WOOTZ or SHAM?

Gt Obach · 29th January 2006, 03:50 PM

I agree with Jeff

pattern welding or forge folding or mechanical damascus... still produces a design that can be revealed..... if you are using dis-similar materials, it is easy to see the pattern........ but if you use the same material welded on it's self, it is the weld boundaries that reveal pattern.... ( why.. ? possibly weld boundaries have abit decarb or even carburization, or flux included, or oxide, ???)
-- i've noticed brighter weld boundaries if you use borax rather than silica flux
-- anyhow...it is harder to see the weld boundaries but they are there... .. for example.... if you have a bar of Cable damascus... it may take a day in vinegar etch before the pattern comes out.. but it is there

the japanese bloom steel was folded to squeeze out some slag... and evenly distribute the rest of the silicious slag in the steel... with a high polish...it is easy to see the weld boundaries..... and like Jeff mentioned.... this forms the "hada" pattern...
-- definitely pattern welded

remember....all these folds have a record of how the blade was forged in the observable pattern

on wootz...... i believe the top notched blades were perfect in all aspects..... such as being heat treated well/combat worthy.... high finish.... excellent etch ...
-- remember back then....if you boasted that your blades were the best... i bet someone would eventually put you and your blade to the test.. ..... not a test i'd like to fail .....
-- also... i believe that the anient steel makers had a good idea of how much carbon to add to their charge... i'm sure they weighed all the ingredients...... otherwise there'd be piles of useless ingots .... trust me !!
-- it's easy to go over the 2% carb level...... and produce a beautiful ingot with impressive dendrites..... that can never be forged out

Greg

Jens Nordlunde · 29th January 2006, 04:13 PM

When discussing wootz and sham, the discussion has been on the percentage of carbon, but wootz/sham is not clean steel with carbon. Will more or less of the other components in the steel have any influence?

Gt Obach · 29th January 2006, 04:40 PM

i'm not sure i understand.. .. from my point of view, sham can be made with both high and low carbon wootz.... just the high carbon wootz has additional carbon to form carbides (large)
-it maybe the carbides help with cutting.... but one thing is forsure....they help alot with having a nice etch
- cutting properties are so very hard to quantify

in my opinion.... wootz is a very clean steel... there are no silicious slags.. . (the slags do not add to blade strength)
personally, I believe a fully melted steel has much better properties

obviously both ways make a fine blade

Greg

Jens Nordlunde · 29th January 2006, 04:55 PM

Sorry Greg, I was not very clear. What I meant was that wootz has a lot of other metals in it, does the amount of these make any influence?

Here it another one – it is in 3-D – as you can feel the pattern.

Jeff Pringle · 29th January 2006, 05:03 PM

The carbon level determines whether you will get carbides or not, and how many you get, so that's the element that gets all the attention. Some additional elements are needed to get the carbides to segregate and build up into bands, but I believe their influence is not changed very much in the amount of variation you see in the historic blades. And they are usually a tiny percentage of the total alloy.
So far, it seems (to me!) the determining factors in pattern are: speed of solidification; pre-forging heat treatment; the manner in which the metal is forged; alloy content - in that order, more or less...and I could be very wrong about that order - the history of wootz is littered with bad theories, so I'm in good company!
Since there are some (relatively) non-destructive ways of getting spectrographic analysis done these days, it would help to get a couple blades tested, to see if there really is a carbon or other difference between the sham and not-sham wootz. But visually, the sham looks more like alloy banding and not carbide clusters to me (that is not really different, carbide clustering is just alloy banding with a lot of extra carbon in the alloy)

Jens Nordlunde · 29th January 2006, 07:11 PM

Thank you for your explanation Jeff, I think it makes it easier for a lot to get an idea of what it is all about, and yes you are in good company – here

.
The problem to many is, that when they see analyses, showing a lot of different metals plus carbon, many does not know what to look for and what not, so they get confused and stop watching for anything – thinking they don’t understand it anyway. I think you have given a fine explanation, without tying yourself into something you can’t get out of. But you have given an understandable explanation – thank you very much.

MABAGANI · 30th January 2006, 08:34 AM

I've been following the thread with interest, btw. Other than creating the wootz pattern indicating a high degree of refined skill of a smiths forging ability, if all things were equal in the shape and form of two swords, one with wootz, one without and the skill of the swordsmen weilding them were equal, would a sword with wootz have an advantage over one without, martial or combat wise? I could imagine a psychological advantage or disadvantage of the swordsmen, but leaving that aside, are there qualities in the wootz sword that make it better than a non-wootz sword? tougher yet flexible, better balance, etc? Excuse me if this has already been answered and I missed it in all the commentary.

Gt Obach · 30th January 2006, 01:38 PM

That is the 50 dollar question ?

is wootz a better sword steel that regular high carbon steel...

this is very hard to tell.... since if both steels are heat treated right.....they will work wonderfully

- i would think that wootz would hold its edge abit longer.....since carbides are wear resistant

- i've also found that wootz will take a keen edge...

if were are comparing this to our modern high carbon steels....it would be hard to tell..........but if we are comparing it to the high carbon bloom steels that were used by the ancient smiths.... ... the silicious slags in these steels do not add to strength, nor edge retention, or toughness
- then i'd alway vote for wootz...

like i said before..... it is very hard to quantify this property in steel

i'm interested in what others think, aswell

Greg

B.I · 30th January 2006, 02:15 PM

i believe the 19thC (european) opinion was debated as well. from memory, the historian was fascinated by it, to the point of attempting to replicated it in england (and failing), whilst the military opinion was that it was vastly inferior to british steel.
this cannot be taken seriously of course, given the military attitude at the time (raj and empire vs anything unbritish).

