I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen), or if
one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be reduced
to using methods from the 1600s?

Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or anything;
I'm just curious.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after
more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply
to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen),
or if
one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be
reduced
to using methods from the 1600s?

Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or
anything;
I'm just curious.

Tim Wescott

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_steel

I've seen a reference somewhere on making carbon steel from wrought
iron in a horizontal-draft forge. As it absorbs carbon the melting
point decreases, so the smith continually removes the molten droplets.
http://www.corrosionist.com/iron%20c...%20diagram.jpg

jsw

Tim Wescott wrote:
I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen), or if
one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be reduced
to using methods from the 1600s?

Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or anything;
I'm just curious.

Just guessing but I'd say no because of the square-
cube law and the heat needed.

OTOH, you're the man that made that tiny engine
run...

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:29:04 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen)

No. They involve working with large amounts of molten steel and
forcing air, oxygen-rich iron ore, or pure oxygen into them to burn
out the excess carbon, while fluxing the whole mess to remove unwanted
elements.

, or if
one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be reduced
to using methods from the 1600s?

Yes. There are small-scale ways to burn out excess carbon and to flux
out unwanted elements. They make steel about as valuable as a precious
metal, but they appear to be fun for some folks.


Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or anything;
I'm just curious.

It's a good thing to be curious about. The history of steelmaking is
fascinating. It's a good armchair study for metalworking hobbyists,
and it will give you some very useful information to help you
understand that incredibly diverse and versatile material -- steel.

Keep in mind that steel is nothing more than iron with a carbon
content that falls into a specific range -- more or less, 0.08% -
2.1%, and that contains little or no sulfur, calcium, silicon,
phosphorus, or some other elements. Some specialty steels add specific
quantitites of these elements back in, to improve machineability, etc.

Beyond that, it's a study that can keep you occupied for a very long
time.

--
Ed Huntress

Check out Wikipedia for "backyard furnace", which were used in the
great Leap Forward in China.

i
On 2012-03-12, Tim Wescott wrote:
I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen), or if
one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be reduced
to using methods from the 1600s?

Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or anything;
I'm just curious.

On 3/12/2012 11:24 AM, Ignoramus12788 wrote:
Check out Wikipedia for "backyard furnace", which were used in the
great Leap Forward in China.

Small-scale economic activity is loathed by the left wing. It makes it
harder to regulate and tax, and the economies of scale just aren't there
to allow for health insurance deductions, Americans with Disabilities
Act enforcement (e.g. special toilets and parking for "handicapped"), etc.


On 2012-03-12, Tim wrote:
I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen), or if
one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be reduced
to using methods from the 1600s?

Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or anything;
I'm just curious.

On 2012-03-12, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/12/2012 11:24 AM, Ignoramus12788 wrote:
Check out Wikipedia for "backyard furnace", which were used in the
great Leap Forward in China.

Small-scale economic activity is loathed by the left wing. It makes it
harder to regulate and tax, and the economies of scale just aren't there
to allow for health insurance deductions, Americans with Disabilities
Act enforcement (e.g. special toilets and parking for "handicapped"), etc.

What does your comment have to do with my post?

i


On 2012-03-12, Tim wrote:
I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen), or if
one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be reduced
to using methods from the 1600s?

Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or anything;
I'm just curious.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:57:03 -0700, Jim Stewart wrote:

Tim Wescott wrote:
I was just Wiki-walking instead of working, and while reading the
Wikipedia page on steel, came across the statement:

"Though steel had been produced by various inefficient methods long
before the Renaissance, its use became more common after more-efficient
production methods were devised in the 17th century. "

And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to
the small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen),
or if one were inclined to do a spot of home steel-making would one be
reduced to using methods from the 1600s?

Not that I'm going to go digging for iron ore on my property or
anything; I'm just curious.

Just guessing but I'd say no because of the square- cube law and the
heat needed.

OTOH, you're the man that made that tiny engine run...

That was hardly tiny as such engines go, just kinda small.

The smallest production model airplane engine that I know of was the Albon
Diesel, at 0.009 cubic inches; Cox successfully made an 0.01 cubic inch
glow motor for years. Individual machinists have made engines as small
as half that size, and made them run.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

No.
and Yes,
as previously mentioned.

There is a a huge difference, though between wresting iron from iron ore and
converting high carbon iron compounds (think cast iron) into "steel".

Folks that I hang around with are messing with these things on a regular
basis. We have used processes, mostly, that were around as long as about
150 BCE, and well before. The largest bloom from one of these events that I
have ever seen personally weighed in at under 100 pounds.
Anything bigger than that is well out of the scope of the home shop, I'd
say.
These are always batch mode processes that no self respecting steel mill
would put up with for 10 seconds.

