Can a professional ferrous metallurgist help me find some citations?

R

Ryan M

Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
360
Steel is pretty much on topic, I think.

On a different place, I've got some kind of alleged PhD :jerkit: in some kind of chemistry who is absolutely convinced that chemically pure iron, wrought iron, and steel are all hardened via the exact same molecular mechanisms. I.e., if you work-harden wrought iron like you do with bronze, you magically get the exact same thing as steel.

I'm seriously getting statements like "if work-hardening always weakens tempered steel, and only strengthens iron up to a point, then it's obviously the same mechanism at work, but steel receives optimal work-hardening as part of the manufacturing process."

I can't even begin to phrase how incredibly wrong that is, but cites from Wikipedia won't do, because everyone knows how everything is wrong on there. :rolleyes:

But professional-quality cites online are hard to come by. I basically just need two "scholarly" type writeups on metallurgy. Absolute basic, introductory level would be best. One on how work-hardening works, preferrably with references specifically to low-carbon/no-carbon ferrous metallurgy, and one on how heat treatment of high-carbon steel works on the molecular level.

Yes, I know, the real answer is "just point, laugh, and walk away," but I figure if I can get someone else to do the dirty work of finding citations for me, I get the best of both worlds! ;)

I might just even settle for linking to this thread, if enough good stuff makes it in.
 
Problem is, this person (who is actually a woman, not that it makes any practical difference) steadfastly believes that most of the "commercial" metallurgal literature is "contradictory and inconsistent" because of a combination of "trade secrets" and the "primitive origins of metallurgy." Which is transparent code for "I can't understand it, therefore it's wrong."

Those articles are definitely some good ones, but I need to sort of stress the "scholarly" aspect.

It's an "unwilling to admit that the processes described are physically possible" issue, not a matter of understanding. It's apparently an "a biophysicist isn't nearly as qualified as some kind of solution chemistry major who had one whole entire entire course on the properties of lone elements including iron" issue. At least, I think that's the problem. I think the issue is that she cannot comprehend that >0.60% of an "impurity" can so fundamentally change the characteristics of iron. (and I've already brought up aluminum chloride; it was ignored)

I'm guessing that a paper written by 10 people with the entire alphabet behind their names, will be what actually does the trick.

Now I'm picturing a viking arguing with another that steel swords can't even exist, long after the guy with the steel sword has chopped all of her iron possessions into bite-sized pieces. Then Thor descends from a thundercloud and says "you mortals are crazy. Steel is the bomb."

And yes, at the risk of repeating myself, I do know what the real solution here is (to just point and laugh, and try not to lose too much faith in humanity).
 
Last edited:
Have them read any 200 level materials science text. Failing that, Deiter's Mechanical Metallurgy is a good one. For free, try this:

http://www.feine-klingen.de/PDFs/verhoeven.pdf

Straight forward, fairly easy to understand, and he has letters after his name and 20 years on top of that. Or have her call Mete (Robert) on BFC (sword forums).
 
Have them read any 200 level materials science text. Failing that, Deiter's Mechanical Metallurgy is a good one. For free, try this:

http://www.feine-klingen.de/PDFs/verhoeven.pdf

Straight forward, fairly easy to understand, and he has letters after his name and 20 years on top of that.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks! Looks like an excellent resource, and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top