Flame question, First Forge build

[Gord]

Hello all, I am close to finishing my first forge build.

I am wondering about the flame from the burner, is it neutral/reducing or oxidizing. I have tried to compare it to a few online pictures, but i can't really tell.

hoping to make any changes to the build before i put the paint to it and clean it up.

20lb propane tank, 2 - 1" layers rigidized kaowool, 1/4" kol 30 walls - 1/2" in on floor.

I bought the burners on line, it is a 3/4" p-75

I had planned on getting some classes in this spring but that's on hold for awhile, until the world is in a better place.

Any and all input or criticisms welcome.

Thanks in advance

 

[Mikey98118]

The flame color, hue, and flame look fine. The reddish halo around its outside is probably temporary, as construction materials burn off. So, the answer to your question is that it a neutral flame, with a single combustion envelope; blue ribbon stuff 

The last action photo shows a nice hot forge running quite well.

Your burner is worth writing about in the Forges 101 thread; I invite you to do so.

[Frosty]

Mike: Please take a closer look at the flame in pic 1. I'm seeing 3 burn zones: The primary, a nearly transparent short center cone. The secondary, a longer slightly rounded, medium blue translucent cone. The tertiary, forge width, brush shaped nearly transparent with the orange whisps.

The orange whisps being calcites in the refractory oxidizing.

I agree that's a beautiful neutral flame but you and I see different things as many times as we've talked about it the last few years. Are we just calling things by different names or what?

Frosty The Lucky.  

[Gord]

Thanks, that gives me confidence that everything is going in the right direction.

I'll put a post into the burner section, it was purchased from anvil fire (Jock Dempsey's online shop). I did very little other than install it into the forge.

Now to finish off the build.

 

[Mikey98118]

Frosty,

What I think  the first photo shows is a single combustion envelope; with flame front, and rear (rather than a triple flame envelope), which is surrounded by an orange/red zone of combustion of forge and burner debris (or perhaps calcium binder from the refractory). I could be misinterpreting this small photo, yet...

What the second photo seems to show, is the flame, with its color being somewhat washed out, as the forge heats up; which is normal and expected with a very hot flame. I could be wrong, but...

The third photo shows a forge that is yellow hot, even though the exhaust opening is wide open; this is not likely happen with a single flame of that size, with a three zone envelope.

On consideration, do you still feel my interpretation of the first two photos were in error ?

[Frosty]

I think we need to sit down at a table with a sketch pad and pictures over coffee so we can get on the same track. 

I don't think your interpretation of the flame is in error Mike. I think we are both interpreting the flame in the same way. "Neutral."

I'm not looking to do anything but get a better handle on what you see and how you differentiate. I've never thought I could interpret flames as well as you and heck we probably learned in contemporary schools. What I really don't understand is how I can look at, measure and describe 3 distinct parts of a flame and you only see ONE part. Perhaps you're dismissing the primary and tertiary zones as irrelevant?

Frosty The Lucky. 

 

[Mikey98118]

I am also interested in coming to terms with our differing views. Or, perhaps different terms, rather than interpretations. Let me think on this for a couple of days. After all, getting the picture in focus is the main point, right? We, and others have been trying to simplify this subject for several years on IFI, already. One of the problems comes from more than one accepted term for we call flames, which are correctly described as " flame envelopes" by some experts, and as "flame fronts" by others. Both terms are deemed correct, and both are revealing, but they don't mesh very well, do they? At any rate, this is going to be a knotty issue. That much work will take some time  and effort

[Frosty]

No rush Mike, give a shout whenever. A common jargon is my only intent. If you're actually seeing something I'm not, or disregarding something something I'm looking at I want to know why. 

I think I'll go do some reading maybe catch up on the subject.

Later Bro,

Frosty The Lucky. 

[Panik]

I’d like to throw in an observation as someone who us just now trying to learn about flame composition and color. I find interesting all of the questions about whether a flame is the appropriate color or if the “fluid” dynamics of any particular flame are appropriate for the task at hand.

By and large sight is generally taken for granted as an objective sense… if one person sees a square, then chances are another observer will also see a square. The reality is that paradigm falls apart quickly when people start comparing observations about fine detail. What appears to be blue to one person may appear to be light violet to another person. This is compounded in online discussions with the filters and the programming used to render photographs on cell phones. While I don’t know much, I can certainly say that the pictures I have taken of my experiments with burners show something very dissimilar to what I observe in person.

The part that fascinates me in all this is exactly what you two have done and are planning to do…. Parse through your experiences to develop a common language in order to normalize/standardize describing what is observed.  At one point in my life, I did a little bit of wet marine mammal biology. The state lab I worked for was responsible for generating 95% of the manatee necropsy reports in the state of Florida and the data those reports contained directly drove state level policy.

