thingmaker3

Beyond the hammering we need to talk more about getting a good heat!!!!! And also how we don't lose the heat,,,

Agreed!!

And one darn good way to loose the heat more slowly is by proper hammering! B) One excersize I use regularly is beating on a cold piece of steel to try and light paper with it after. Not there yet, but I can indeed get the end too hot to touch. Some guys can actually get it incandescent.

George, you are using dies every single time you forge. Your hammer has a flat die and several sharper dies. Your anvil is full of dies.

I suggest you run a search on some of Brian's posts. They are chock full of uselfull information. You are certain to learn a new way of thinking about what you are doing.

http://www.hightemptools.com/supplies-mainpage.html

Thingmaker3,

Over the years I have heard this comment about wikipedia more than once.

My comment has to do with Wikipedia's masses over-riding the hard facts:

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162203092/wikipedia-politicizes-landmark-historical-event

I consider any Wikipedia citation as argumentum ad populum.

Now if Thomas comes up with some primary reference to refute me, (and he's for sure the one who can if anyone can) I'll sit up and listen to him like I always do.

Forge the "ball" from a spiraled-up bar - much like the nifty snail in your avatar picture. Then stick a bright LED cluster inside it.

The last two numbers refer to the carbon content in points with 100 points equaling 1% C.

That is a very popular myth, so of course the Wiki (which can be edited by any schmuck on the planet) will repeat said myth.

If we actually look at the AISI charts, only then do we see what the steel might have in it.

Have a look, for example, at 1064 or 1065... same carbon content range (as little as 60 points or as much as 70 points) but different manganese ranges.

http://www.engineersedge.com/materials/carbon-steel-2.htm

If I have a steel with 73 points of carbon and 60 points of manganese, I can sell it as 1069, as 1070, or as 1078. But is sure as heck won't be "1073," will it?

double post

The last two number in a 10 series designation simply specify which designation is being talked about. There will be a range of both carbon content and a range of manganese content for each and every different 10 series designation.

You have to actually look up the number on the chart to know what those last two numbers mean!!

Never-the-less, the glamour of "Damascus steel" lead, in the 19th century, to the development of scientific metallurgy.

I hope you're not refering to Faraday's work - that was dendritic crucible steel.

I think trigonometry scares a lot of people simply because it's a pentasyllabic word. It just means "naming the angles" though.

It is a potent tool for a good many things.

Want to insure your hot-cut is less than 15 degrees? Use trig to get the 1/4" per inch answer.

Want to know how far the middle of your cheese fuller needs to project beyond the chord to have a radius matching the base of your anvil horn? Trig again.

Any smith who won't use trig and geometry is absolutely doing things the hard way. (Whether they know it or not is another topic.)

One thing to remember is that WI has a much higher welding temperature than steel. The trick is to manage the fire and the metals to get both of them at the right temperatures at the same time.

For a PW billet with steel and WI, you risk overheating the steel. Keep an eye on what you are doing and make as few folds as you can get away with. Keep the WI on the outside.

I've seen some very nice pieces made this way.

All steel will harden. The question is "how much?"

With no kiln I'd try the magnet dance - It does work for some alloy steels. If the magnet dance fails, I'd order some tempil crayons in the desired range.

I would think the 92 designation should mean the chemistry is the same for all 92 series steels and the 64 should be the carbon content. Am I wrong in this?

This is untrue for the 10xx series as well as the 92xx series. Many smiths have been taught this, but it is a myth.

see http://www.timken.co...se_Steels_1.jpg and Vfor 92xx

see http://www.timken.co...bon_steels1.jpg for 10xx

With designations as close as 9264, 9262, and 9260, the HT should be very similar. If you have a kiln, the books say to austenitize 9260 at 1600F and quench in oil.

Maybe he pressurizes the water? Or leaves it in to boil for a few days?

Is it a syllogism when that authority is based upon a thousand years of t and e?

Quite right. I stand corrected. I should have called "historian's fallacy." Sorry.

Argumentum ad vericundium

Why not just make a little metal pan to shield the bottom of the forge?

(i want to keep to original methods where can rather then perfect lazer cut design etc)

That style of shield was usually made from leather over a wooden frame.

I hope the nail-maker had good disablilty coverage.

Thank you, Steve. That makes sense.

I would be happy to, tho I am not sure of what your question is.

I apoplogize for my ambiguity. To rephrase: why does recrystalization relive stress when done only once but not when done multiple times? How do the subsequent recrystalizations manage to re-stack the dislocations eliminated by the first recrystalization?

Were those red-headed cats?

thermal cycling for grain refinment is good, but it is not the same as normalizing.

Can you expand on that, Steve? I'd like to read your thoughts on any advantages provided by normalizing but not by thermal cycling with quenching.

Make it four, Tom. (I don't get the chance to log on here every day.)

Please remember also that for everyone who posts on any given forum, there are about 50 folk who agree but remain silent. So you've got at least 200 interested parites.