1095

If one has control over the heat a soak is always a good thing, however 1084 will kick over into solution about the quickest of any steel since there will be no wide spaces of iron to fill with carbon and there will be no left over carbon to deal with once the iron is filled. If it is easiest for you to get the steel hot in a fire and then cool ASAP before the juggling act gets out of hand then 1080 or 1084 is the best steel to go with.
 
If one has control over the heat a soak is always a good thing, however 1084 will kick over into solution about the quickest of any steel since there will be no wide spaces of iron to fill with carbon and there will be no left over carbon to deal with once the iron is filled. If it is easiest for you to get the steel hot in a fire and then cool ASAP before the juggling act gets out of hand then 1080 or 1084 is the best steel to go with.

You're assuming the 1084 actually has .84% carbon, right? The 1084 that Aldo was selling had .89%. How would that difference affect the need for soak times?
 
The higher you get above the eutectoid the more concern you have to have for that extra carbon. You certainly don't want to put it into solution and cool slow enough for it to go to the grain boundaries, and if you put it all into solution before the quench you will increase the possibility of stabilizing austenite and of course the martensite will lean more towards the plate variety. Normalizing becomes ever more important with every point above the eutectoid, you need to refine those carbides and scatter them evenly before moving on to dissolving just enough to harden the steel.
 
camper86,

Write to Kelly Cupples at octihunter@charter.net and ask him to send you a recent price list. Kelly will also know what the chemistry of the available steel is and will tell you, if you ask.

Kelly is a wonderful fellow to deal with...

Mike
 
What Kevin and I are reiterating is a general HT mantra:
WITH THESE THREE THINGS YOU CAN MAKE SUPERIOR BLADES

1) know what steel you are using and what final result you desire.
2) understand how to bring those results to fruition in the HT.
3) do everything you can to attain those results.

1) requires having a known steel and knowing what the steel makeup is. Yes it is best to know the exact carbon percentage, but is is imperative that you know the class of steel,too (10XX, A-2, O-1,etc). The difference between 1084 and 1089 is slight, the difference between O-1 and 1089 is huge (but they are closer in carbon % than 1084/1089).A basic understanding of the alloys in steel will help with steel selection, and understanding how the alloy will affect HT.
2) requires some basic metallurgy knowledge, the understanding of what is happening in HT, and how to make different things happen. This understanding will eliminate the often quoted," I read on one site that you just heat it up to........" ,and not having any idea whether that will really work or not. If you understand carbon solution (just enough to know what it basically is), you will understand soak times. If you understand what Austenite is and at what temperatures it forms and converts, you will understand the HT temperatures and quenching better. If you understand what happens when the austenite cools and how martensite forms, you will be able to temper properly. (Note: most smiths temper way too low)
3) requires caring enough to never say, " Well, that will be good enough....", or, " If it doesn't harden right, it will be good practice." You may not know if it is good enough until it fails, you may not know if it hardened right or not!
Learning the entire HT process, from anneal to temper (and all the steps along the way) is crucial to making a good knife. Regardless of your skill at forging/grinding, regardless of your equipment,......the complete HT process, done right, is where a piece of pretty steel becomes a functional knife.

These understandings will not make all knives alike, and won't make all knife makers do things the same. What they will do is allow the maker to achieve the desired goal with assurance and repeatability.
Kevin understands the superiority of differentially tempered Martensite (drawing the spine on a fully quenched blade).
I understand the beauty of pearlite invading martensite ( a hamon from a clay coated quench).
We both understand the limits and reasons for these things, and where they are appropriate, and where they are not. It won't stop me from quenching some knives with clay coated blades. But, I will know why Kevin speaks in favor of fully martensitic blades.

Phillip:
The difference between 1084 and Aldo's high assay 1084 ,at .89% C, is that he has allowed for some carbon loss in forging, thus he is selling "forging steel". When the steel is forged, fully annealed, ground, normalized,and austenitized.... then it will be about .84%C when it is ready for the quench.


Stacy
 
you guys really know your stuff :eek:

mike, thanks for the link. I emailed him just a second ago.

One more easy question - what would happen if i over heated the 1080/1084 in the HT/soaking before i quenched it. No scientific terms here :confused: lol ... i just need to know how much it will hurt the knife.

thank you, max
 
I've just got to say this is one of the best threads I've read in quite some time. It's got really good info. for those just starting to a good refresher for those more advanced.

Thank you gentlemen.

Dave from Diller
 
you guys really know your stuff :eek:

max


There's an understatement....


Yeah, this is an impressive collection of people here. I came here a little while back, a college educated, hotshot machinist know it all, and quickly realized I don't know shit. This is not like any other internet forum I have seen. Many of these people are true masters and they're so generous sharing their knowledge.

