Member
It tells me those mission critical applications are more concerned with specificied consistency and guaranteed repeatability than a velveety feel on a sharpening stone, ease of quickly producing and maintaining a very sharp edge and an appropriate expectation of edge longevity for woodworking.Originally Posted by Mike Henderson
διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε
Contributor
Perhaps it would be interesting to know why the nickel silver alloy used on the protractor pictured was considered so important in its time. That might lend an insight that is otherwise lost. Was it corrosion resistance? Maybe some other property? I think knowing this it would be easy to find a more suitable material for an instrument such as this. What I am saying is that nickel silver went away naturlly because there were more appropriate materials that were more recently developed
Member
Westinghouse used to make a white paper Micarta that took a wonderful finish that aged gracefully for knife handles. They quit producing it—there were other ways to produce phenolics and newer resins suitable for the applications for which it was intended. Newer white paper phenolic products have porosity which traps polishing compounds and simply can't be finished as suitably for most of today's knifemakers.
διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε
Member
Pat, I think the problem with the nickel silver was machinability. The instruments were machined and worked with hand tools with extreme care. The drawing instruments made today look very clumsy in comparison. The thing that struck me about it was that even though the factory had made lots of the alloy and they knew the procedures, just being out of practice caused real problems. Woodwind instrument making suffered huge setbacks in Europe because of WWII interruptions, in some cases taking decades to regain their former standards. In a like manner it might be difficult to reproduce the quality of early 19th century chisels even if we had detailed accounts of their procedures and analyzed the composition of the steel.
Contributor
No, it points out that the old steel was not better than what is made today, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.
1. The makers of steel did not have control over their inputs so their outputs were hit or miss.
2. They did not have the knowledge or the processes to be able to analyze the inputs, nor the steel during the processing, so they were unable to take corrective actions during the making of the steel. If a batch had too much sulfur, for example, they could not detect it. And even if they could have detected it, they had no knowledge of what to do about it (how to correct it).
3. They did not have knowledge of the chemistry of steel, nor of the effects of various alloys, except in a very rudimentary manner.
4. Their output was inconsistent because of those problems.
This is not to say that they didn't occasionally make good steel. But to say that they made better steel than is made today is neither reasonable nor logical, given the conditions they worked under.
If you believe they made better steel than is made today, please explain how they did it.
Mike
[Many people fall prey to the belief that everything old was better. I suspect steel falls into that category often. If we couldn't make improvements with 200 years of research and experimentation, then shame on us.]
[For those who are interested in learning more about early steel making, including the handicaps our ancestors worked under, I recommend the two book set, "Steelmaking before Bessemer" by K. C. Barraclough. The books are somewhat expensive but you may be able to get them through your library on inter-library loan. There are a number of other books on the history of early steel and iron making and all of them paint the same picture. When you learn more about early steelmaking you'll understand how steel from that era could not possible be better than modern steel, especially in the general case.]
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-11-2014 at 11:48 PM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Member
One wonders if you even read the responses to your posts. Your points have already been rebutted several times. A reasonable response would be to respond to those rebuttals. Simply repeating the same talking points over and over doesn't really advance the conversation.
I'll stop now; this is becoming pointless.
Contributor
Au contraire. The points I've brought up have not been responded to, much less rebutted. As I said many times, if you believe our steelmaking ancestors made better steel than is made today, please explain how they did it, especially given the handicaps they worked under.
Mike
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-12-2014 at 12:37 AM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.
Guest
Somehow, it seems like your points are responding to something other than what's been said here.
Member
Another perspective regarding art versus 'science'. Working in adhesives R&D in the 80s (as an industrial dispensing systems development guy) it was easy to be taken in by very highly qualified chemists (reputedly some of the best in their field in the world) talking knowledgeably about the various adhesive chemistries (methacrylate resins, cyanoacrylates, silicones, polyurethanes etc) - it gave the impression that the resulting properties were clearly linked in their minds to the different formulation options via an understanding enabled by this 'science'.
