True Combat Value of Wootz

Chris Evans · 18th November 2006, 07:20 AM

Rivkin,

Where did you see the article? Do you have a link to it?

Cheers
Chris

Rivkin · 18th November 2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Rivkin,

Where did you see the article? Do you have a link to it?

Cheers
Chris

I can send the pdf file of the article to everyone who emails me via the site(I don't have enough storage for private messages) his/her email.

Btw, have you seen Wadsworth's review article ?

Chris Evans · 20th November 2006, 12:12 AM

Hi Rivkin,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivkin

I can send the pdf file of the article to everyone who emails me via the site(I don't have enough storage for private messages) his/her email.

Btw, have you seen Wadsworth's review article ?

Sent you an e-mail to take up your very kind offer. Thank you.

No, I haven't seen Wadsworth's article. Where is it available?

Cheers
Chris

Ian · 18th November 2006, 03:54 PM

Chris:

It's unclear to me what properties carbon nanotubes and nanowires might convey to steel. The authors suggest that such structures might explain the extaordinary cutting properties and strength of wootz versus other steels. Since we are having trouble here agreeing that wootz per se did have such special properties, I would put the discovery of these microstructures in wootz as interesting observations deserving further attention, but far from conclusive evidence that they convey special properties to wootz and not other steels. Do we know that these nanotubes and nanowires do not occur in other types of steel? Do we know that such strcutures convey greater strength and sharper cutting edge?

I suspect that wootz is not unique in regard to having these structures. Perhaps Dr Ann can help us here.

The article abstract is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...s/444286a.html

You can purchase the full article online for $30 (I recommend the PDF version) here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/444286a.html. Or you can go to your local library, get the November 16, 2006 number of Nature, p. 286, and photocopy the article for pennies.

Ian.

Chris Evans · 20th November 2006, 12:35 AM

Hi Ian,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

Chris:

It's unclear to me what properties carbon nanotubes and nanowires might convey to steel. .

I learned and practiced my metallurgy before the advent of so called nano-technology, so I confess absolute and total ignorance about the effects of sub microscopic structural components on the mechanical properties of steels, indeed any material. At this stage, all I can do is apply some basic logic to evaluate the evidence presented. But first I must read the full paper.

Quote:

The authors suggest that such structures might explain the extaordinary cutting properties and strength of wootz versus other steels. Since we are having trouble here agreeing that wootz per se did have such special properties, I would put the discovery of these microstructures in wootz as interesting observations deserving further attention, but far from conclusive evidence that they convey special properties to wootz and not other steels. .

I thinks that we can safely accept that Wootz was, if properly forged and heat treated, at least potentially a notch above other contemporary steels. GT Obach's experience is agood example, and even 50yrs ago it was talked about (by metallurgists) as an outstanding early steel.

However, you raise the same points that I immediately thought of, namely that the same sub-microscopy structures may be found in other steels and may not be exclusive to Wootz.

Additionally, I have yet to see (it may have been published but I haven't seen it) comprehensive mechanical test results of Wootz vs more primitive steels, not to mention an exhaustive analysis of the mechanical loads that a sword edge is expected to cope with. Hardness I have seen, but not the other properties - We need this data before we can make valid comparisons. If it turns out that Wootz did indeed have superiors mechanical qualities over good quality primitive steel, then we can start exploring the contribution, if any, of its sub-microscopic structure.

Cheers
Chris

Ann Feuerbach · 20th November 2006, 03:41 PM

Hi all,
Just got back from a conference and will be reading the nature article soon. I have seen some work on nano structure in a 2004 article. History section in all these areas are bad. FYI wootz, only from 1795, not a real word, too bad it is used so much as it is so inaccurate and as no etymological roots.

Andrew · 20th November 2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

Hi all,
Just got back from a conference and will be reading the nature article soon. I have seen some work on nano structure in a 2004 article. History section in all these areas are bad. FYI wootz, only from 1795, not a real word, too bad it is used so much as it is so inaccurate and as no etymological roots.

Hi Ann. Welcome back.

So, it sounds like the much more accurate term would simply be "crucible steel"? How about the term "balut"?

Ian · 20th November 2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

Hi all,
Just got back from a conference and will be reading the nature article soon. I have seen some work on nano structure in a 2004 article. History section in all these areas are bad. FYI wootz, only from 1795, not a real word, too bad it is used so much as it is so inaccurate and as no etymological roots.

Thanks Ann.

Hope the conference was enjoyable, informative and productive. Like Andrew, I would welcome your suggestion for a better term than wootz. Look forward to hearing your views about the possible significance of these fine sub-micronic structures that have been described recently.

Regards,

Ian.

