Quite true. However the learning curve tends to be a lot shorter
today.

Consider the difference between forge welding and modern welding
techniques. Modern welding is definitely a skill, but it takes less
time to learn it and it is easier to produce consistent results. If
you look at a lot of blacksmith-made stuff, you'll see that they went
to considerable lengths to avoid welds in applications where failure
could threaten life. For example eyes in hooks were usually punched
rather than welded.

Or look at cutting dovetails. For all the complaining about how long
it takes to learn to set up a dovetail jig, it's still faster than
learning to cut dovetails of the same quality by hand.

--RC

Those aren't better skills, those are better processes.

Tools allow the use of those processes which weren't available before.
Blacksmiths didn't have high current sources to melt metal in the 1700's.
Cabinet makers didn't have portable high speed motors and highspeed steel in
the 1800's.
They did have things like treadle lathes and did good work on them because
they were skilled, but the machine didn't add skill, it justs us turn
without having to pump with one leg at the same time.

-j

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:30:00 GMT, wrote:

If
you look at a lot of blacksmith-made stuff, you'll see that they went
to considerable lengths to avoid welds in applications where failure
could threaten life. For example eyes in hooks were usually punched
rather than welded.

I disagree - they did this mainly because punching is easier and
quicker than welding, or because they knew (if didn't entirely
understand) that it was stronger that way. It wasn't because there was
an increased _risk_ if there was a failure at that point.

Forge welding of iron is reliable and the failure modes are benign in
comparison to the sudden failures of modern welded steels. If it was
going to fail, it's more likely to fail at a stress riser than at a
competent weld.

As an example of design techniques for the late industrial smithing
period, read Lillico


--
Smert' spamionam

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:59:51 -0800, "J" wrote:

Quite true. However the learning curve tends to be a lot shorter
today.

Consider the difference between forge welding and modern welding
techniques. Modern welding is definitely a skill, but it takes less
time to learn it and it is easier to produce consistent results. If
you look at a lot of blacksmith-made stuff, you'll see that they went
to considerable lengths to avoid welds in applications where failure
could threaten life. For example eyes in hooks were usually punched
rather than welded.

Or look at cutting dovetails. For all the complaining about how long
it takes to learn to set up a dovetail jig, it's still faster than
learning to cut dovetails of the same quality by hand.

--RC

Those aren't better skills, those are better processes.

Again, I'm defining skill as 'the ability to produce a result.' By
that definition the skill is being transferred into the machine.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:01:54 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:30:00 GMT, wrote:

If
you look at a lot of blacksmith-made stuff, you'll see that they went
to considerable lengths to avoid welds in applications where failure
could threaten life. For example eyes in hooks were usually punched
rather than welded.

I disagree - they did this mainly because punching is easier and
quicker than welding, or because they knew (if didn't entirely
understand) that it was stronger that way. It wasn't because there was
an increased _risk_ if there was a failure at that point.


Forge welding of iron is reliable and the failure modes are benign in
comparison to the sudden failures of modern welded steels. If it was
going to fail, it's more likely to fail at a stress riser than at a
competent weld.

Forge welds are susceptible to failures from inclusions left in the
weld. Even an expert does this occasionally and sometimes it is
impossible to determine nondestructively without modern equipment.

--RC




Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:09:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


I note that you've avoided the point being raised.

I "avoided" a response to a statement I never made.
??? What am I "avoiding ?"

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:49:15 -0800, "J" wrote:


I thought it was your answer. And I changed nothing.


You most certainly did.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:43:11 -0600, "Doug Brown"
wrote:

I joke about this all the time, saying that when I get a little older and
more curmudgeonly I will start my own campaign to take back the word "Gay".
It used to be a perfectly good word until it was co-opted by a bunch of
radicals, most of whom certainly aren't "gay! Most of them aren't even
moderately happy!

Insisting that people who are not like you are unhappy usually
says a lot more about you than them.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Have you noticed the lyric change to "Deck The Halls?" It's now our
"bright" apparel in the music supplied to schools.

Pressure from cross-dressers, I guess.


