur. What I find difficult is that an annealing process causes
bubbles -UNLESS it is overheated to a melting point locally. How else
does something get INTO the metal to cause bubbles when it is pure to
begin with?

At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper.

So you say the copper has to be melted at that point, as you claim
"soluble" - in a SOLUTION! As I thought...

Oxygen is soluble in copper at temperatures below its melting point.

"Soluble" is a word that refers to something dissolving into a liquid
mixture of (whatever). You cannot have something "dissolve" (also
related to "solution") into a solid so it remains solid! Impossible!

That's because your definition is wrong.


It isn't mine - it is merely the world authority on the English
language you are saying is "wrong".



SOLUBLE - adjective 1 (of a substance) able to be dissolved,
especially in water - OED.
DISSOLVE - verb 1 [no obj.] (of a solid) become incorporated into a
liquid so as to form a solution - OED.
SOLUTION - noun 2 a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the
solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the
solvent). [mass noun] the process or state of being dissolved in a
solvent. - OED.

QED
[..]

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1407
"Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by the presence of hydrogen atoms
within the crystal lattice structure of a metal or alloy. In the
galvanising process, hydrogen may be absorbed in the steel during
the pickling process through contact with the hydrogen ions present
in the hydrochloric acid."


See, no mention at all of "soluble, solution or dissolve" even though
a solution IS involved. This is because the are not relevant! Mind you
I really would like to see "pickled steel" I wonder is it anything
like pickled onions.... or gurkins..... still it has nothing to do
with the actual subject - copper and annealing which is NOT
"galavanising steel" involving "hydrochloric acid"!



The definition you quoted is correct for the world of cups of tea etc
but has to be expanded to take into account the wider range of
phenomena experienced in the real world.


The definitions *I* quoted are the accurate for the English language
and they really ARE the "real world" you know. There does exits
perfectly good words for other processed eg - as above "absorbed" -
you do NOT need to abuse and misuse the language.



Seppo,

Read and absorb:


I already ignored that nonsense before.

CONTEXT - you missed the CONTEXT that governed the terminology and
therefor its meaning.

Eric's reply was:

"At high temperatures oxygen is soluble in copper" to the question
"How does the gases get in that causes the bubbles?" in relation to
annealing.

Therefor it is NOT possible Eric was referring to the chemistry of a
solid mixture containing a minor component uniformly distributed
within the crystal lattice of the major component because:

(A) it doesn't "dissolve" into the copper because of annealing the
reasons being
(i) It requires the movement of the crystal structure to create
spaces to "dissolve" into

(B) IF spaces exist there already is something in these spaces as a
vacuum cannot exist.
(i) It means the material is porous enough to use as a filter.
(ii) The copper is not pure.
(iii) If the substance in (i) is oxygen, then it would revert to a
copper oxide in no time and couldn't exist as pure.

(C) Your term fails completely as in the annealing process it is NOT
possible to get anything "uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice" of a piece of copper, as is required by the term you attempt
to use.

(D) The (whatever) that is uniformly distributed within the crystal
lattice has to be there from the moment of the crystal formation.
(i) Then it cannot be the answer given by Eric.
(ii) There is no proof there IS any space to contain anything in
pure copper (remember it includes MODERN melted pure copper) in the
aforesaid form.


All this is something that really needs no thinking about - it is self
evident and obvious from the moment of seeing the term. Your attempt
was another of those "Good morning - Axe handle" type cases.


[..]


You're funny, Seppo. Don't ever change.

Tom McDonald