Talk:Steel/Archive 1

Why does "Steel Industry" redirect to Steel?

Steel industry deserves its own article. The industry itself can be written at length, for example including things such as the role of the steel industry in war, commerce, and politics. These issues however do not fit with the article of 'steel' per se. Steel Industry would be an article in economics and maybe some other categories, the substance of steel however, is of interest not only from the 'steel industry' perspective but from other perspectives. In the following days I will write a 'Steel Industry' page if no one objects.

older entries

Steel and Wrought Iron percentages: I quote "Steel is also to be distinguished from wrought iron with little or no carbon, usually less than 0.035%." However it says in the same paragraph that Steel varies between 0.02 and 1.7% Carbon, which overlaps the top range of wrought iron's carbon content. Is that to say that steel can have a lower carbon content than wrought iron, presumably to not be wrought iron it must have something else in it. Is this so?

"Henry VII commissioned a new ironworks at Newcastle, in a part of Sussex known as the Weald". Something is wrong here. There is no Newcastle in Sussex, certainly not the Newcastle-on-Tyne that the link goes to. Can anyone correct this?

This article is a work of racism. Nowhere in the article is steelcraft in africa mentioned, nor the fact that the bloomery was invented in africa by africans. This article doesn't adhere to any standard of literary decency, and should not be a so-called "good article".

then don't just complain about it. Do some research and add the missing information. Jerdwyer 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I was taught at school that it's up to 2.11% of carbon in the alloy (not 1.7).

Ruok 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done that research and submitted some citations, although I'm not sure exactly how to do it other than be editing the page. My edits have not been accepted yet. My resources are valid. It's difficult to do the same research over and over again, without knowing whether one's efforts will be used. I'm not sure why I should spend lots more time on this unless some of my efforts are acknowledged. Perhaps someone will email me with details, now that I've registered. All of these resources are academic and require some effort to cite, but here they are again: "Early Metal Working in Sub Saharan Africa," Journal of African History 35 (1994) 1-36. 1994, Cambridge University Press, Authors: Duncan E. Miller and N.J. Van Der Merwe. "Radiocarbon Chronology of the Iron Age in Sub-Saharan Africa," Current Anthropology 1968, authors, Minze Stuiver and N.J. Van Der Merwe. There are several others. The dates in the current article on Iron for early use of iron in Egypt and Sumera are completely wrong (according to these two articles and several others I've already submitted to wikipedia). Iron filings, a byproduct of copper industry (which was undergoing profound supply problems in the early second millenium B.C.) are found in Sumeria and Egypt - but they are not smelted iron, nor does anyone state which type of iron they were, but they were unusable in any form as tools. The appearance of the earlist iron implements is almost universally attributed to Troy, Mykenos and Assyria, three interrelated places - all with access to meteoritic iron in Anatolia around 2,000. The mines in Anatolia show that the iron itself was discovered around 2,000B.C. by metallurgists more familiar with copper working, but they knew they'd found something important. The first tools made from that iron appear in Anatolia around 1,500BC (there are good dates on two artifacts from 1800 BC in Anatolia). It is not until after iron has appeared in Anatolia that weapons made of it appear anywhere else - and it was not used for "little objects" like figurines until much later - it was used for maceheads and other weapons being developed in the region from the very start. The Anatolians were already producing much of the bronze spearpoints and maceheads during the Bronze Age (and heavily guarded many of their secrets). Neither Egypt nor Sumeria had any indigeneous reliable sources of tin and copper, as everyone writing about iron should know. Iron was even more rare, to those two places, at that time. In fact saying something showed up in "Sumeria" at 4000 BC needs to be supported - I know of know reputable archaeologist of metal who would say that. By 2000 BC, it is incorrect to refer to "Sumeria" as "Sumeria," as the Sumerian language had entirely disappeared (as well as any people claiming to be descendants of the original Sumerians - all gone). It was Babylon, by then, with an entirely different language than Sumerian - and by 1700 BC or so, it was under attack by Assyria (who had bronze weapons, and possibly iron ones) and the Babylonians were woefully lacking in bronze. Someone or several parties had been pirating around the eastern Mediterranean from around 1800 BC (the same time that the Phoenicians appear to history) attacking cities, stipping them of Bronze - and apparently reselling it or building their own arsenals. It is unlikely that shipgoing people had metal smelting on board - and the current archaeology of likely "enemies," such as Carthage (Phoenician-controlled) or Etrusca reveal no such metalworking ability - it had to have been taken to Assyria or Anatolia or Egypt for smelting, if it was stolen from A Bablyonian context or Mycenae/Mykenos). The most common use of bronze was in making adzes and hoes, and in Assyria, the earliest use of iron appears to be hoe-making ("The Technology of Three Assyrian Iron Artifacts" Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1979, The University of Chicago Press, author: Radomir Pleiner). It was a poor quality iron, by the way - all of which needs to be addressed in the history section. [User Kaimiikekamaila 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)kaimiikekamaila, October 28, 2006]

Where did the iron come from for these alleged Sumerian and Egyptian artifacts? Who dated them and by what method? Were these from controlled stratigraphic sequences? I seriously doubt it. Since the archaeology of metals is a field unto itself, I suggest Wikipedia contact someone who knows about the subject to write this article. I think it's an essential part of the iron article - and I don't think iron should be combined in with steel, as an article, if the iron article is already so remiss in its data. The accumulation of metals and metal weaponry in the Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age spells out a story among historical and technological forces that must be included. An author like E. Photos should at least be consulted. The whole question of when meteoritic iron was used (and when it wasn't) and where the nickel rich sources of iron might have been has to be considered.