Took at least 4 or 5 people, at lot of preparation, and then at least 4
hours in the furnace, but often 10 hours or more. And that's before forging
the bloom into something you could actually call steel.

Tried to go continuous in 1992. Ran for 10 days X 24 hours. Burned 8 tons
of charcoal and got maybe 800 pounds of questionable bloom.

They'll be doing this at the biannual ABANA conference in Rapid City, SD in
mid July if you want to see it for yourself. (www.abana.org)

Pete Stanaitis
----------------

"Pete S" wrote in message

Folks that I hang around with are messing with these things on a
regular basis. We have used processes, mostly, that were around as
long as about 150 BCE, and well before. The largest bloom from one
of these events that I have ever seen personally weighed in at under
100 pounds.
Anything bigger than that is well out of the scope of the home
shop, I'd say.

Pete Stanaitis

On an extremely small home scale you can melt steel into a puddle and
add whatever alloying elements you want with a TIG torch. Or you could
try removing some of them by zone refining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_melting

jsw

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:59:49 -0500, Ignoramus12788
wrote:

On 2012-03-12, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/12/2012 11:24 AM, Ignoramus12788 wrote:
Check out Wikipedia for "backyard furnace", which were used in the
great Leap Forward in China.

Small-scale economic activity is loathed by the left wing. It makes it
harder to regulate and tax, and the economies of scale just aren't there
to allow for health insurance deductions, Americans with Disabilities
Act enforcement (e.g. special toilets and parking for "handicapped"), etc.

What does your comment have to do with my post?

I think the troll (hint) was trying to point out how hard it is for
your boss (The O) to make any money off backyard foundries.

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann

On Mar 12, 1:00*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen)

No. They involve working with large amounts of molten steel and
forcing air, oxygen-rich iron ore, or pure oxygen into them to burn
out the excess carbon, while fluxing the whole mess to remove unwanted
elements.


Ed Huntress


The number of people involved is not a good way to define small scale.
I toured the Nucor steel mill in West Seattle and there were only
about a dozen people working per shift.


Dan

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 12, 1:00*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


And it made me wonder -- do any of these _efficient_ methods apply to the
small-scale workshop (i.e., one or two people, or at most a dozen)

No. They involve working with large amounts of molten steel and
forcing air, oxygen-rich iron ore, or pure oxygen into them to burn
out the excess carbon, while fluxing the whole mess to remove unwanted
elements.


Ed Huntress


The number of people involved is not a good way to define small scale.
I toured the Nucor steel mill in West Seattle and there were only
about a dozen people working per shift.

For a highly automated, multi-million-dollar industrial plant. It
appears that Tim is asking about a hobby-scale operation.

As someone pointed out, the fuel consumption, alone, is incredible in
small-scale steel production. There is no way I've ever heard of to
make an "efficient" setup on that scale.

--
Ed Huntress



Dan

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:31:53 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 3/12/2012 11:24 AM, Ignoramus12788 wrote:
Check out Wikipedia for "backyard furnace", which were used in the
great Leap Forward in China.

Small-scale economic activity is loathed by the left wing. It makes it
harder to regulate and tax, and the economies of scale just aren't there
to allow for health insurance deductions, Americans with Disabilities
Act enforcement (e.g. special toilets and parking for "handicapped"), etc.

An interesting and enlightened response to a remark stating that
perhaps the most dedicated communist nation in the world employed
them.
And with your vast knowledge and veracity you state the activity is
"loathed by the left".

It is apparent that (1) you are ignorant, and (2) a fool for
demonstrating the fact so blatantly on so public a medium as the
Usenet.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


Some ideas:
http://www.consarc.com/brochures/var.pdf
http://www.metallab.net/arcmelt.php
http://www.sentrotech.com/vacuum-air...FYNx4AodUklCWQ
http://www.plasmalab.ru/metallurgy.htm
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/...wo-flowerpots/
A modern flowerpot broke into small pieces when I made a charcoal
forge from it.

jsw

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:47:10 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


Some ideas:
http://www.consarc.com/brochures/var.pdf
http://www.metallab.net/arcmelt.php
http://www.sentrotech.com/vacuum-air...FYNx4AodUklCWQ
http://www.plasmalab.ru/metallurgy.htm
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/...wo-flowerpots/
A modern flowerpot broke into small pieces when I made a charcoal
forge from it.

