True Combat Value of Wootz

Chris Evans · 16th November 2006, 12:47 AM

Hi Folks,

I think that we gave this topic a pretty good airing, but by no means wrote the last word on the subject.

Someone brought this to my attention today:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6bbef23a0311ac

Carbon nanotubes?

Help - We need to get hold of that paper.

Cheers
Chris

Rivkin · 17th November 2006, 08:47 PM

Well, my personal impression is somewhat mixed. The article in Nature starts bad - it talks a lot about crusaders, about mysterious blades their encountered, and then says oh, here we analyze such blade - from XVIIIth century. Then it continues to say that wootz (called damascus in the paper) have exhibited highly unusual super-qualities. As we discussed in this thread, this is somewhat questionable. There are some authors who liked it, some, like for example Tournie, whom Manoucher quotes on a different issue, believed that wootz weapons are simply very bad ones, and mechanical damascus is much better. Then it says that the secret of making wootz was "lost" in XVIIIth century, but yet somehow Kyrgyz and other smiths were able to work with Anosov in creating wootz blades in XIXth century. Geurk did make some wootz weaponry relatively late in XIXth century, albeit I think he did not make wootz.

Then we go into subject of carbon nanotubes. Ok, carbon nanotubes. It is obvious that carbon in wootz samples formed some sort of structure and it is obvious that this pattern would be formed on a nanoscale. I guess 50 year ago, before the word "nano" started to mean "grant money", no one would really care to specifically mention the nanoscale. What is new in this article is that it is formed a nanotube structure rather than diamond or graphite. This is what significant over here, and it is indeed an interesting discovery. Which again requires certain reiteration of the question "what is Wootz ?" For example Anosov, as fas as I remember, believed that wootz should consist chemically from carbon and iron, and all these stories about alloying are wrong. He is also quoted that every steel with a pattern would be called "bulat" (he did not use the word "wootz") by the people, even though some of it is mechanical, i.e. "artificial bulat", and some is "real bulat". So again we need to agree on what is wootz. For example Pendrey &Verhoeven & company believe that ".... The prior studies claiming to have either reproduced the genuine Damascus steel or explained the mechanism of pattern formation are reviewed. None of these studies have allowed modern blade smiths to reproduce the steel. The author and a blade smith, Alfred Pendray, has developed a process with which Pendray can produce blades that match the microstructures of the best museum quality genuine Damascus blades", meaning I guess that everyone else's wootz is fake. If they would mention which museums blades are "quality genuine Damascus blades", and which are definitely not, despite having visual pattern, this would make me more happy.

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.

18th November 2006, 03:54 PM	#6
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,362	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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16th November 2006, 12:47 AM	#1
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Folks, I think that we gave this topic a pretty good airing, but by no means wrote the last word on the subject. Someone brought this to my attention today: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6bbef23a0311ac Carbon nanotubes? Help - We need to get hold of that paper. Cheers Chris

17th November 2006, 08:47 PM	#2
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Well, my personal impression is somewhat mixed. The article in Nature starts bad - it talks a lot about crusaders, about mysterious blades their encountered, and then says oh, here we analyze such blade - from XVIIIth century. Then it continues to say that wootz (called damascus in the paper) have exhibited highly unusual super-qualities. As we discussed in this thread, this is somewhat questionable. There are some authors who liked it, some, like for example Tournie, whom Manoucher quotes on a different issue, believed that wootz weapons are simply very bad ones, and mechanical damascus is much better. Then it says that the secret of making wootz was "lost" in XVIIIth century, but yet somehow Kyrgyz and other smiths were able to work with Anosov in creating wootz blades in XIXth century. Geurk did make some wootz weaponry relatively late in XIXth century, albeit I think he did not make wootz. Then we go into subject of carbon nanotubes. Ok, carbon nanotubes. It is obvious that carbon in wootz samples formed some sort of structure and it is obvious that this pattern would be formed on a nanoscale. I guess 50 year ago, before the word "nano" started to mean "grant money", no one would really care to specifically mention the nanoscale. What is new in this article is that it is formed a nanotube structure rather than diamond or graphite. This is what significant over here, and it is indeed an interesting discovery. Which again requires certain reiteration of the question "what is Wootz ?" For example Anosov, as fas as I remember, believed that wootz should consist chemically from carbon and iron, and all these stories about alloying are wrong. He is also quoted that every steel with a pattern would be called "bulat" (he did not use the word "wootz") by the people, even though some of it is mechanical, i.e. "artificial bulat", and some is "real bulat". So again we need to agree on what is wootz. For example Pendrey &Verhoeven & company believe that ".... The prior studies claiming to have either reproduced the genuine Damascus steel or explained the mechanism of pattern formation are reviewed. None of these studies have allowed modern blade smiths to reproduce the steel. The author and a blade smith, Alfred Pendray, has developed a process with which Pendray can produce blades that match the microstructures of the best museum quality genuine Damascus blades", meaning I guess that everyone else's wootz is fake. If they would mention which museums blades are "quality genuine Damascus blades", and which are definitely not, despite having visual pattern, this would make me more happy.

18th November 2006, 07:20 AM	#3
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	#8
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.