Another wootz question

[Gonzalo G]

Jeff, how important could it be the presence on enough manganese in the crucible to produce different banded effects, as it seems to have incidence over the carbon segregation? Could it be a factor to explain some of this differences?
Regards

Gonzalo

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Jeff, how important could it be the presence on enough manganese in the crucible to produce different banded effects, as it seems to have incidence over the carbon segregation? Could it be a factor to explain some of this differences?
Regards

Gonzalo

Hi Gonzalo,

I am not a metallurgist, But, I thought the Manganese dioxide was added to neutralize the Sulfur in the iron, which makes the blade too brittle to work with when heated. Verhoeven does state that very small traces of Manganese will promote banding (less effect then Vanadium). I think trace amounts are usually present anyway, so I don't think that is the reason it was added to the crucible.
I personally feel that it is more likely the original source of the iron, with its inherent properties that made the biggest difference. The other ingredients and etchants may have helped or hindered somewhat but Like Verhoven did, a smith would keep hitting a wall until the right iron was found. I agree with ariel that a poor smith even with the correct iron could loose the effect.

All the Best
Jeff

[Gonzalo G]

I agree, Jeff. But manganese also has been mentioned by some metallurgists as an ingredient affecting the dendritic structure and appearance of the wootz, and not only as a mean to neutralize the sulphur. Nevermind, I was only trying to check this point. With respect to the vanadium, the same can be said. I understand indian ores were characterized by the presence of vanadium. I don´t know if somebody had conducted experiments in this way, changing the additional ingredients, or their amount, and using the same forging technique, to see the possible changes on the appearance of the dendritic structure. Of course, forging techniques had great inicidence to this respect, but I was only intending to see the differences originated on the making of the ingots. Thank you.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Jeff D]

Hi Gonzalo,

Vanadium, Molybdenum, chromium, niobium and manganese all produce the effect. The elements can be found naturally in different quantities in different ores depending on their source. These are the one mentioned by Verhoeven in his 2001 Scientific America article. I am sure there are others as well. I suppose these elements could have been added to the crucible, but, I am sure the ingredients would be a highly guarded secret. I suspect the additions were not entirely known or the smiths imported into Spain would have been able to reproduce the watered pattern from the local ores. Apparently they were not.

All the Best
Jeff

[Jeff Pringle]

I’m sure the Turkish, Persian and Indian smiths were primarily working with metal from different production centers, which used somewhat different ores and processes. But perhaps the Turks were buying up all the ingots that were less prone to material loss and fracture while forging…
To recapture the old metal requires orchestrating the alloy, the ingot, the forging method, heat treatment, and even the polishing and etching - all have significant effects on the finished appearance.
To illustrate the importance of the ingot alloy to the pattern, here is metal from two modern ingots that were forged in a similar way. One of these is not going to ever look Persian!