WOOTZ or SHAM?

Jeff D · 8th February 2006, 04:26 AM

Hi All and welcome Alex,

I was away and didn't see this thread until today. The term Wootz is the anglicized version of ukku wich just means steel. Wootz has come to mean a high carbon crucible steel with a "watered steel pattern". I have on a couple occasions noted that Zschokke blade 8 was eliminated from Verhoeven's study because of the hypoeutectoid carbon level. Before we condemn Verhoeven for "redefining" wootz we should consider a few things.

Verhoeven makes it clear that Fe3C (cementite) is crucial to forming the watering pattern. He also makes it clear that they can only form in the hypereutectoid state. Zschokke's blade 8 was rightfully dropped from his study because it could not contribute anything to the understanding of the formation of these particles. To my knowledge he doesn't call it sham.

When we look at the pattern on blade 8, it does have a sham appearace, my copy of the paper does not show the pattern clear enough to be conclusive. As Dr. Anne has stated it depends on your definition of sham. This is one blade that has been tested. Statistically this is meaningless. Other studies have been done, on wootz with carbon levels in the 1-2% range. Since sham has been considered to be wootz I assume they are part of this test, and therefore assume that not all sham blades are hypoeutectoid. It is certainly possible that the cementite particles are distributed in the pearlite matrix and still having the ferrite sham pattern ? This of course begs the question do we know the carbon levels of other sham blades.

I would love to hear more on this topic as there definately is a wealth of knowledge hear to clear this up.

Thank
Jeff

shangrila · 8th February 2006, 07:13 AM

one guy showed off this for the Spring Festival's traditional blessing, but people don't actually know what this is but an antique with koftgari and some veins.

this thing may you look at right here:

http://www.hl365.net/viewthread.php?...extra=page%3D1

would you kindly tell something, thanks!

Jeff Pringle · 8th February 2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Verhoeven makes it clear that Fe3C (cementite) is crucial to forming the watering pattern. He also makes it clear that they can only form in the hypereutectoid state.

While it is true that excess cementite only shows up in hypereutectoid steels, I think Verhoeven might be mistaken in saying the cementite is crucial to the pattern.
This blade is 0.79%, measured at a lab -

This blade is somewhat less in carbon, but has not been lab analysed -

The patterns are not due to extra cementite; since they are below the eutectoid point the carbon is all wrapped up in pearlite.
Do the patterns look like sham wootz, or regular, or somewhere in between?

I think the ultimate answer is to get more blades checked at the lab, but we may find the old pattern-based distinctions are as much related to working methods as alloy.

Gt Obach · 8th February 2006, 11:36 PM

love those blades... very nice
i like the top one alot... ... were they etched in sulphuric

the bottom one..... the pattern near the spine looks abit sham like... with the straight long lines..

what do others think?

i think we are really are closing in on the true wootz steel... by looking at the traditions, the alloys, patterns and treatments.... i believe its really the big picture that counts.....
-- when i look at Jeff's blades ...by the nouveau wootz definition... i would say they are wootz..

Shangrila: I believe that is a " Kard " and its made of wootz... ... very nice...
I love the close up on the blade.... look at the purple-ish hue of the etch..
-- this is interesting.... has anyone replicated this etch oxide color ???
-- i'm thinking "alum" may have been used in the etch??

Jeff D · 9th February 2006, 03:55 AM

Those are beautiful Jeff!

I am not sure how to classify either blade, neither looks like "classic" sham. They do appear similar to 19th century patterns from Persia and India. Can I ask is this from modern steel? Do you know the S content? You certainly have me scratching my head!

Jeff

Jeff Pringle · 9th February 2006, 04:48 AM

Thanks, they are modern steel, photo # 1 is about five years old, photo #2 is just a couple months. Sulfur is 0.02%, I think, I am away from my records right now, I'll double check when I get home.
I'm scratching my head, too - another decade or two of experiments, and I *might* have an idea of how modern and classic wootz blades compare, and what it all means.
First blade was etched in Ferric chloride, second in ferrous sulfate.

shangrila · 9th February 2006, 10:00 AM

what a great forum and discussion! Amazing!

How could I come to be a fast learner?

I think I need some basic materials,books and samples.

who can help me out???

I love this place.

9th February 2006, 10:00 AM	#7
shangrila Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31	Thank you, Gt Obach what a great forum and discussion! Amazing! How could I come to be a fast learner? I think I need some basic materials,books and samples. who can help me out??? I love this place.

8th February 2006, 04:26 AM	#1
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi All and welcome Alex, I was away and didn't see this thread until today. The term Wootz is the anglicized version of ukku wich just means steel. Wootz has come to mean a high carbon crucible steel with a "watered steel pattern". I have on a couple occasions noted that Zschokke blade 8 was eliminated from Verhoeven's study because of the hypoeutectoid carbon level. Before we condemn Verhoeven for "redefining" wootz we should consider a few things. Verhoeven makes it clear that Fe3C (cementite) is crucial to forming the watering pattern. He also makes it clear that they can only form in the hypereutectoid state. Zschokke's blade 8 was rightfully dropped from his study because it could not contribute anything to the understanding of the formation of these particles. To my knowledge he doesn't call it sham. When we look at the pattern on blade 8, it does have a sham appearace, my copy of the paper does not show the pattern clear enough to be conclusive. As Dr. Anne has stated it depends on your definition of sham. This is one blade that has been tested. Statistically this is meaningless. Other studies have been done, on wootz with carbon levels in the 1-2% range. Since sham has been considered to be wootz I assume they are part of this test, and therefore assume that not all sham blades are hypoeutectoid. It is certainly possible that the cementite particles are distributed in the pearlite matrix and still having the ferrite sham pattern ? This of course begs the question do we know the carbon levels of other sham blades. I would love to hear more on this topic as there definately is a wealth of knowledge hear to clear this up. Thank Jeff

8th February 2006, 07:13 AM	#2
shangrila Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31	HI, all friends one guy showed off this for the Spring Festival's traditional blessing, but people don't actually know what this is but an antique with koftgari and some veins. this thing may you look at right here: http://www.hl365.net/viewthread.php?...extra=page%3D1 would you kindly tell something, thanks!

8th February 2006, 11:36 PM	#4
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	love those blades... very nice i like the top one alot... ... were they etched in sulphuric the bottom one..... the pattern near the spine looks abit sham like... with the straight long lines.. what do others think? i think we are really are closing in on the true wootz steel... by looking at the traditions, the alloys, patterns and treatments.... i believe its really the big picture that counts..... -- when i look at Jeff's blades ...by the nouveau wootz definition... i would say they are wootz.. Shangrila: I believe that is a " Kard " and its made of wootz... ... very nice... I love the close up on the blade.... look at the purple-ish hue of the etch.. -- this is interesting.... has anyone replicated this etch oxide color ??? -- i'm thinking "alum" may have been used in the etch??

9th February 2006, 03:55 AM	#5
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Those are beautiful Jeff! I am not sure how to classify either blade, neither looks like "classic" sham. They do appear similar to 19th century patterns from Persia and India. Can I ask is this from modern steel? Do you know the S content? You certainly have me scratching my head! Jeff

9th February 2006, 04:48 AM	#6
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	Thanks, they are modern steel, photo # 1 is about five years old, photo #2 is just a couple months. Sulfur is 0.02%, I think, I am away from my records right now, I'll double check when I get home. I'm scratching my head, too - another decade or two of experiments, and I might have an idea of how modern and classic wootz blades compare, and what it all means. First blade was etched in Ferric chloride, second in ferrous sulfate.