Is this true? set me straight.

jiminy said:
This is the internet, and everything on these forums gets 'Googled' in about ten seconds flat. I have enough problems protecting my privacy without posting personal data regarding myself in a public forum. Now, if you choose to do otherwise, than have at it, that's your decision to make.

I'm an unknown knifemaker. Big deal. I am neither looking for fame or recognition, just looking for some good discussions on the subject and to sell some of the blades that I make. If I wanted fame and recognition I would have become an actor or a politician.

Not to mention the fact that in this day and age, making and selling 'weapons' exposes one to a fair amount of liability should someone choose to pursue the matter. I'd rather avoid that particular circumstance altogether, hence the nom-de-plume. It's sad that it comes down to that, but there it is nonetheless.
Click to expand...


well I'd say doing it your way,
you will get no where and be an unknown knifemaker. and I can see why you won't be known..
I will say IMHO you won't be here long unless you dry the wet from behind your ears faster than they are drying right now... your type don't stay long..it's not me it's just a fact of history..

now,,, you do sound like another guy on another tread that just seems to want to be heard whether right or wrong.. but that's ok too ,,but a lot of stuff can be in fun. you don't seem fun..just a one way joe we don't know..
key word ... we don't know..but that's the way you want it.. C@@L
but you can be found with your IP address anyway so why the big problem
The saying goes.
it's better to be thought a fool than open your month and be known a fool.

yes we want facts and what we have experienced, not to debate an issue just because you think it's so..and go on until you are right :confused:

if you want your privacy that's fine all well and good but don't think for a min you'll fit in.. many of us here have met one or the other.
we don't hold secrets ..
either you fit or don't..your a little square for a round hole right now..
and you just make me wonder why you want to be a secret?. what do you have to hide from the world anyway.....
and are you selling any knives here??? you can't be you don't give out your address right... :D
 
Hey! Is this getting a little off topic. I started this thread and was just beginning to kick in the old critical thought processes to evaluate this information, when, whack, right up side my head come a big load of crap, headed for someones ego. Kinda feels like Eric Cartman and his friends on South Park. "Screw you guys, I'm going home! I am very much interested in this
subject, as I know many others are. Please don't make us wade through the unrelated subject matter. It's to time consuming. Fred :yawn:
 
Laredo7mm said:
Well you know what happens when you assume.

.
Click to expand...
at least out of himself :D

Kit I give this one a thumbs down

I liked Ciffs thread better :D he makes some sence :eek: ..
I think :confused: ;) but I'm not very educated either :footinmou
.
.
.


TO The moon JG would say :D
 
Fred, I am done with this thread as I promised, but I wanna apologize to you personally for trashing it. It was just like finding a t*rd on yer pizza, though; it's hard not to complain. ;)

Read`the info Sean posted on another thread about understanding TTTs. Within that understanding is the answer to your question.

Bye. :)
 
There appears to be some wiggle room in what is a 'hypereutectoid steel' and 'hypoeutectoid steel' and 'eutectoid steel'. Sometimes the percentage is quoted as 0.77 percent, sometimes 0.83 percent, and sometimes it as quoted as being 0.9 percent.

And since 1095 steel can have a carbon level ranging from 0.9 - 1.03 ....

And therein lies the problem ...as the metallurgical field seems to be not as cut and dry as it would appear at first glance.
 
I will say it again. For the 10XX series of steels the eutedtoid has 77 points of carbon. The 10XX's that have less than that are hypoeutectoid and the 10XX's that have more than 77 points are hypereutectoid.

Steels that have richer chemistries will have different eutectoids than the 10XX series.

As alloys are added to the Fe-C mix, the eutectoid temperature and Carbon composition % will change. For example, adding 1% molybdenum to the mix raises the eutectoid temperature from 1340 degrees Fahrenheit to about 1475 degrees Fahrenheit, while lowering the carbon percentage to .35%. Adding chromium will also raises the eutectoid temperature, while molybdenum lowers it.
Click to expand...
 
jiminy said:
And since 1095 steel can have a carbon level ranging from 0.9 - 1.03 ....
.
Click to expand...
that is just one of the reasons many makers test by batch. so the testing goes on..it's not as concrete as you'd think and some things are...