It probably got too hot too quickly to release the moisture within.

--
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud
was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
-- Anaïs Nin

On 3/13/2012 6:52 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:47:10 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Ed wrote:


Some ideas:
http://www.consarc.com/brochures/var.pdf
http://www.metallab.net/arcmelt.php
http://www.sentrotech.com/vacuum-air...FYNx4AodUklCWQ
http://www.plasmalab.ru/metallurgy.htm
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/...wo-flowerpots/
A modern flowerpot broke into small pieces when I made a charcoal
forge from it.

It probably got too hot too quickly to release the moisture within.

more likely it went through quartz inversion too fast. i fire them in my
kiln and don't have problems if i raise the temps slow enough.

"Stanley Schaefer" wrote
...The main difference between modern steelmaking and
ancient is the chemical control over the wanted and unwanted
elements. In days of yore, the ironmaster just did the process by
rote and hoped that everything would come out like the last
successful
batch.
Stan

Here are two old textbooks on wet chemical analysis. Unlike modern
instrumental methods the results are absolute quantities and don't
require standard calibration samples for comparison.

http://www.archive.org/stream/standa...tgoog_djvu.txt
http://www.archive.org/stream/semimi...96mbp_djvu.txt

IIRC we were told that the chemist was expected to have the carbon
percentage within 10 minutes and the full analysis in 30, since it
took a lot of fuel to keep the metal molten while he worked.

jsw

Stanley Schaefer wrote:


IF you could get wrought iron, you could probably do the "crucible
steel" process with a modern pottery kiln. The old-style steel-making
process was to convert iron ore to cast iron in a blast furnace, cast
iron to wrought iron by burning out the carbon during puddling,

I don't believe that is what is generally considered to be wrought
iron.
WI is produced by Hammering and forge welding on blooms ( The
hammering being the "wrought"ing) And has a fibrous grainy texture due
to slag inclusion.
And what you are describing would be "bar iron" or "puddle steel"
which is considerably closer to mild steel than it is to WI


jk

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:33:27 -0700, jk wrote:

Stanley Schaefer wrote:


IF you could get wrought iron, you could probably do the "crucible
steel" process with a modern pottery kiln. The old-style steel-making
process was to convert iron ore to cast iron in a blast furnace, cast
iron to wrought iron by burning out the carbon during puddling,

I don't believe that is what is generally considered to be wrought
iron.
WI is produced by Hammering and forge welding on blooms ( The
hammering being the "wrought"ing) And has a fibrous grainy texture due
to slag inclusion.
And what you are describing would be "bar iron" or "puddle steel"
which is considerably closer to mild steel than it is to WI

This is a *really* complicated subject, because there were so many
different processes used to make "finery iron," "sponge iron," "bar
iron," and so on. A bloom could be any of several products, usually
low-carbon iron that could be forged or rolled into wrought iron, or
steel. Some blooms were solid; others were spongy.

But the puddling method was the most common, if not the
highest-volume, method for making wrought iron for at least a
half-century before 1900. It also was used in Germany for making mild
steel.

You can spend a lot of time studying old iron- and steel-making
methods, and for metalworking hobbyists, it's an enjoyable study. At
least, it was for me, back when I was Materials editor at American
Machinist.

Here's a pretty good, if confusing, description of puddling from
Wikipedia. I think it's accurate but I haven't studied it for decades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddling_(metallurgy)

Wrought iron is basically low-carbon iron with silicate slag
inclusions, hammered out into a stringy composite.

--
Ed Huntress




jk

"Stanley Schaefer" wrote in message
news:acdeaa7e-fb18-410b-aae6-
-IF you could get wrought iron, you could probably do the "crucible
-steel" process with a modern pottery kiln. The old-style
steel-making
-process was to convert iron ore to cast iron in a blast furnace, cast
-iron to wrought iron by burning out the carbon during puddling,
-wrought iron to steel via the blister method or crucible method.
-Stan

A parallel process, if I remember correctly from a school trip to the
Saugus Iron Works, reduces the iron ore to solid-state iron with CO
from the fire, without reaching the ~1600C melting temperature of the
nearly pure iron produced. The product is a dirty glob of sponge or
bloom iron and slag, which they hammer out to compact it and squeeze
out at least some of the slag. This is the classic"wrought iron" which
is easier to forge-weld than the puddled version, they say

Their website currently says they produced wrought iron from cast pig
iron, but I remember the guide talking about a slag-filled bloom that
was displayed near the water-powered hammers.
http://www.nps.gov/sair/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery

jsw