MABAGANI · 30th January 2006, 02:15 PM

I see, so to quantify the advantages, it would make more sense to make the comparison using technology of the era and the ancients would've had the answers by having their smiths and warriors do several hundreds or thousands of test cuts to check which sword held up better. Any ancient or early text or references as to how the wootz performed in battle and test cuts vs. non wootz swords?

29th January 2006, 04:55 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Sorry Greg, I was not very clear. What I meant was that wootz has a lot of other metals in it, does the amount of these make any influence? Here it another one – it is in 3-D – as you can feel the pattern. Attached Images

29th January 2006, 07:11 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you for your explanation Jeff, I think it makes it easier for a lot to get an idea of what it is all about, and yes you are in good company – here. The problem to many is, that when they see analyses, showing a lot of different metals plus carbon, many does not know what to look for and what not, so they get confused and stop watching for anything – thinking they don’t understand it anyway. I think you have given a fine explanation, without tying yourself into something you can’t get out of. But you have given an understandable explanation – thank you very much.

29th January 2006, 03:50 PM	#1
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	I agree with Jeff pattern welding or forge folding or mechanical damascus... still produces a design that can be revealed..... if you are using dis-similar materials, it is easy to see the pattern........ but if you use the same material welded on it's self, it is the weld boundaries that reveal pattern.... ( why.. ? possibly weld boundaries have abit decarb or even carburization, or flux included, or oxide, ???) -- i've noticed brighter weld boundaries if you use borax rather than silica flux -- anyhow...it is harder to see the weld boundaries but they are there... .. for example.... if you have a bar of Cable damascus... it may take a day in vinegar etch before the pattern comes out.. but it is there the japanese bloom steel was folded to squeeze out some slag... and evenly distribute the rest of the silicious slag in the steel... with a high polish...it is easy to see the weld boundaries..... and like Jeff mentioned.... this forms the "hada" pattern... -- definitely pattern welded remember....all these folds have a record of how the blade was forged in the observable pattern on wootz...... i believe the top notched blades were perfect in all aspects..... such as being heat treated well/combat worthy.... high finish.... excellent etch ... -- remember back then....if you boasted that your blades were the best... i bet someone would eventually put you and your blade to the test.. ..... not a test i'd like to fail ..... -- also... i believe that the anient steel makers had a good idea of how much carbon to add to their charge... i'm sure they weighed all the ingredients...... otherwise there'd be piles of useless ingots .... trust me !! -- it's easy to go over the 2% carb level...... and produce a beautiful ingot with impressive dendrites..... that can never be forged out Greg

29th January 2006, 04:13 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	When discussing wootz and sham, the discussion has been on the percentage of carbon, but wootz/sham is not clean steel with carbon. Will more or less of the other components in the steel have any influence?

29th January 2006, 04:40 PM	#3
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	i'm not sure i understand.. .. from my point of view, sham can be made with both high and low carbon wootz.... just the high carbon wootz has additional carbon to form carbides (large) -it maybe the carbides help with cutting.... but one thing is forsure....they help alot with having a nice etch - cutting properties are so very hard to quantify in my opinion.... wootz is a very clean steel... there are no silicious slags.. . (the slags do not add to blade strength) personally, I believe a fully melted steel has much better properties obviously both ways make a fine blade Greg

29th January 2006, 05:03 PM	#5
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	The carbon level determines whether you will get carbides or not, and how many you get, so that's the element that gets all the attention. Some additional elements are needed to get the carbides to segregate and build up into bands, but I believe their influence is not changed very much in the amount of variation you see in the historic blades. And they are usually a tiny percentage of the total alloy. So far, it seems (to me!) the determining factors in pattern are: speed of solidification; pre-forging heat treatment; the manner in which the metal is forged; alloy content - in that order, more or less...and I could be very wrong about that order - the history of wootz is littered with bad theories, so I'm in good company! Since there are some (relatively) non-destructive ways of getting spectrographic analysis done these days, it would help to get a couple blades tested, to see if there really is a carbon or other difference between the sham and not-sham wootz. But visually, the sham looks more like alloy banding and not carbide clusters to me (that is not really different, carbide clustering is just alloy banding with a lot of extra carbon in the alloy)

30th January 2006, 08:34 AM	#7
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	I've been following the thread with interest, btw. Other than creating the wootz pattern indicating a high degree of refined skill of a smiths forging ability, if all things were equal in the shape and form of two swords, one with wootz, one without and the skill of the swordsmen weilding them were equal, would a sword with wootz have an advantage over one without, martial or combat wise? I could imagine a psychological advantage or disadvantage of the swordsmen, but leaving that aside, are there qualities in the wootz sword that make it better than a non-wootz sword? tougher yet flexible, better balance, etc? Excuse me if this has already been answered and I missed it in all the commentary.

30th January 2006, 01:38 PM	#8
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	That is the 50 dollar question ? is wootz a better sword steel that regular high carbon steel... this is very hard to tell.... since if both steels are heat treated right.....they will work wonderfully - i would think that wootz would hold its edge abit longer.....since carbides are wear resistant - i've also found that wootz will take a keen edge... if were are comparing this to our modern high carbon steels....it would be hard to tell..........but if we are comparing it to the high carbon bloom steels that were used by the ancient smiths.... ... the silicious slags in these steels do not add to strength, nor edge retention, or toughness - then i'd alway vote for wootz... like i said before..... it is very hard to quantify this property in steel i'm interested in what others think, aswell Greg

30th January 2006, 02:15 PM	#9
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i believe the 19thC (european) opinion was debated as well. from memory, the historian was fascinated by it, to the point of attempting to replicated it in england (and failing), whilst the military opinion was that it was vastly inferior to british steel. this cannot be taken seriously of course, given the military attitude at the time (raj and empire vs anything unbritish).