Not so. When it came to the practicality of delivering specific properties it inevitably came down to making up a great enormous collection of formulations and testing each one in turn to find which (if any) showed promise. There was minimal ability to predict properties at that level. I was quite shocked by this - it certainly bust my bubble regarding faith in mainstream science, and its ability to predict the behaviour of complex systems. A scenario repeated later in life when health problems exposed in a very raw way the highly limited functional/systemic understanding/hocus pocus of modern medicine. This perspective probably applies not just in adhesives and medicine - think also of environmental matters, medicine, health, diet, biology, weather - you name it.
A knowledge of the various chemistries certainly helped to suggest directions for experimentation, and the sort of effect that various forumulation changes might have - but it was far from the sort of finite and holistic understanding that scientists like to project to the unwashed as being the case. 'Trust me, I'm a scientist'. Like most professions based on specialist knowledge it was a lot about (the self interested) use of smoke and mirrors to manipulate others into buying the myth of their expertise….
What I guess I'm saying is that I suspect there's a lot less difference between the guys that worked a century and more ago (think Japanese blacksmith), and those today. Excellence was no doubt rare then as now, but they played/are playing with different hands of cards in terms of availability of expertise, experience, money, scale, equipment, materials and other resources (with the result that lots that was specialised/rare/difficult/non-existent has become mainstream/commodity today), and explained what they did by a different set of myths - but ultimately the difference was perhaps as much in language as anything else...
Last edited by ian maybury; 08-12-2014 at 7:48 AM.
Member
If by better, you mean more consistently, more repeatably, more predictably and even more appropriate for most modern applications and economies of modern production, I would agree. But if you mean that the absolute best steel for knife-using trades (which includes woodworking cutters) is now made then I would, in part, disagree.
By necessity, my own experience is anecdotal and not easily verifiable, but I cannot discount my experience or the experiences of other well-informed and accomplished craftsmen as superstitious or magical thinking. I have tools from an earlier era that simply display superior attributes for appropriate use than more modern tools. For each of those highly-suitable cutters, there may be a huge number of less-suitable cutters due to just about anything in the steel-making process that could render them so, but that doesn't change the fact that the ones I've experienced take a sharper edge more quickly and easily, hold it long enough for serious and often better quality work, and resultingly are more pleasurable and productive in use.
Let me give one example. I have gravers of many steels, old and new. The newer engravers are almost all steel alloys especially developed for gravers that have profound advantages in edge-holding when cutting harder metals and materials used in the production of modern firearms.
Using vintage high-carbon steel gravers of simpler composition on these steels is inefficient and limiting to say the least. These newer gravers, while nonetheless usable produce noticeably poorer results on precious and other non-ferritic metals. They also are appropriate to many of older firearms steels but they do need to be maintained more often than HSS and tungsten carbide gravers.
Examining the work of these older carbon-steel gravers under sufficient magnification shows cleaner, smoother, brighter cuts than modern graver alloys produce in non-ferritic metals. The older gravers are easily made sharper than modern graver alloys and are more suitable for that work.
Could modern technology produce gravers of simpler steels that would equal such a suitable relationship of tool to material, of craft appropriate to craftsmen who use such tools? Perhaps, but of course no-one does. There's no incentive. I can and do make gravers from simple steels such as 1080, 1084 or even 1095 that are good enough if not quite so good as my older steel gravers. I can also make fine netsuke carving tools from these steels that are highly suitable to that work although the ones made from older gravers are sometimes superior in use. Some modern alloys are better suited to some materials, such as scrapers for ivory carving. For these I prefer those modern alloys. The same holds true for tools and toolmaking for chasing, repousse, lettering in certain stones and other crafts, as well. [Edit: Meant to say I prefer the simpler steels for most of these, as well. Bad wording and positioning—sorry.]
It's more about suitability and appropriateness, about the right steel for the job than steel properties of modern alloys that yield gains in toughness, corrosion resistance and edge longevity. Often, it's not so much the steel as the tool. Often a tool better suited to a craft operation can be made of an older, simpler alloy and be a joy to use and maintain whereas a more modern alloy with all its attributes will be noticeably less so.
As for ancestors, which you mentioned in your reply to Steve Voigt, my interest in early steelmaking, as a direct descendant of Andreas Stauttenbecker, 1604 to 1688, Solingen, and subsequent heriditary guild members of Solingen armorers and swordsmiths, was piqued so I was motivated to learn more on the subject, especially after archaeologists in the nineteen-sixties unearthed the 2,500 years-old ancient smelter bordering our ancestral home. In Andreas' time the forge was attached to the family house, Am Olli. As a nod to heritage I use a stinging nettle stamp on some of my tools.
