|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 21 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
the basic chemistry is plausible, the physical and chemical properties of the product are dependent on the trace stuff from the process and the means used to produce it
the metal i am playing with is awesome and if i am correct it started as earth and trees
i have some nice metal, the 1640's mini blade was made like that, it is not as good as the 1869, 58th master metal
i have a small,wide, thin wedge with a sharpenable edge that my smithing ggg grandfather forged in the 1830's(probably for splitting sandstone into roofing material) which is very useful for many tasks and not unlike the 1869 in metal terms
the modern jacob's ladder mini cleaver is my go to kitchen and maybe single choice bushcraft tool but it is not like those
the tojiro hook and slicer knives are ace but not like that stuff
all of the latter were done with a coal start
imho the best ferrous has been done using trees as fuel and a lot of skilled hammer work
how that might work for "modern" style specialist metal or in enough bulk for basic i do not know
until there were engines driving pumps and a lack of trees coal was not much used (before circa 1800) and in top quality stuff since then wood is still best
coal has a load of trace stuff from sulphur to uranium and most of the other letters as well, not coal might be better for making bulk iron,
good steel needs good chemistry, good method and good control |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 Posts: 15985
|
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 21 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
There are several inconsistencies here.
Firstly, steel needs carbon. It can contain up to 2% depending on the use, and without carbon it is not steel. Therefore hydrogen on its own cannot be used to produce steel. It can be used to heat, smelt etc. but not to produce the final product.
Coking coal has been used to make steel since the 18th century. Its use is the reason that iron and steel became possible in large quantities for the Industrial Revolution in the UK. Before that date the centre of iron production was the Weald of Kent and Sussex, as that was heavily wooded, and also had mudstone with high concentrations of iron compounds in it with chalk nearby on the Downs to produce the lime needed.
We still produce charcoal, and believe me, it is not a 'particulate free' process, even using modern equipment. The conversion rate in a modern kiln is something like 4:1 wood to charcoal, and a great deal worse using the old earth burns, which was the way it used to be done. I have attended a couple of earth burns, and while the smoke produced is smelly, unpleasant, and very thick at times, it does not act as a trigger for some peoples lung problems such as asthma, although it may others. If we returned to using charcoal rather than coke, it would seriously disrupt steel production as it also takes time and a lot of timber and wood. There were dire predictions about deforestation of the Weald in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but it is still one of the most wooded parts of the UK as coppice rotation was practiced, and still is, to get the timber and wood.
Even if all vehicles were converted to electric, there is still the problem of brakes and tyres. They are as much to blame as anything, and as yet I have heard of no work to reduce particulate matter from them.
Sorry about the long post, but I have studied the charcoal production side, which included some information about the switch to coking coal. While I do not wish to express an opinion about this mine, I see no point in carrying a high bulk product around the world when it is available in the country where it is needed. |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46235 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
|