As to African iron use, it seems clearly independent - especially in terms of the tool traditions themselves, to which iron is applied. No one is saying that Sub Saharan Africans had the regionally based technologies and markets of the eastern Mediterranean - but they did have iron. Iron use, in smelting and pouring for tools, appears in Subsaharan Africa at least 1,200 BC. The traditional date for the very first iron tools in Egypt and "Sumeria" is 1200 BC - not 4000BC (I can't find a single author who still state that - the date probably came from a history book, not a prehistory/archaeology book. Archaeologists work in teams with chemists, physicists, geologists and others to properly date things - they don't guess). I doubt myself that the eastern Mediterranean use of iron depends upon Sub Saharan Africa (although someone could clearly figure it out with the right kind of physical analysis - I don't know if that's been done). It is more likely that older trade routes involving Anatolia and Assyria were involved, and it is also likely that date is a bit earlier than 1200 BC (more like 1500 BC). But what is clear is that metal use, especially of iron, was becoming a quest for the Ancient World System, due to the stripping of bronze from port cities, inland cities (like Jerusalem) and elsewhere, and the incredibly sudden onset of a shortage of tin during almost the entire second millenium BC. It is likely that the Trojan war was fought in part to reallocate metal to the winners. Wikipedia places the Trojan War at 1200-1300BC, which is a good bracket of dates - but it's right in the middle of this ongoing "world" conflict about metals, and it has to do with those metals and their allocation. IRON weapons were found at Troy in 1902 and they were already of good quality - and the level at which they were found dates to around 1200-1300, so shall we say - iron had some distribution up the coast of Anatolia already at 1300 BC? I think the article on iron should make that link. That information is well documented in Photos's article, "The Question of Meteoritic Iron versus Smelted Nickel Iron", World Archaeology 1989. I am not familiar enough with how Wikipedia works to know how to add all this information to the article. [UserKaimiikekamaila 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Kaimiikekamaila, Oct. 29, 2006]. I hope these references stand as back up to the edits I made yesterday and that someone looks at those edits seriously - at least take out the goofy information about "Egypt" and "Sumeria" at 4000 B.C. - or find a reliable scientifically based citation (not a guess from a historan) about such matters.

The sentence is mine, but the source I thought said it, does not in fact name a Newcastle as the site of the first English blast furnace.

I did some Googling, and this site [1] names a Newbridge in the Ashdown Forest as the site of Henry's 1496 construction. Shimmin 11:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

---

need more history. i found a webpage once that claimed there were people in Africa who had developed special kilns using dried up termite hills and 8-man tube-blowing teams that could actually produce steel without any sort of industrial power, but that the tradition was going extinct with the introduction of industrialized products.

i have also read interesting things about 'wootz' steal from the india/paksitan/afghanistan region which was highly thought of in europe apparently.

---

wootz steel = Damascus steel, best in the world until the introduction of Huntsman's technique in 1740, aka "Sheffield steel". Bessemer's process produces steel of the same quality for a fraction of the cost.

Other type of "steel"

The discussion should also include ductile iron and cast iron, including the history and commercial usage.

---

Note that ferrite is not linked, although there is a page on this concerning its magnetic properties - would it be appropritate to link this? Leonard G. 04:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Jared Diamond (Guns, etc) claims that Bantu people were heating Steel before the birth of Christ, on both coasts (East & West) I think, unless I misremember.

Properties of steel

I think a table on the side needs to be created showing the many different properties of steel. Other articles on materials should have this as well. In particular I was looking for its resisitivity or conductivity. Other useful properties would be melting point, atomic or molecular mass, maleability, etc. Perhaps this page is too general to have such specifics, but in that case, there could be a table to "see the properties of" carbon steel, stainless, etc. Fresheneesz 03:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I added the link to Steel (disambiguation) because it may expand to include other uses of the word that are not already covered here (such as Danielle Steel, or other persons that may have that name). I don't see what it hurts to have it here, so I'm reinstating it. Please bring up any objections here. -- Wapcaplet 06:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Currently three of the four disamb links refer to this article or types of steel discussed in and linked to within this article. Surely anyone searching for the author wouldn't just type in steel - well maybe they would, considering the intelligence level. Seems to be just unneeded clutter now. It may expand -- but will it? I'll leave it there for now, pending expansion. Ferrous is out. -Vsmith 15:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the Steel disambig link - for pretty much the same reasons as VSmith - but won't revert until I see if there is any more response. Noisy | Talk 17:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Steele disambiguation page is what made me think to add it, but that page also contains some links that probably shouldn't be there. Do as you will with it. -- Wapcaplet 18:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

don't forget the film of the same name and its eponymous DC comic hero. <.< that seems like a worthwhile thing to justify a disambiguation page.