When I first started, I was blown away that the data reports we were producing were based entirely on a rigid reporting language, built entirely on a slowly shifting oral tradition; developed over 20 years of biologists dissecting manatees in each others’ company. As an example, there’s no truly objective manner in which to repeatedly describe the rugosity of different manatee’s stomach lining…. yet we had to figure something out. It is fascinating for me to see much the same here.

[Frosty]

Doesn't describing a square depend entirely on the perspective of the observer? 

I spent a couple years working in the State DOT materials lab and another 19 on the drill crew collecting samples and doing in field tests. Without strictly observing ASTM and using standard jargon any results were meaningless. 

Blacksmithing has changed substantially in the last 50 years. For millennia the craft was pretty insular, one smith passing the craft to an apprentice or two with HIS terminology. In many ways it was a closely guarded secret with penalties the guild system was/is notorious. When I was a kid the only blacksmiths in the phone book were farriers who might make or repair something not attached to a horse, mule or oxen rarely.

Then along comes the "Artist Blacksmith" movement sort of certified by the establishment of ABANA. I'm not saying there weren't official organizations elsewhere in the world but most weren't/aren't as open to teaching just anybody interested in the craft. The old insular tradition began breaking down and with the advent of the internet it shattered.

With the sudden appearance of the World Wide Web we now have hundreds or thousands of folk who speak their own trade jargons so we spend too much time describing what we meant rather than everybody knowing what a given word means.

While it's not in my power nor ability I've been pushing for establishing a modern craft jargon so we can spend more time swapping ideas than explaining what twilling the zamphoon means in Outer Swibingia as opposed to Far Yabbawa. 

Mike and I disagree about a lot of things but they're mostly in the details, not the basics. We may actually have two different aspects or forms of flame we're describing. I know I gave myself about a 2 hour headache reading about single envelope flames last night and still haven't gotten to something that applies to a gas torch/burner. 

Hopefully we'll come up with something useful.

Frosty The Lucky. 

[Gord]

Wow,

One of the reasons i love reading through this forum, other than the massive amount of information a beginner like my self has access to. Is that something I thought for folk with much more experience than me would be a simple answer, Thank you for the simple answer, but that it also often results in an discussion about the details and the why of many things including language to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Thanks again.

[Panik]

38 minutes ago, Frosty said:

Doesn't describing a square depend entirely on the perspective of the observer?

When you get right down to it you are entirely correct. Unfortunately, a lot of people take for granted that such observations are objective when they are actually subjective.

Frosty, it is abundantly clear that both you and Mikey possess a wealth of experience and are experts in this area and I hope in writing that I didn't imply anything to the contrary. It was also not my intent to imply the conversation that you and Mikey may have was anything more than discussing small details. My apologies if it came across otherwise.

I had to orally learn the jargon of the lab where I was employed. It was conveyed on necropsy room floor in the process of conducting necropsies. In order to learn that language, I had to learn something of the personalities of the people who contributed over time to the development of the lab’s technical language. Right before I moved into another field, we were asked, as group, to start theoretical development of an indexed and term searchable database for the 20 some odd year of reports that had been compiled. Neat concept, but because there had been a slow and fundamental shift in terminology and drift it presented an intrinsically difficult task. At that point machine learning algorithms were just on the cusp of being more widely used.

As you stated, language structure and definition are essential for information to be relayed in any field and I have noticed and enjoyed the focus on that while reading through this forum. I also have some understanding of the frustration involved. Language is something that is continually evolving…. Sometimes in large jumps, but more frequently in a slow and constant manner. As a result, many people don’t take notice of that shift/drift.

My only point in originally posting was that, as an outsider, I appreciate what may be implied (in a good way) by two very knowledgeable people sitting down to discuss small details.

[Frosty]

It's all good Panik. Bringing up the experiences in jargon you gained is valuable to help folk get a handle on what's going on. I don't recall who told me this while I was lamenting folk's lack of objectivity.  "Everything is subjective." And where relations were concerned, "Everything is personal." 

By time I got involved in the highways materials lab, everything was pretty much written in stone so I learned the jargon with the job from the book and the other lab rats.  It's reassuring to know everything has a specific name and precise description. Then to see expected results from the data collected and or generated.  Of course it isn't nearly as much fun as an analytical lab but it was educational.

Anyway, Blacksmithing is in a transitional stage, more so than it's always been maybe but it's still changing, that hasn't changed just accelerated. Maybe if I'm lucky I can make some contribution to helping develop a world wide craft jargon.