More likely from one of our extremist radical Christian groups.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:43:11 -0600, "Doug Brown"
wrote:

I joke about this all the time, saying that when I get a little older and
more curmudgeonly I will start my own campaign to take back the word
"Gay".
It used to be a perfectly good word until it was co-opted by a bunch of
radicals, most of whom certainly aren't "gay! Most of them aren't even
moderately happy!

Insisting that people who are not like you are unhappy usually
says a lot more about you than them.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Have you noticed the lyric change to "Deck The Halls?" It's now our
"bright" apparel in the music supplied to schools.

Pressure from cross-dressers, I guess.


More likely from one of our extremist radical Christian groups.


Nope, self-important pinheads pick on them all the time. Because they're
tolerant people, they let it go.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:49:15 -0800, "J" wrote:


I thought it was your answer. And I changed nothing.


You most certainly did.

Can you please explain?
I don't think I understand what you are talking about.

-j

--
'
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:59:51 -0800, "J" wrote:

Quite true. However the learning curve tends to be a lot shorter
today.

Consider the difference between forge welding and modern welding
techniques. Modern welding is definitely a skill, but it takes less
time to learn it and it is easier to produce consistent results. If
you look at a lot of blacksmith-made stuff, you'll see that they went
to considerable lengths to avoid welds in applications where failure
could threaten life. For example eyes in hooks were usually punched
rather than welded.

Or look at cutting dovetails. For all the complaining about how long
it takes to learn to set up a dovetail jig, it's still faster than
learning to cut dovetails of the same quality by hand.

--RC

Those aren't better skills, those are better processes.

Again, I'm defining skill as 'the ability to produce a result.' By
that definition the skill is being transferred into the machine.

--RC

I'm defining flibertyfloo as 'the ability to produce a result.'. By that
definition, the flibertyfloo is being transferred into the machine. I also
use flibertyfloo as synonym for excessive brake pedal wear.

-j

--
'
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:01:54 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:30:00 GMT, wrote:

If
you look at a lot of blacksmith-made stuff, you'll see that they went
to considerable lengths to avoid welds in applications where failure
could threaten life. For example eyes in hooks were usually punched
rather than welded.

I disagree - they did this mainly because punching is easier and
quicker than welding, or because they knew (if didn't entirely
understand) that it was stronger that way. It wasn't because there was
an increased _risk_ if there was a failure at that point.


Forge welding of iron is reliable and the failure modes are benign in
comparison to the sudden failures of modern welded steels. If it was
going to fail, it's more likely to fail at a stress riser than at a
competent weld.

Forge welds are susceptible to failures from inclusions left in the
weld. Even an expert does this occasionally and sometimes it is
impossible to determine nondestructively without modern equipment.

--RC

Modern welds are susceptible to failures from inclusions left in the weld.
Even an expert does this occasionally and sometimes it is impossible to
determine without Xrays or other modern techniques.
Modern construction typically requires inspection of welds.

-j

Wel, my comment was an attempt at humour but that seems to have been lost.
And I did not say anyone was unhappy. While I don't want to fous on
semantics I think there is a difference between not being happy and being
unhappy. Lastly, why do you assume that hey are unlike me?
"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:43:11 -0600, "Doug Brown"
wrote:

I joke about this all the time, saying that when I get a little older and
more curmudgeonly I will start my own campaign to take back the word
"Gay".
It used to be a perfectly good word until it was co-opted by a bunch of
radicals, most of whom certainly aren't "gay! Most of them aren't even
moderately happy!

Insisting that people who are not like you are unhappy usually
says a lot more about you than them.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Have you noticed the lyric change to "Deck The Halls?" It's now our
"bright" apparel in the music supplied to schools.

Pressure from cross-dressers, I guess.


More likely from one of our extremist radical Christian groups.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 12:02:16 -0800, "J" wrote:

"GregP" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:49:15 -0800, "J" wrote:


I thought it was your answer. And I changed nothing.


You most certainly did.

Can you please explain?
I don't think I understand what you are talking about.


You eliminated most of my response, which was

It does. The mistake many people make is that they think
that they need to look only at the most recent one to predict
consistency.