Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 16th March 2005, 06:43 PM   #17
Ann Feuerbach
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 133
Default

Hi Lew,
Yes the tannic acid solution does not make the pattern pop out as much, but from a conservation (museum) point of view, ferric chloride is not an acceptable method. Even with neutralization. With this process, we do not use water. I have also found a method to give a great golden sheen. I am still working on that one, but it is beautiful. 99% of curators would not let a conservator use ferric or nitric acid.
On another note, I have done extensive research on the different between wootz and pulad. It seems that the difference in the pattern is initally due to the fact that the indians take out the ingot while liquid and the solidification and cooling is very fast, which produces small dendrites. In the persian pulad process, they ingots solidify and cool slowly, thus producing large dendrites. From Verhoeven et al reserach, the cementite aligns along the impurities from the dendrite formation, thus big dendrites, coarser pattern vs faster cooling, smaller dendrites, finer pattern. However, final forging and trace and minor elements also plays a part.
Ann
Ann Feuerbach is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.