Looking up :)
 
Considering what is bearing down on us all in a week and a half, I really do not have the time to join in the mud wrestling, but there are a couple factual corrections that can be made fairly quick an easy.

Rate of cooling below the pearlite transformation is less critical if one wants to avoid that softest of the possible unwanted microstrucures, but pockets of upper/ feathery bainite in your mix really sucks as well. Diffusional processes below Ar1 are pretty sluggish and do take a while, but if one gets careless they may very well be able to provoke Murphy's law. This is the main issue that most people are thinking of (without even knowing) when they suspect they may get "harder" martensite by quenching faster below pearlite. Aside from the various morphologies due to carbon content, which is seperate from this conversation, martensite is martensite. If you avoid any other unwanted diffusional processes when you hit the point at which the athermal shear can occurr you are going to make martensite (let us also avoid opening up the can of retained austenite worms) and the hardness of that martensite is determined by the amount of carbon and subtitional atoms still in the mix. Mete had you all on the right track to start out here- Cool as fast as you can below approx. 800F. and then start to decelerate in preparation for Ms. It is the transformation there that will be very stressful for everybody involved.

The eutectoid can be skewed to the left or right of the Fe/Fe3C equalibrium diagram by a number of factors, alloying being a big one. This is why we cannot rely on that diagram for our heat treating temperatures- it is after all for conditions of equilibrium . The eutectoid can normally be a range from .77% to .85%(very high side) But I have never seen it represented as high as .9%C , that would definately be a hypereutectoid in alloy whose major additions may be a smidge of manganese with some trace elements. If a book or diagram is showing a basic iron/carbon alloy as achieving the eutectoid at .9% that would be a typo, or a book I would imediately replace on my shelf. Slow cool a piece of 1090 or 1095 and check out how much pro-eutectoid cementite you end up with, which would defy the very defination of eutectoid.
 
Thank you for that last post. That helped clear up somewhat what is indeed a very complicated subject that can at times be filled with varying answers depending on your reference source.

By the way, I believe I saw somewhere that plain 'carbon steel' can have up to 0.5 percent manganese and still be called plain 'carbon steel' ...as opposed to being an 'alloy'.
 
Kevin R. Cashen said:
The eutectoid can normally be a range from .77% to .85%(very high side) But I have never seen it represented as high as .9%C , that would definately be a hypereutectoid in alloy whose major additions may be a smidge of manganese with some trace elements. If a book or diagram is showing a basic iron/carbon alloy as achieving the eutectoid at .9% that would be a typo, or a book I would imediately replace on my shelf. .
Click to expand...

Kevin
I have a chart here that came from A G Russell's web site a long time ago
and it lists
1095
with Carbon 0.95 no +or -
manganese .25-.55

am I wrong to think that the 95 in 1095 is carbon content? :confused:
I see now he has 0.90-1.03C on his site
http://www.agrussell.com/knife_information/steel_guide/index.html
he's changed a few of some other things too since then..
 
the 95 is indeed carbon content, but all steels particularly simple alloys like the 10xx series have a fairly wide range in the chemistry that they can be within and still fall into the classification.
 
Kevin R. Cashen said:
the 95 is indeed carbon content, but all steels particularly simple alloys like the 10xx series have a fairly wide range in the chemistry that they can be within and still fall into the classification.
Click to expand...

like L6 steels ..
mmmm
I'm wondering if that is the difference with the JDM5160 steel compared to the others?..
I wonder if John Deere is having their steel made to a close range of chemistry for consistency
and adding something for their use, in their Control shafts.?

I know in the small engine industry manufactures have a lot of things their way ,.. simply put. money talks..and if your having the steel made anyway why not?? I do know that the company that makes the shafts will
use as much, if not more, 30,000.00 pounds of the JDM5160 in a run..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top