Would that be cool or what? 

Frosty The Lucky. 

 

 

[Panik]

25 minutes ago, Frosty said:

Would that be cool or what? 

 

 

I suspect you are.... and yes it is very cool!

[Frosty]

I'm a Frost, the whole darned Clan is too kewl for skewl. 

It's making the occasional contribution that excites me, maybe leave things a little better as I pass through.

Frosty The Lucky. 

[Panik]

With apologies to Gord for thread tangent.... it's incredibly cool to make those contributions that move someone(s) forward in their knowledge and experience, and it is equally neat to recognize it and watch it happen from the sidelines.

[Gord]

No apologies need, It's why i end up sitting on the forum for a spare minute and can't remember what i was supposed to do after reading for 2 hours. Finished off the the forge, threw on some paint, and finally had it up to heat today.

sorted out an anvil ish for now, will be keeping an eye out for a reasonably priced one, though not as common as they once were i have read

now i just need to figure out what i'm doing....

Thanks again Mike and Frosty

[Frosty]

Looks like an anvil to me, I could put it right to work. You'll want to round an edge so you can set shoulders without making a cold shut with a sharp inside corner. You might want to keep one as a sharp edge they can be useful on occasion. Grinding different radii is better still.

What would you like to forge in general? For example I like ornamental and tools but delve into a lot of different styles.

Frosty The Lucky. 

[ThomasPowers]

Looks like an anvil to me too!  The London Pattern anvil has only been around less than 10% of how long we have been working hot iron and in a fairly restricted area too.  Don't get hung up on it being the only "real" anvil style out there!

[Gord]

I have always been interested in knife making, but i think to get started i'm going to look into metal work that would compliment the carpentry i do, maybe in line with a rustic industrial furniture look.

By trade I am a carpenter and i enjoy making furniture grade wall units, built-ins and cabinets. I like the look of stuff that has used old reclaimed equipment or that hand forged look for legs,bases, pulls etc.

maybe some hanging plant holders or forged leaves to get a feel for moving metal

and definitely tools, i don't have many related to forging, a few hammers of various sizes. I should probably start with making some tongs 

 

Frosty

Thanks for the tip on radius'd edges, i'll dress them up 

[Frosty]

For a start use stock long enough you don't need tongs until you've build some skills up a little. Tongs aren't really a good beginner's project, nothing about them is that difficult EXCEPT making matching halves. It's a lot harder to make two things just alike than any singleton. Good practice will be some matched plant hanger sets, by matched I don't mean nearly identical, that can come later, matched just means they're obviously part of a set. If you make a set of plant hanger S hooks all of them should look the same from a couple feet. Yes? Nobody but you is going to lay them side by side on a bench and compare them. Of course you'll see every flaw, real or imagined, we all do that if we care enough to do our best.

S hooks are reasonably simple, cut all of them at the same time them make a mark to draw the ends and turn whatever finial you or the missus likes. Do ALL FOUR at the same time, step by step. Cut 4, taper ONE end x 4, taper the other end x 4, turn ONE finial x 4, turn the other finial x 4, twist x 4. turn hook on ONE end x 4, turn the OTHER hook x 4. Tweak till satisfied x 4. 

Brush and finish however  suits you.  

After making 3-5 or however many copies a person can't help but add features, maybe, fish tail / reverse scroll finials or a reverse twist, decorative corner texture, like shallow round depressions. Even if your yard gets silly full, you have friends and neighbors with yards and gardens yes? 

Doing multiple pieces all at the same time step by step is one of my main teaching points. Sure some guys can make a matched piece months later but it's not likely a beginner can. If a person outgrows a trick it won't hurt the trick's feelings if you do't use it anymore. Of course you are likely to find yourself showing a bare beginner how to beat hot steel. 

There is a LOT of potential lawn and garden furniture available even in a small yard to build basic skills with. If something turns really rotten on you, you can always cut it down and make something else even if it's just a stake to hold a line for pea vines. Yes?

Anyway, it won't take long to become proficient enough that tongs seem like a no brainer and you won't have gone through a number of failed or so so attempts. If something goes wrong you'll probably notice BEFORE it becomes unrecoverable.

Make sense? 

Frosty The Lucky. 

[Gord]

Frosty

thanks for the input, totally makes sense. I use production style steps to maintain quality while build the same pieces for different parts of my carpentry projects, helps with accuracy and muscle memory and all that.

I like the yard furniture idea, i can be as simple or detailed as i am comfortable with. A nice way to scale up as my skills develop.

I really appreciate the input, Thanks again.

 

Gord