Density

• Shouldn't quantitative physical properties such as density be listed here?
  • Exactly my point. - Jerryseinfeld 00:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm willing to do a general properties of steel section - I'll make the physical properties those of say 1008 carbon (the most vanilla grade on earth) or A36 - and then provide some example of different grades mech props. Suggestions welcome and appreciated. Will put together before 1/28/05 RyanDiS

I've been told that steel has a "characteristic length" of 40 km. The formula for characteristic length is tensile-strength/(density*1g). I was hoping the steel article could either confirm that number, or tell me the correct number. --DavidCary 19:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Is this a featured article? If not, why not? It is truly excellent Tannin 09:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your comment, Tannin, but I think so too! -- llywrch 04:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iron more brittle than steel

"Steel with increased carbon content can be made harder and stronger than iron, but is also more brittle." High carbon steel is more brittle than low carbon steel, but it is less brittle than iron. This sentense structure can be misleading.

African iron age

Removed this claim (steel, 1400 BC) for two reasons.

(1) Among archaeologists, there exists little consensus as to the date of the beginning of the iron age in sub-Saharan Africa. Stating a date in the second millennium BC should not be done without stating covering this controversy in more detail.

(2) Determining what is wrought iron and what is low-carbon steel is an impossible judgment call. See first English novel for an example of a similarly meaniningless academic argument. Shimmin 15:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hardened steel

I'm trying to help fix a link on the spring (device) page for hardened steel. Am I right in thinking that hardened steel is just an annealed steal, and perhaps more exactly that spring steel an annealed high carbon steel.

no that is completely incorrect. Annealed is the opposite of hardend, while spring steel referst to a specific type of alloy.--Knife Knut 04:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In either case, we could probably use a redirect for each and appropriate descriptions added to this page. -- Solipsist 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if we can get away with making a "hardened steel" page without someone calling it a dicdef, but let's give it a try. Meggar 07:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition

Defining steel as mainly iron with a primary alloying element of carbon is problematic since modern high speed steels are all "alloying element" and no iron. Alternatively is you're taking the view that high speed steels which contain no iron are just mis-named this should be mentioned.

• I have never seen a HSS that doesn't contain iron. Look at the definition of High speed steel Wizard191 23:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I refer you to Metals in the Service of Man, Alexander & Street, where in a dicussion on Molybdenum steels and their alloying with tungsten carbide and cobalt (page 162) they say "In fact this material is all alloying elements and no iron." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trewornan (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Template?

I propose we create Template:Steels along the lines of Template:Punctuation marks. I'll start and, if it looks good, it can get added to the appropriate pages. —BenFrantzDale 21:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

steel reactions

Does steel rust when in the presence of oxygen? Does it react with any other chemicals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.225.114 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

One-step production

Does anyone know of a one-step industrial-scale production method for steel? I have recently heard of a new method that uses a single step to produce steel, and has a 90-95% yield from iron ore to steel (as opposed to 60-70%, right?). It's supposed to be a special form of furnace in which you place the iron ore at the beggining and extract steel at the end. --AK7 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

African perspective

This article is a work of racism. Nowhere in the article is steelcraft in africa mentioned, nor the fact that the bloomery was invented in africa by africans. This article doesn't adhere to any standard of literary decency, and should not be a so-called "good article". -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.159 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2006

This can be quite a common problem on Wikipedia. At the moment, the majority of editors are from the West and despite efforts to counter bias, we don't always have an accurate global view. You could try adding the template {{Globalize}} to the top of this talk page, in order to tag it for extra attention. -- Solipsist 07:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Any experts on steel's melting point?

Hi. Sort of off-topic for Wikipedia in a sense. But this could help another article on wikipedia. A series of US "Experts" claim that 9/11 could be a hoax based on a set of reasons they've outline. One of them is that:

• "Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

Does anyone happen to know if these temperatures quoted could be correct?

I contend anyone can throw a bunch of facts and figures against a chalk board and contend it is so. And a majority of the people who have *no idea* of what is true or not, might 'buy it' and accept it as fact. So my question is do these temperatures in fact hold true based on the knowledge of others here?

Pig iron melts about 1200*C and pure iron about 1500*C (very roughly) - melting point for a particular steel would of course depend on it's composition.Trewornan 19:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#Experts_Claim_Official_9.2F11_Story_is_a_Hoax.3F

Source: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

The by-line is "PRWEB" and the 'experts' are Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow: either Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 or 9/11 Conspriacy theorists, depending on which fork you prefer. It is the nature of conspiracy theories that they either ignore rebuttals, or incorporate them as part of the conspiracy, so I am not sure how much difference it makes what the actual material properties of steel are, but steel melts between 2400 and 2800 F. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Those temperatures look like the right order of magnitude, but from what I've heard it sounds like the cause of failure was buckling due to creep, which can occur at about half the absolute melting temperature, so on the order of 1100 °F, just barely red-hot. ―BenFrantzDale 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben is correct, at high temperatures creep becomes a real problem. But more so at these high temperatures steel can convert from BCC to FCC, which has a much lower YS (yield strength). The steel used was probably some sort of mild steel, which means the temperature where this transformation occurs is around 1350 F, which is much below the 1800 F under ideal conditions. I suspect the experts just said it "melted" to simplify it for the media and now the conspiracy therorist are running with this misinformation. Wizard191 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There ware a lot of molten steel and were desposed by government instead of investigate it. The fire itself did not seem to be hot enough first of all. See jet fuel. Unless you are a part of these criminal acts, you should admit it is impossible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.105.102 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Iron vs. steel