Mete is a bonified metallurgist, Kevin is a very accomplished ABS Mastersmith and I'm realizing that Stacy here is also very knowledgeable. This little subforum of this little internet spot contains a dazzling assortment of talent.
 
camper86:
If you overheated a simple steel, like 1084, a little bit, for a short time....there would be little noticeable problem. The problems arise when the time/temperature diagram get into larger numbers. If you heated it to 1700F ,and held it there for 10 minutes, you would have excessive grain growth. Failure/chipping of the blade would be likely. The temperature is far more critical than the time. Too much time does little damage. Too much temperatutre grows large grains fast.
If it was 1550F for 4 minutes, that would not create too severe a problem.
The best scenario is to have the blade at a known temperature and hold it for the prescribed time (after the blade reaches the hold temperature). If using a forge and eyeball, it is better to try to err on the low side. Most folks who guess temperature are way above what they think it is anyway. The non-magnetic plus a bit is as good as any if you don't have a controlled heat source.This is where 1084 shines, as it can be quenched as soon as you decide the temperature is right - no soak time needed.
Stacy
 
The difference between 1084 and Aldo's high assay 1084 ,at .89% C, is that he has allowed for some carbon loss in forging, thus he is selling "forging steel". When the steel is forged, fully annealed, ground, normalized,and austenitized.... then it will be about .84%C when it is ready for the quench.

Stacy

Would you be willing to describe the process?

Mike
 
Loss of carbon ? That's called decarburization !! You will get scale and decarb as you HT and especially when you forge as there are higher temperatures and longer times at temperature. You can minimize it by using reducing flames in a gas forge, burying the steel in a coal forge,and by not overheating.
 
I will post back in a month or two with my results...unless the knife sucks, then you will never here from me again. lol, just kidding.

thank you again for the help and sharing of knowledge guys.
 
Loss of carbon ? That's called decarburization !! You will get scale and decarb as you HT and especially when you forge as there are higher temperatures and longer times at temperature. You can minimize it by using reducing flames in a gas forge, burying the steel in a coal forge,and by not overheating.

Yup, that process...

The whole process is called decarburiztion?

What differences in scaling and decarb?

Stacy mentioned Bruno's 1084 having 0.89% C... that it would come down to 0.84% C through forging (I understand it's a "there abouts" thing). That's a 5.6% loss... or there abouts.

Does a person assume lower forging heat, reducing flame, and average time of forging is a +/- 5.6% C loss? If the time of forging triples, is the carbon loss +/- 16.8%?

Making Damascus is both higher heat and longer to very-long time frame. Then the damascus may get forged into a blade. What kind of carbon loss percentages are involved with all of this... 30-50%?

Mike
 
Last edited:
I don't want to get into numbers ! Scale is iron oxide, decarb is a layer of steel near the surface that has reduced carbon content. Off hand I don't have a photo of decarb, perhaps Kevin does. In any case there is a carbon gradient dependant on a number of variables. If the carbon in the atmosphere is richer than that of the steel, carbon will be added to the steel [carburizing] .If the carbon in the atmoshpere is less than that of the steel, carbon will be removed from the steel [decarburization].
 
Yup, that process...

The whole process is called decarburiztion?

What differences in scaling and decarb?

Stacy mentioned Bruno's 1084 having 0.89% C... that it would come down to 0.84% C through forging (I understand it's a "there abouts" thing). That's a 5.6% loss... or there abouts.

Does a person assume lower forging heat, reducing flame, and average time of forging is a +/- 5.6% C loss? If the time of forging triples, is the carbon loss +/- 16.2%?

Making Damascus is both higher heat and longer to very-long time frame. Then the damascus may get forged into a blade. What kind of carbon loss percentages are involved with all of this... 30-50%?

Mike

Just checking your math here, Mike - I hope you understand that we are not talking about 5 and 6 and 16 or 30-50%!! When these guys posted 0.89 percent, that means 89/100s of 1 percent. Note where the decimal is.
 
Just checking your math here, Mike - I hope you understand that we are not talking about 5 and 6 and 16 or 30-50%!! When these guys posted 0.89 percent, that means 89/100s of 1 percent. Note where the decimal is.

Yup, got that Karl... reduction through forging to 0.84% C from 0.89% C Bruno 1084... a loss of 5.6% of the total carbon.... sorry Karl, I'm acting smart and it's not like me. I calculated 0.89 - 0.84 = 0.05, 0.05 / 0.89 = 0.056, 0.056 x 100 = 5.6%. I'm pretty sure I've got that right.

Anyhow, "mete" says no numbers...

Mike
 
Back
Top