Why were the ingots mostly round?

Jens Nordlunde · 2nd April 2006, 05:17 PM

I have seen in several places, that the wootz ingots are very hard to get oblong so it could be used for a blade. By far the greatest part of the ingots were used for blades, and some of the ingots were not round like we mostly know them, they could have very different forms. When most of the ingots were used for blades, why were they not ‘pre formed’ for this purpose? It must have been possible as some of them were ‘loaf’ shaped, which in a way was a ‘pre forming’.

Gt Obach · 2nd April 2006, 11:20 PM

Hi Jens

in my opinion..... one of the variables to developing a good watered pattern is working the steel .... the more heat cycles and the more forging should help to produce a nicer pattern..... ...

i'm sure they tried to melt wootz in bar shaped crucibles...... but the pattern would be very dendritic and not very many forge cycles would be needed to produce a sword.......

--- since they made their own crucibles ...i would think they could shape them in the form that would be best for swords...

Greg

Jim McDougall · 3rd April 2006, 04:57 PM

Hi Jens,
Metallurgy is probably one of the most difficult aspects of studying these weapons for me, as it is obviously so technical, but your observation is well placed and seems like a logical question. In rereading some of the fantastic work of Ann Feuerbach she notes certain differences in the shapes of the crucibles, i.e.conical (eggplant) shaped in southern India, and elongated, pear shaped or light bulb shaped in Sri Lanka, while Hyderabad crucibles were cylindrical, similar but shorter than those in Central Asia.

As a layman, it is my impression that the shapes of the crucibles must have had something to do with the manner of stacking them in the furnace, as well as has been mentioned, some consideration for heat transfer . It seems that since the cakes of metal needed to be reheated to be forged the molten or redhot metal could be drawn into the necessary elonged shape fairly easily.

This sounds like a question that Ann or some of the metallurgists here might have an answer for. Now you have me curious too!!

All the best,
Jim

Justin · 3rd April 2006, 10:54 PM

I keep hearing talk of wootz being melted and cast ,this has puzzeled me since to the best of my knowledge this would homogenize the metal and detroy the different layers of steel.So how does it work?

B.I · 4th April 2006, 12:16 AM

its a good question, and one i look forward to 'spectating'.
jim, i think that we need both here. anns historically academic anaysis would be great, but also greg is as hands-on talented as they come, and i would like to hear more from him. i think if we tickle his curiosity enough to get him to expand his opinion, we will be pleasantly surprised at the results :-)

Jeff Pringle · 4th April 2006, 05:32 AM

I'm thinking that it's easier to get a crucible to maintain it's structural integrity at high heat if it is round, and not too tall.
Also, the difficulty in forging out the metal is a problem with all ingots, the first stages are the difficult ones and would exist with either round or long ones, so the benefit is not as great as it would seem.
Round, compact ingots also might be less prone to casting flaws, bubbles and/or slag inclusions, due to the surface area to mass ratio - it really sucks when you spend a bunch of hours forging something out and then find a flaw.
What do you think?

2nd April 2006, 05:17 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Why were the ingots mostly round? I have seen in several places, that the wootz ingots are very hard to get oblong so it could be used for a blade. By far the greatest part of the ingots were used for blades, and some of the ingots were not round like we mostly know them, they could have very different forms. When most of the ingots were used for blades, why were they not ‘pre formed’ for this purpose? It must have been possible as some of them were ‘loaf’ shaped, which in a way was a ‘pre forming’.

2nd April 2006, 11:20 PM	#2
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	Hi Jens in my opinion..... one of the variables to developing a good watered pattern is working the steel .... the more heat cycles and the more forging should help to produce a nicer pattern..... ... i'm sure they tried to melt wootz in bar shaped crucibles...... but the pattern would be very dendritic and not very many forge cycles would be needed to produce a sword....... --- since they made their own crucibles ...i would think they could shape them in the form that would be best for swords... Greg

3rd April 2006, 04:57 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	Hi Jens, Metallurgy is probably one of the most difficult aspects of studying these weapons for me, as it is obviously so technical, but your observation is well placed and seems like a logical question. In rereading some of the fantastic work of Ann Feuerbach she notes certain differences in the shapes of the crucibles, i.e.conical (eggplant) shaped in southern India, and elongated, pear shaped or light bulb shaped in Sri Lanka, while Hyderabad crucibles were cylindrical, similar but shorter than those in Central Asia. As a layman, it is my impression that the shapes of the crucibles must have had something to do with the manner of stacking them in the furnace, as well as has been mentioned, some consideration for heat transfer . It seems that since the cakes of metal needed to be reheated to be forged the molten or redhot metal could be drawn into the necessary elonged shape fairly easily. This sounds like a question that Ann or some of the metallurgists here might have an answer for. Now you have me curious too!! All the best, Jim

3rd April 2006, 10:54 PM	#4
Justin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 175	I keep hearing talk of wootz being melted and cast ,this has puzzeled me since to the best of my knowledge this would homogenize the metal and detroy the different layers of steel.So how does it work?

4th April 2006, 12:16 AM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	its a good question, and one i look forward to 'spectating'. jim, i think that we need both here. anns historically academic anaysis would be great, but also greg is as hands-on talented as they come, and i would like to hear more from him. i think if we tickle his curiosity enough to get him to expand his opinion, we will be pleasantly surprised at the results :-)

4th April 2006, 05:32 AM	#6
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	I'm thinking that it's easier to get a crucible to maintain it's structural integrity at high heat if it is round, and not too tall. Also, the difficulty in forging out the metal is a problem with all ingots, the first stages are the difficult ones and would exist with either round or long ones, so the benefit is not as great as it would seem. Round, compact ingots also might be less prone to casting flaws, bubbles and/or slag inclusions, due to the surface area to mass ratio - it really sucks when you spend a bunch of hours forging something out and then find a flaw. What do you think?