Wrought iron has too little carbon, and is therefore too malleable; cast iron has too much carbon, and is therefore too brittle. Then why not mix them together to get steel? I’m guessing that there’s more to steel than just carbon quantity. Is it structure? I can’t really understand the section of the article that explains it, and I don’t have time to read it all. If possible, could a brief explanation of the difference be included in the introduction? Twilight Realm 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a metalurgist, but I don't see a real reason you couldn't mix the two to get steel. The issue is that carbon is only so soluable in iron, so if you add more than about %2.1 carbon, it won't stay in solution. There is more to steel than this, because the carbon and iron can come in different crystal phases which is what's going on with heat-treating. —BenFrantzDale 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been a process in the past (not yet described in Wikipedia) that have produced steel from molten pig iron and wrought iron plates. However it evidently did not produce as good steel as later methods. Mixing wrought iron and pig iron would require the process to be carried out at a high enough temperative to melt wrought iron. It was hard to produce a high enough temperature to melt steel (see crucible steel), the melting point of pure iron would be still higher. There would also be problems with impurities and getting a homogeneous product. Peterkingiron 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pig iron doesn't just contain iron and carbon it usually contains quite a lot of silica and other contaminants (like phosphorus). Part of the steel making process is the removal of this crud - just the addition of wrought iron wouldn't achieve this, although it would produce steel of poor quality. Trewornan 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Africa

Try hide the African connection way down at the bottom of this discussion page while calling this a good article? Here are a couple informative links retrived from a quick google: http://www.ironsmelting.net/www/smelting/index.html http://www.yale.edu/environment/publications/bulletin/102pdfs/102lanfranchi.pdf http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5166&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html http://www.springerlink.com/(tyce3mmwujm5qdvpsbzxe345)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,10,10;journal,38,48;linkingpublicationresults,1:104827,1 unsigned comment by 153.2.246.33

Possible copyvios

I removed two large edits that were identical to text here and here. DVD+ R/W 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

tanja

ngnghgh

It is perhaps unfortunate (but probably inevitable) that this historical section of this article has conlated iron with steel. Steel is an alloy of iron with 1-2% carbon, whereas iron is either cast iron (or pig iron) with 4-5% carbon or wrought iron with neglibible carbon. Accordingly the discussion of Abraham Darby (who made iron NOT steel) ought not to be part of this article. Peterkingiron 15:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On looking at historical sections further, I found a significant number of errors that I ahve corrected. In particular the raw material for blister steel was bar iron, not ore; and Huntsman's crucible process involved blister steel not cast and bar iron. I continue to have grave doubts about whether sections on ironmaking belong her at all. Recent research publihsed in Sussex Archaeological Collections indicates that Newbridge was not quite the first blast furnace in England. However there were earlier ones in the Pay de Bray in France and even earlier in Namur (Belgium). It seems that they may have developed in Germany or Sweden in the medieval period. Peterkingiron 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

industrial steelmaking

I found (and have altered) the incorrect statement that steel powered the industrial revolution. Iron (rather than steel) was important in the first industrial revolution. Steel was an expensive commodity and only used where this was unavoidable before Bessemer. Peterkingiron 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Add blurb to end of intro?

I suggest adding this after the first two intro paragraphs to get a better 'introductory' feeling to steel:

"Steel, defined as such, constitutes one of the most studied materials in all of materials science. In fact, the study of steels is so extensive that most of all metallurgical literature ever published is divided into two categories: 'ferrous' volumes, which pertain to steel, and 'nonferrous' volumes, which pertain to everything else. Even in the present, there arguably exists no other metal, ceramic, polymer, or composite class that can combine superior performance, cost-effectiveness, and sheer versatility to the degree that steel can. Over the years, steel has earned a reputation that makes it one of the few widely recognizable metals to which many other materials are compared to as a standard, in both non-technical and technical fields."

From Heaviside

Nobody likes to be overly critical to a selfless piece of scholarship. But if you are interested in a fascinating and humorous description from a metallurgical point of view that includes many historical references to India, Japan, China and Africa then go to:

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/kap_5/advanced/t5_1_4.html

totally awesome - I hate to say it but it blows this rather thin Wikipedian offering out of the water. As a matter of fact it should wholesale replace this article. Heaviside

Damascus Steel "nano-tubes"?

Can this nanotube nonsense be taken out since there is clearly no citations for such an outlandish claim?

