In England the name "Sheffield" has long been synonymous with specialty steel,' no more so than in the early 19th century, when the town, though seeming to possess few advantages for the manufacture of steel, virtually monopolized the industry in Europe.
In contrast, the U.S. steel industry before 1850 was relatively small-scale and backward, and the country relied almost entirely on England for supplies of crucible steel.
Yet, this fact has received little mention in the standard texts on the steel industry, which make few references to any steel made before Sir Henry Bessemer's great invention.
Ashton, Carr and Taplin, and Birch devote relatively few pages to any such activity before 1856, and it has been left to a metallurgist rather than to a historian to provide the first full-length treatment of the subject.'
Similarly, in America, Hogan's five-volume economic history of the U.S. iron and steel industry pays scant attention to America's pioneering attempts at steel manufacture, while Temin, viewing events at a slightly later date, argues that crucible steelmaking had only a "limited" economic importance.
Scholarly debates over Anglo-American economic growth and technology diffusion have also confined themselves to the same well-worked terrain, thus giving only a partial and distorted picture of the pace of English and American steel development.
This viewpoint seems to stem from a fascination with the personalities involved and quantitative measurements of steel production.
The Bessemer process, spouting showers of sparks and flames and producing prodigious tonnages of steel, was far more spectacular than the crucible, and its achievements were fully advertised (with some exaggeration) by its illustrious inventor and the American entrepreneurs who made it work so successfully.
The advance of crucible steelmaking, though equally hard won, was altogether less dramatic, being achieved over a century or more with almost no publicity.
In terms of tonnage, few could complain about crucible steel's minor ranking: at the end of the 19th century, when crucible steel was facing severe competition from both the Bessemer and open-hearth processes, its share of total production in both England and America was a mere '/2 percent.
However, once it is accepted that much so-called bulk steel was useless without tougher steel to machine it and that crucible steel was never surpassed throughout the 19th century for the cutting edges of tools and the critical parts in machinery, then it becomes evident that the importance of specialty steel has never been properly appreciated.
Some historians have noted the importance of specialty steels to the general level of technological and inventive activity, and a historical account of the involvement of Sheffield steelmakers with the United States has appeared elsewhere, but as yet no attempt has been made to assess the impact of specialty steels on the American economy.
This article, which also outlines the techniques of crucible steel manufacture and highlights American dependence on Sheffield steel, seeks to redress the balance.
Direct link to the PDF (click GET):
libgen.li
In contrast, the U.S. steel industry before 1850 was relatively small-scale and backward, and the country relied almost entirely on England for supplies of crucible steel.
Yet, this fact has received little mention in the standard texts on the steel industry, which make few references to any steel made before Sir Henry Bessemer's great invention.
Ashton, Carr and Taplin, and Birch devote relatively few pages to any such activity before 1856, and it has been left to a metallurgist rather than to a historian to provide the first full-length treatment of the subject.'
Similarly, in America, Hogan's five-volume economic history of the U.S. iron and steel industry pays scant attention to America's pioneering attempts at steel manufacture, while Temin, viewing events at a slightly later date, argues that crucible steelmaking had only a "limited" economic importance.
Scholarly debates over Anglo-American economic growth and technology diffusion have also confined themselves to the same well-worked terrain, thus giving only a partial and distorted picture of the pace of English and American steel development.
This viewpoint seems to stem from a fascination with the personalities involved and quantitative measurements of steel production.
The Bessemer process, spouting showers of sparks and flames and producing prodigious tonnages of steel, was far more spectacular than the crucible, and its achievements were fully advertised (with some exaggeration) by its illustrious inventor and the American entrepreneurs who made it work so successfully.
The advance of crucible steelmaking, though equally hard won, was altogether less dramatic, being achieved over a century or more with almost no publicity.
In terms of tonnage, few could complain about crucible steel's minor ranking: at the end of the 19th century, when crucible steel was facing severe competition from both the Bessemer and open-hearth processes, its share of total production in both England and America was a mere '/2 percent.
However, once it is accepted that much so-called bulk steel was useless without tougher steel to machine it and that crucible steel was never surpassed throughout the 19th century for the cutting edges of tools and the critical parts in machinery, then it becomes evident that the importance of specialty steel has never been properly appreciated.
Some historians have noted the importance of specialty steels to the general level of technological and inventive activity, and a historical account of the involvement of Sheffield steelmakers with the United States has appeared elsewhere, but as yet no attempt has been made to assess the impact of specialty steels on the American economy.
This article, which also outlines the techniques of crucible steel manufacture and highlights American dependence on Sheffield steel, seeks to redress the balance.
Direct link to the PDF (click GET):
Library Genesis
libgen.li