Ann Feuerbach · 20th November 2006, 05:05 PM

Hi all,
Bulat is good, but pulad (phulad) is better, because bulat comes from pulad or a related term and variations of the word pulad can be found in many languages. I did an etymological study of the words. The earliest use of the term pulad is a 6th century AD text. It may have originally came from Sanskrit or Avesten (which had a common root language). In sanskrit languages the prefix pu means pure or purify, while there are hundreds of words for iron in the languages of India including loha, lauha, etc. Pu loha (meaning pure or purified iron) or such was probably the origin for the word. I have checked this theory out with Sanskrit scholars and they agree with this.

I have no problem with the use of the term wootz when refering specifially to Indian steel, but the word assumes a geographic location, which can be inaccurate and assuming. I prefer the term crucible Damascus steel to prevent assumptions.

On a related note: If I read one more reference in the news, including the Nature article and National Geographic news (where the author even contacted me but took no notice to what I said) to the process being only from India, being lost, and references to crusaders and Damascus, Syria I am going to scream!

Rivkin · 20th November 2006, 06:57 PM

I think what we have here is a cultural issue. I grew up in a commpunity (Asia/Eastern Europe) where "bulat" novadays simply means steel. Any steel. Even if you buy almost any translational of any old text, you will see that translator uses word "bulat" with no regard for the original text, i.e. assumes that it simply means steel. This is why you occasionally see russian works on bulat that pronounce that you know what (since we don't know how to call it ?), was used by Roland, prince Igor and virtually every other historic person, because the author did not check the manuscript's original for the exact _original_ wording.

Even in XIXth century, per Anosov, bulat meant any steel with a pattern, whether it is mechanical, you know what, or something even more simple.

The "wootz" word for me is a slang and I think we need such a word to clearly identify what we are talking about.

18th November 2006, 03:54 PM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	There are many gaps between the observation and conclusions Chris: It's unclear to me what properties carbon nanotubes and nanowires might convey to steel. The authors suggest that such structures might explain the extaordinary cutting properties and strength of wootz versus other steels. Since we are having trouble here agreeing that wootz per se did have such special properties, I would put the discovery of these microstructures in wootz as interesting observations deserving further attention, but far from conclusive evidence that they convey special properties to wootz and not other steels. Do we know that these nanotubes and nanowires do not occur in other types of steel? Do we know that such strcutures convey greater strength and sharper cutting edge? I suspect that wootz is not unique in regard to having these structures. Perhaps Dr Ann can help us here. The article abstract is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...s/444286a.html You can purchase the full article online for $30 (I recommend the PDF version) here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/444286a.html. Or you can go to your local library, get the November 16, 2006 number of Nature, p. 286, and photocopy the article for pennies. Ian. Last edited by Ian; 18th November 2006 at 04:04 PM.

18th November 2006, 07:20 AM	#1
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Rivkin, Where did you see the article? Do you have a link to it? Cheers Chris

20th November 2006, 03:41 PM	#6
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Hi all, Just got back from a conference and will be reading the nature article soon. I have seen some work on nano structure in a 2004 article. History section in all these areas are bad. FYI wootz, only from 1795, not a real word, too bad it is used so much as it is so inaccurate and as no etymological roots.

20th November 2006, 05:05 PM	#9
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Hi all, Bulat is good, but pulad (phulad) is better, because bulat comes from pulad or a related term and variations of the word pulad can be found in many languages. I did an etymological study of the words. The earliest use of the term pulad is a 6th century AD text. It may have originally came from Sanskrit or Avesten (which had a common root language). In sanskrit languages the prefix pu means pure or purify, while there are hundreds of words for iron in the languages of India including loha, lauha, etc. Pu loha (meaning pure or purified iron) or such was probably the origin for the word. I have checked this theory out with Sanskrit scholars and they agree with this. I have no problem with the use of the term wootz when refering specifially to Indian steel, but the word assumes a geographic location, which can be inaccurate and assuming. I prefer the term crucible Damascus steel to prevent assumptions. On a related note: If I read one more reference in the news, including the Nature article and National Geographic news (where the author even contacted me but took no notice to what I said) to the process being only from India, being lost, and references to crusaders and Damascus, Syria I am going to scream!

20th November 2006, 06:57 PM	#10
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I think what we have here is a cultural issue. I grew up in a commpunity (Asia/Eastern Europe) where "bulat" novadays simply means steel. Any steel. Even if you buy almost any translational of any old text, you will see that translator uses word "bulat" with no regard for the original text, i.e. assumes that it simply means steel. This is why you occasionally see russian works on bulat that pronounce that you know what (since we don't know how to call it ?), was used by Roland, prince Igor and virtually every other historic person, because the author did not check the manuscript's original for the exact _original_ wording. Even in XIXth century, per Anosov, bulat meant any steel with a pattern, whether it is mechanical, you know what, or something even more simple. The "wootz" word for me is a slang and I think we need such a word to clearly identify what we are talking about.