I found a citation separate from the one listed. It looks like there's some support for the claim, though I admit I'm skeptical as well. The cementite whiskers I fully believe, though.--Joel 07:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Solubility of carbon in iron

Someone put in a peak solubility of carbon in iron of 2.04% at 1146°C. My book (cited in the article) says 1.7% at 1130°C. It's very possible that both could be right, depending on quantities of manganese or other impurities or something. Please cite your source, or additional numbers, and we can try to sort this out.--Yannick 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's the number I put in when I edited this page long ago, the number comes from the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th ed. In the meantime, someone else has put in a graphical phase diagram, which also eyeballs to a maximum solubility of carbon in austentite of slightly over 2% at around 1150°C. Shimmin 11:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Somebody else just put in a third set of numbers, citing a third source. This may be a difficult problem to pin down. The following link suggests there is not yet a consensus on this: http://doc.tms.org/ezMerchant/prodtms.nsf/ProductLookupItemID/MMTA-0406-1655/$FILE/MMTA-0406-1655F.pdf --Yannick 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag (Cast Iron#Historical uses > Steel#History of iron and steelmaking

Some one has put a merge tag on the history section. At presetn there are a number of parallel articels with similar content, including blast furnace, wrought iron. I tried some moths ago to correct some of the content that was definitely wrong. However it is unsatisfactory to have a variety of articles covering exactly the same ground. One solution is to break up the aricle into a number of separate ones, leaving a summary of each in a 'main' article. However, there is the problem of people expanding the 'main' article when they should be expanding subsidiary ones. A further problem is that discussions of iron keep creeping into discussions of steel and vice versa. This requires some one to be quite ruthless in removing semi-relevant content, and transferring it to the articles in which it properly belongs. One of the articles has a long section on early iron and steel around the world: that might be better as a separate article. Peterkingiron 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to create a new article: history of siderurgy. It would comprind Iron, stell and cast Iron. I want to point out that what we call Iron is a chemical helements. Manufacts, today and is the past were made with STEEL, even if in everyday language is called "iron". There is a single hisory for steel, iron and cast Iron. It's the hisory of siderurgy. It's ok to have aricle about blast furnace and wrought iron, they shall be particulare aspect of the siderurgy. --Giovanni Giove 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The content of Cast_Iron#Historical_uses is exactly on subject. Why should the information be burried in the other article. Meggar 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the history of steel, iron and cast iron, is a single hisotry. Cast iron was the first time obtained during the reduction of iron ore into bloom. Then the production of the cast iron (as pig iron), has became a step of stell production. Iron, steell and cast iron are three aspect of the siderurgy. They do not have separate histories.--Giovanni Giove 11:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we concentrate for the moment on the title of the section with the merge-from tag. It seems to be about historical uses of cast iron. When we see merge tags it is taken to mean that one article or section will be gone after it is merged into another. Meggar 02:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging the chemical article with any metallurgical article. Steel/Iron is a metal, Iron is a chemical element. The Steel/Iron topic is a material, smithworks and alloy topic, while the chemical element iron is a topic mostly about the chemical properties of different iron compounds. Both topics are so vast, that mergers will create immense articles. Better to keep subjects separate then. Rursus 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose suggested merge but propose a general clean up As I indicated above there is a lot of merging that needs to be done, but I do not have the time not do I have the expertise on some periods. I would suggest that we need the following articles:

• Iron - chemistry; this should be pruned of most metallurgy (with cross-reference to a 'main' article on the subject).
• Iron and steel (metallurgy): a general article briefly dealing with major processes etc. This should refer to 'main' articles dealing with each process or kind of plant in more detail
• The early use of iron: this would cover its archaeology and spread into each continent or region. This would deal with the complaints above about the lack of reference to Africa, a matter on whose merit I cannot judge.
• Separate articles on each iron or steel making process, focusing principally on that process, but showing its relation to others.
• I am not sure how necessary it is to have separate articles on each different kind of iron and steel; but if we do, care must be taken that they do not merely duplicate the content of the 'process' articles.

This list is not necessarily comprehensive - further suggestions are welcome. Peterkingiron 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge progress I have created a new article History of Ferrous Metallurgy by editing the previous Iron#History section. I propose, when I have time to merge the Steel History section into this, leaving a much briefer account in this article. I continue to oppose any merger of the cast iron#history section. I hope to deal with some of the compaints above, but prehistoric iron is not my subject, so that I will need to leave a cleanup tag. Peterkingiron 17:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tag from cast iron#history. Having constructed a new History of Ferrous Metallurgy article (as above), the suggested destination is certainly not the right place to put it. If some one else feels strongly about this, no doubt they can restore the tag, with a new destination. However, I do not think this has merit. Peterkingiron 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Celtiberian Steel?