None of this confers any especial knowledge of the subject, of course, but does point to my enthusiasm for steels both old and new. Your knowledge of steelmaking is likely broader and deeper than my own. But anyone who knows me knows that I have great respect for modern alloys and sharpening methods suitable to them. As a gem faceter I have a fairly practical understanding of diamond abrasive technologies, as well.
Nevertheless, I do have an appreciation for older steels and tools made from them and do believe knowledge has been lost that is not easily recoverable in steelmaking as we know it today. I sharpen my older gravers on novaculites and other cherts, such as jaspers, and my modern gravers with diamond. Again, it's more about appropriateness than outright formulaic superiority.
At least, that's how I see it.
Last edited by David Barnett; 08-12-2014 at 4:18 PM.
διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε
Guest
Thank you for the explanation, David. Exactly what I'm referring to..proof in use rather than judgment based on spec sheet and resolution about process details.
Member
You know, as an admirer and enjoyer of modernity, I can understand and appreciate Mike Henderson's point on chemistry of steels:
"3. They did not have knowledge of the chemistry of steel, nor of the effects of various alloys, except in a very rudimentary manner."
But as 'rudimentary' as that early knowledge may have been, it didn't keep early weapons makers and users from realizing the benefits of batches of well-made steels. Ancient Romans used foxglove for dropsy and congestive heart failure long before they knew the etiology of cardiac distress or the chemistry of digitalis.
Last edited by David Barnett; 08-12-2014 at 8:05 AM.
διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε
Contributor
This wouldn't be the first time that someone 'lost the recipe'. Its a fairly common occurrence in fact. Often you find that there is maybe a single person who understand this art involved with a particular manufacturing process. This person goes away and the process drifts over time to the point where the result is not the same. The person with the knowledge of the art of the process either did not or could not communicate the characteristics that he had learned to be important. Now the manufacturer has to try and figure it all out again without knowing the intricacies of the characteristics of the process that the knowledgeable person had. It can be that they never will. They may need to settle for something close but not quite up to the previous standards. In today's environment, in large companies, this is intolerable and safeguards are taken to ensure that the recipe is spelled out in detail. Designed experiments are conducted and multitudes of data are collected and analyzed to learn the input variables and their affect on the output. Still, especially in small companies or entrepreneurial ventures there remains the potential for this loss of recipe to occur.
Guest
I don't mind modernity - it's what allows us to afford to have all of these things and have the time to use them. It's what makes the majority of the people able to complain that they don't have enough stuff instead of having their nose to the ground looking for the next nickel to find something to eat.
We have a term in my industry, though it doesn't fit perfectly. The term is that it's important to recognize the difference between resolution and precision. In this case, it may be that it's important to recognize the difference between resolution, precision and specification.
I can make my decisions about what tools are the nicest to use in the context of woodworking only at the bench, though. And sometimes that doesn't fit neatly into spec sheet boasts, like what iron planes the most feet at 1 thousandth inch shaving, etc, or which batches of steel are most similar to other batches of steel.
We have been down this road before, call it the engineer's fascination. Sometime last year, someone popped through here, someone who was an engineer, and flatly said that we could just easily improve on anything made 150 years ago by coming up with some engineering solutions. Never mind that they and everyone else had no clue what professional woodworkers were doing 150 years ago. I doubt the changes made to plane irons would be of much interest to professional woodworkers from 150-200 years ago....the ones who were actually using their tools.
Guest
There was a woman at american hone who was the only person who knew how to make the Frictionite hones properly. There is an ingredient list to make the hones, but nobody else could seem to make them and the company is now closed.
They are good hones, and there's nothing particularly special to me about them as razor hones except they have this exceptional feel (I can get the edge on other hones if I need to ). BUT, the axe men in australia seem to think they are ideal to refresh an axe between rounds at local lumberjack contests, and will pay the moon for them. there's a norton barber hone that they will pay more yet for. Neither will probably ever be made again. You could specify 75 parameters for a hone that would make a better axe hone than a frictionite, but I'd bet the axe men would still prefer it, because what it is about it is hard to describe - it has a feel that no other stone does.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote