Wootz Shamshir

[ariel]

There would be no difference between a bar of monosteel bent over on itself multiple times and just an identical bar of the same monosteel used as is. As a matter of fact, the laminated one might be worse: the layers might not forge together to perfection without leaving defective spaces between them.

All mechanical damascus blades require steels of different carbon content: old European bloomery steel , Japanese Tamahagane, modern blades. Otherwise, there will never be a differential oxidation (damascus pattern) after etching.

Recommend the book by Manfred Sachse” On Damascus steel”.

The “pioneering work” of Anosov is, IMHO, overrated: Russian captain Masalsky witnessed Persian forges and published the description of their methods. Moreover, by that time Russians were already in Central Asian Khanates and unquestionably served as a source of information. Anosov indeed made wootz ( bulat) and learned the simplest rules of forging it ( low temperature), but the fine points of producing beautiful patterns by careful hammering were beyond him. He claimed to produce Kara Taban and Kara Khorasan blades, but in actuality all surviving blades from his workshop are of rather simplest Shams.

Yes, there are some blades with different wootz patterns. This was mainly to show the proficiency of the bladesmith. But a similar thing was done with malicious purposes: Russian officer Maksimov wrote a paper some 150 years ago in which he described bulat sabers made by “Asiatic smiths” out of broken blades forged together to sell them to Russian officers at high prices. Understandably, he recommended Zlatoust blades:-)


Yes, there are a few contemporary masters capable of forging “OK” bulat short blades. But there is perhaps only a single one able to make a long blade comparable to the best Persian or Indian ones: Georgian master Zaqro Nonikashvili. Google him.

[kronckew]

one reason for folding monosteel is it distributes any imperfections, inclusions more evenly. yes, if any of the layers do not fuse, the piece is junk. one reason swords were expensive. this occurred with bloomery or 'bog' steels which were essentially a spongy matrix of discrete particles of varying composition.

modern steels, it not neccessary as they essentially do not have any imperfections if they were made correctly.

experiments with using two steels of differing carbon content were done, laminating them a number of times and testing the carbon content of each layer. after about 8 folds (64 layers)* the higher content steel's carbon content was diffusing into the lower and eventually (i forget how many layers) it was essentially a mono steel of carbon content intermediate of the starting values.

japanese swords were made from steels from two different sources, one too high in carbon, the other too low. the laminating into hundreds of layers was to mix the two steels, done out of necessity, not to produce a pattern. the hamon pattern along the edge is a function of the heat treatment changing the crystallisation, not the layers. they did use a higher carbon edge section, a milder spine, and a softer core all welded into one, but that is not pattern welding/laminating. the hamon is brought out visible by polishing, not by etching. the areas outside the hamon are polished, not etched, as well. visual elements there are defects, some mild enough to ignore. some mean scrapping the blade and starting over. again, a reason the bl;ade of a master smith is so expensive.

it's like those sticks of coloured epoxy putty, cut off a bit and you have an inner and outer layer of different colour, one is the resin, the other the hardener. you mix them by flattening with your fingers, folding, flattening, folding, rolling, twisting, balling, flattening, etc until the layers diffuse together. not enough folding and you see the layers, too much and they diffuse together and more folding just a waste of effort.

* - related: try folding a piece of paper into layers, how many times can you fold it?
see: This Link

[mariusgmioc]

Double message deleted

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

There would be no difference between a bar of monosteel bent over on itself multiple times and just an identical bar of the same monosteel used as is. As a matter of fact, the laminated one might be worse: the layers might not forge together to perfection without leaving defective spaces between them.

[...]
But there is perhaps only a single one able to make a long blade comparable to the best Persian or Indian ones: Georgian master Zaqro Nonikashvili. Google him.

Hello Ariel,

I beg to differ with your first statement!
Folding and hammering a piece of monosteel over itself serves the purpose of eliminating impurities and homogenizing the carbon content. It was a process widely used in the sword making in Persia and India. That's precisely why so many Tulwars ansd Shamshirs show clear signs of delamination these days.

In fact, the crack in the spine of Bryce's sword is a clear example of delamination.

Regarding the method of Zaqro Nonikashvili, in my posting I even provided a link to his method. And yes, he is probably the one who produces the best wootz. The Russian Ivan Kirpichev is also good but his results are not so consistent and he makes only small knives.

[ariel]

Sorry if I was less than precise.
By monosteel I mean truly uniform industrial grade European steel manufactured under tight conditions and with meticulous quality control. They did not require additional homogenization. Surely, lower quality steel manufactured in rather primitive and poorly controlled conditions will have variable composition in different areas. But monosteel Solingen, Birmingham and Zlatoust blades did not delaminate. Damascus gun barrels from Liege did, simply because they were deliberately composed of bars with different carbon content.

And yes, the seam on the spine might look like delamination. But not quite. The edges of the ingot with most impurities, slag and variable composition just could not be fused when forged under low temperatures needed for wootz. More precisely, it is not a delamination ( which implies past good lamination ), but an almost inavoidable defect of forging. They can be barely noticeable or ugly as hell. I have several wootz blades with them.

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Ariel,

I doubt that the crack in Bryce's blade is a manufacturing flaw. If it were, it would have been repaired with some bronze filling. I still believe it is a crack that appeared much later in the blade's life as a result of delamination. However, which of us is right would be rather impossible to check without a careful metallographic examination.

Moreover, even if it were a forging flaw, the precise forging process that involves fusing the edges of an ingot that was bent over itself is "lamination." So even of the defect appeared during the process itself, it would still be "delamination." Well at least that's how we called them during our metallurgy classes at the university.

Cheers!

Marius

[ariel]

You might be correct.

[shastardhari]

Very nice sir

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,

I came across another image of the Lion Pictogram on a Persian blade. Very similar to mine, although a little better done. Again it shows that "face" peering over the lion's back, but in more detail this time.

Cheers,
Bryce