I read on Encyclopaedia Britannica that the Celts in central Iberia casted steel weapons. I am not sure how true this is though because the only steel casting I have heard in ancient times was of China. Can anyone confirm or debunk this? -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think EB must be wrong. There is no prehistoric evidence for molten iron or steel in Europe that I have ever heard of. The Celts' weapons may well have contained some steel, but not 'cast'. Peterkingiron 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It said that they used a technique of heating it underground or something of the sort. I will look into it more and post the sources if I find any. I did not mean cast steal sorry, I was just looking for the right verb for 'smelting metals'. Thank you... -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

History of iron - from the journal Gjuteriet

1978: clear explanation of the assay analysis of early iron. A few ornaments early on (various places, not smelted iron). Then Anatolia/Hittites - etc. EVERYONE agrees (in my view) that it is the Hittites (an Indo-European group, btw) who first smelted iron and distributed as tools. That's by 1500 BC (at the lastest), good evidence of some Hittite iron foundries at 1700-1800BC.Kaimiikekamaila 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Kaimiikekamaila

Also - as the prehistory of iron in "Europe," perhaps Wikipedia needs to disambiguate "Europe" in this context. If Anstolia isn't part of Europe - then where is it? It certainly isn't on a different continent than the rest of Europe, it uses an Indo-European language, it has been part of two regional systems (the Levantian and the Indo-European since 45,000BP or longer!) (unsigned)

Anatolia is also called Asia Minor. Turkey east of the Bosphorus is in Asia. I do not know what the Hittites had, but the correct term is certainly not 'foundry', which implies molten iron. The correct term is likely to be bloomery. Peterkingiron 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why the earliest steel use (in Anatolia and apparently in India) are not well explained in this article. DrKamaila (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)DrKamaila

African Steel: Guess what I have!

Well, I had a subscription to Science Magazine (that just ran out), but I seem to still have access to the article archives online.

22 September 1978, Volume 201, Number 4361: Complex Iron Smelting and Prehistoric Culture in Tanzania Peter Schmidt and Donald H. Avery. This is the actual research article that the websites a lot of people on the discussion page are saying that "they read something about African steelmaking on a website". It bothers me that this is not mentioned, but I'm too chicken to edit the article myself, at least not without putting this on the talk page.

This article discusses the Hayan smelting process in Oyo furnaces in detail, reporting their research and observation of Hayan elders making the iron (and sometimes steel). The difference in the African process is that the furnaces are blasted with preheated air around 600 degrees celsius, caused by "tuyeres" (heated pipes) inserted into the furnaces. These caused the furnace to reach temperatures as high, or possibly higher than, 1820 degrees celsius. That is, the African smelting process was not the bloomery process.

Though as of the date of this article it is unknown whether the Yoruba preheated their furnaces, it is known that they did produce high carbon steel. (the article cites "C. V. Bellamy, ibid. 66, 99 (1904)", a source I cannot find.

Also as of 1978, another smelting process of the Wafipa people produced high-quality iron and possibly (well, as of 1978 "possibly") steel, through a different method than used by the Hayan.

Archaeological remains of similar furnaces and tuyeres in West Lake (the area where these Hayan furnaces were demonstrated to the authors of the article) are 1500 to 2000 years old.

Debra Shore wrote an article in 1983, but I also can't get a copy of it. It should be available at my public library, though.

CaTigeReptile 17:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is fascinating! It would explain the dissemination of the process along trade routes known to link to Yoruba, including the dates (back in the Meditteranean and elsewhere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKamaila (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

steel scrap

this is a picture i took in the port of brussels. steel scrap is pressed in blocks, to be transported over water and recycled. There is nothing about steel recycling in this article... so i don't know where to put the pic. If somebody is up to it?

File:Steel scrap.jpg

ps: there is allready a crappy picture of this kind in the section recycling

Rotor DB 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

meanwhile, somebody wrote a part about steel recycling... unfortunatly, it states some coloured opinions, that clearly come from the steel industry, as visible in the used sources. If i find the time i'll clean it up a bit Rotor DB 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Steel

Steel was made by the Chinese in 200 B.C.E [anonymous]

Please:

• sign your contributions
• Cite your sources. Peterkingiron 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed project

There is evidently no extant WikiProject which deals with articles concerning alloys and other chemical compounds. This could be a problem, as many of these articles deal with what are considered to be generally important topics. To correct this situation, I have proposed a project to deal with these articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Chemical compounds and mixtures. Anyone interested in contributing to such a project should indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have contributed to articles on several metals, primarily form a historical metallurgy perspective. Your proposed project seems a very large one. I suspect "metals and alloys" on the one hand and "chemical compounds" on the other would be better as separate projects. The one concerns metallurgy, the other chemistry. The approaches tend to be different. Peterkingiron 22:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As an outsider, I appreciate your input. Certainly, it might work better as separate projects. For what little it's worth, my fields are biography and religion, not science. If there were to be sufficient interest in the group as either one or two separate entities, I still think that there is probably enough content related to each subject to be able to support at least a reasonably active task force, if not full project, for the subjects, either together or separately. John Carter 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I cannot spare the time needed, and have no experiecne of running or being actively involved in projects. Peterkingiron 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I on the other hand am rather good at at least the project management and devlopment activities however, even I don't know this particularly subject that well. And, with any luck, after a month or two, there might be sufficient outside interest from others to have enough people knowledgable in the subject to manage it. Also, I personally hope that someone adds a comment to the proposal page suggesting it become a task force of some other project. If they do, then that project can manage the majority of the administrative functions, if they decide to take it on as a task force. I can't be sure that'll happen, though. Anyway, let's all hope for the best. John Carter 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

History

WP works best when there is a hierarchy of articles, with a general one that refers to a series of detailed ones dealing with different aspect of the subject. It is very tempting to add new information to every article where it could be relevant, but that tends to produce unwieldy (and ill-edited) articles. This can lead to articles that develop in different directions and ultimately start contradicting each other. This is a general article, dealing with all aspoects of steel, of which history is only one. I tried to deal with this problem some months ago by moving a lot of material on the history of iron and steel into History of ferrous metallurgy. I am not suggesting that the material added recently is not good, merely that it is too detailed to appear here. Peterkingiron 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Elasticity

I am removing the word elasticity from the following sentence in the intro paragraph:

Varying the amount of alloying elements and their distribution in the steel controls qualities such as the hardness, elasticity, ductility, and tensile strength of the resulting steel.

Young's modulus for iron is about 211 GPa and is not much affected by small amounts of impurities. In this regard, elasticity is less like tensile strength and more like density. —Ryan 04:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

stretchy steel for safer cars...

"Intelligent steel for safer cars" --Emesee 06:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Properties of Steel

• Properties of Steels and Cast Irons
• Euro-inox Properties of Stainless Steels
• Datum Alloys Properties of Stainless Steels

—Ryan 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

flint and steel

shouldn't there be a mention in the steel article about flint and steel? it is after all a special property of the steel that enables this combination to work; Iron on the other hand wouldn't work to illustrate the difference. if nothing else I'd settle for a link in the see also section. Movesandpepper 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See also

I suggest removing the link to The Riddle of Steel, which is a boardgame seemingly unrelated to steel except in naming. Anyone see a reason to keep it? Bajsejohannes 11:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Bajsejohannes 08:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Steel rections

Does steel react with oxygen, does it rust? Does it react with any other elements/compounds?

What does this mean?

The first sentence is: "Steel is an alloy consisting mostly of iron, with a carbon content between 0.2 and 1.7 or 2.04% by weight (C:1000–10,8.67Fe), depending on grade." What does (C:1000–10,8.67Fe) mean? I'm assuming it's some sort composition statement, perhaps by volume? I've taken a few materials classes and own some materials books and never seen that notation before. If it is relevant info then please move it out of the intro and elaborate on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizard191 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

Could some one who knows more than I do, please have a look at the first line? The presence of 3 percentages looks wrong to me. I am a historian, not a metallurgist. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tata Steel

The article seems to suggest that Tata Steel is a Chinese company. Is that correct?--Eujin16 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was Indian. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What about free-cutting steel?

It is a special steel, which can be machined easily and it contains lead and/or sulfur and manganese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.93.101 (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature of steel alloys

I cannot find an explanation of steel alloy nomenclature such as '25cromo4' e.g. as used in tubes for bicycle frames. If there isn't one, I request that this is added, please. GilesW (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

radiation of steel

An article about the salvage of old ships said that it has become a very lucrative buisines, because all modern steel contains low levels of radiation, which makes it impractical for use in sensitive devices like radiation detectors. This article says nothing about that subject. 91.67.13.7 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a link to that article? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

spcc spcd and spcen

what does spcc spcd and spcen terms refer to in context of the steel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.18.209 (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After a little Googling, I'm guessing SSPC is the Society for Protective Coatings (formerly the Steel Structures Painting Council). That could be wrong and I didn't find anything on the others. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-Alloy Steel and trade classifications

In the Harmonized System of Trade, imports/exports of steel are sometimes classified as non-alloyed steel. This is equivalent to low-alloy steel. See [2]

Here is a list of some of the codes used in the COMTRADE database relating to steel:

72	Iron and steel
7201	Pig iron and spiegeleisen in pigs, blocks or other primary forms.
7202	Ferro-alloys.
7203	Ferrous products obtained by direct reduction of iron ore
7204	Ferrous waste and scrap; remelting scrap ingots of iron or steel.
7205	Granules and powders, of pig iron, spiegeleisen, iron or steel.
7206	Iron and non-alloy steel in ingots or other primary forms
7207	Semi-finished products of iron or non-alloy steel.
7208	Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel
7209	Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel
7210	Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel
7211	Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of less than 60 ...
7212	Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of less than 60 ...
7213	Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of iron or non-alloy ...

Chongman (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Steel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This page needs fundamental revision. The first two paragraphs are contentious and require revision. This would require further changes to the existing text that follows. Obvious problems are: First sentence: “(C:1000–10,8.67Fe)” - this has no clear meaning. “%” this usage of % is ambiguous – it should be mass% (as used). 2nd sentence: “and tungsten” - this is misleading as tungsten is seldom determined or quoted for commodity steels.. I thought it was plain wrong, but now understand tungsten ‘was among the first alloying elements used’ and is still used in (specialist) cutting tool steels [see http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1264 and http://www.itia.org.uk/Default.asp?Page=54]. The superscript reference [1] at the end of the sentence comes after the full-stop (period) so is separated from its ‘target’. External links (at bottom of page): The first listed link “Steel Web Site” links to http://www.insaatim.com/index.php?pid=kategori_yazi&katid=62&altid=63 that is not in English but appears only marginally relevant. I offer the following to replace the first two sentences:- Steel is a generic term for a wide range of iron (Fe) based alloys that dominate world metals usage. Historically, steel is defined as an alloy of iron and carbon (up to ~2 mass%). The wide compositional range of modern steels, including ‘ultra-low’ carbon grades (C <0.01 mass%), makes this definition inadequate. Also, some early steels and all modern successors routinely contain other elements. [re ultra-low carbon steels see: http://www.steeluniversity.org/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=97&pageid=1016929460] The International Iron & Steel Institute (IISI) ‘defines’ steel as “an alloy of iron and carbon containing less than 2% carbon and 1% manganese and small amounts of silicon, phosphorus, sulphur and oxygen” [see http://www.worldsteel.org/index.php?action=faqlist&id=6#12]. This is adequate for simple steels but fails to recognise the full range of modern steels that include the simple compositions defined by IISI and richer alloys in which iron is the major single constituent (by mass). The text that follows requires modification to recognise the wide range of modern steels. In particular that alloying additions seek to achieve properties other than nominal ‘strength’ (and related mechanical properties). Corrosion resistance is but one additional consideration. --21:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Engineer48 (talk)

Last edited at 09:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Unwrapped?

A curious little stub popped up at unwrapped steel consisting simply of "a metal created specialy for the birds nest stadium in 2005". Can anyone elucidate? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this may be from a bad press release or bad translation. I don't think this "type" of steel exists. IT's certainly not on the phase diagram, as is typical of steel naming, such as "bainite steel" or "austenitic" steel. I placed an AFD on the article User A1 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That would have been a horrifically bad translation of structural steel, I believe. I've heard that term before. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My attempt to get it deleted was denied for some unclear reason. People seem to think a redirect is appropriate, can't see why for the life of me! User A1 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

On zh-wiki, I'd agree. It makes sense in Chinese, but it really comes across very badly in English. The best I can do is 加强和建立约束纯化钢, but that comes out sort of weird too, so instead we get 释放强度钢 or even 开皮肤钢. The problem comes when various dialects mangle this to even further unreadable levels. The redirect sort of makes sense, I guess. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sweet iron"

Folks, can anyone tell me what, metallurgically, "sweet iron" is? It is commonly used to make horse bits like this one ( which also has copper inlays). One source describes it as "...sweet iron, also known as mild steel and cold-rolled steel. This metal alloy is slightly softer than stainless steel, and instead of a perpetual shine, will quickly begin to rust." We'd like to kill some red links by explaining what it actually is. Another source says, "Sweet iron is likely not pure iron, but a mixture of iron and carbon combined to create some form of a carbon steel."-- but they sound like they don't know for sure. Help?? Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us links to the two sources you cited above? Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Boy, can't find them now. Basically, they were just sites about horse gear, and the quotes are verbatim, they said nothing more. It's basically black, duller than stainless, maybe a touch heavier than an equivalent bit made of stainless steel, it has a reputation for rusting (though I don't have trouble with that, but I live in a dry climate). I guess we are just trying to figure out if it's steel with a high carbon content or some sort of iron that isn't steel, or...? If you Google "sweet iron," you get zillions of links to horse bits, but not one of them says what it is (at least not in the first 50 or 60 hits), beyond what I have noted above. Catalog descriptions sometimes say "cold rolled" steel, but that's about it. Hoping someone in metallurgy has heard the term before and can explain it from that end. Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep looking. Stainless steel is an alloy of iron with another metal. Mild steel will rust. My guess is that it was originally wrought iron, which would be the normal material for ironmongery before 1860 and to some extent even after. However, mild steel from the Bessemer and the other processes that followed (with about .5% or 1% carbon) would serve most processes for which wrought iron was previously used, and thus gradually replaced it. I therefore guess that your "sweet iron" is indeed unhardened mild steel. Sorry I am a historian, rather than a qualified metallurgist. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that "mild steel" or carbon steel is sweet iron, too, but I have no sourcing. I'd probably have to contact a bit manufacturer. Was hoping the term was common enough that a metallurgist could give us a fast answer. Darn! Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Searching for "sweet iron horse bit" on Google Books returns many quotes, mostly in "horse" books. On the first page of hits, one book calls it "cold-rolled steel", another says the metal is tempered by the heat of the horse's mouth (I kid you not). --Una Smith (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what we get. This is why we are asking here..."cold-rolled" steel is the only thing I see consistently too. -- but that's apparently a process or technique, not a alloy (?) so...can you metalworking folks help us? The big deal is that it can rust, horses seem to think it tastes better than stainless steel, apparently. (And also some people claim to have tested this themselves by tasting various bit metals, I also kid you not...LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I did some googling as well and haven't found anything you didn't post here. I can explain cold rolled steel. It's a common general specification for steel. You can order cold rolled (carbon) steel, hot rolled (carbon) steel, stainless steel, alloy steel, etc. Therefore, it tells us that it's not any of the other types listed, however it doesn't narrow down what type of carbon steel it is. I hope that explains a little for you. Wizard191 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Wind powered Furnace

Evidence has not been provided that wind powered furnaces existed in India, even article which is referenced only mentions Sri Lanka and not India. Therefore the article has been edited for the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ela112 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)