/diy/ - Do It Yourself

[Anonymous No.454454]

I was wondering, is there a point to blacksmithing beyond it being fun and I suppose cheaper than machining? What I mean is, can say a lathe, bridgeport and grinders make anything a blacksmith can?

I'm not trying to rile up people that are keen on blacksmithing (i'd do it myself just because it's so cool), just genuinely intrigued.

[Anonymous No.454456]

A lot of the blacksmithing stuff involves treatment of the metal, including quenching, annealing, work hardening etc which is obviously a different ball game to machining

[Anonymous No.454467]

>What I mean is, can say a lathe, bridgeport and grinders make anything a blacksmith can?
Yes, I think that truly is a given. But the reverse is also true of course.

Without 'blacksmithing' techniques you can't pattern weld (Damascus, wootz etc.) or even basic layered-steel construction.

[Anonymous No.454481]

>>454456
But machinists do all those things too, don't they? I've never done any blacksmithing and have only done hundred or so hours of basic machining through university and we definitely did oil quenching. But I suppose we may have just done it to teach us of the process. Still, I was under the impression that actual machinists used such processes.

[Anonymous No.454484]

>>454467
I can see how folded steel for knives and swords would only really be viable using blacksmithing. As for pattern welding, what would the advantage be over mig/tig/oxy etc.?

[Anonymous No.454542]

Blacksmithing and machining are rather different specialties. Other than working with metal, they don't share a lot of tools or methods.

I have a fairly decent metalworking machine shop of my own--but I don't got shit for blacksmithing. If you asked me to make a knight's helmet, a folded sword or a wrought-iron gate, I don't have any of the tools for that stuff.

[Anonymous No.454556]

>>454481
>>454456
When you do machining for some things you do need to heat treat the stuff. It includes everything a blacksmith does for heat treating. But, this is only for somethings.

>>454484
You can't pattern weld with a welder. Pattern welding is a special type of forging that smashes the metals together so on the knife blade you can see an alternating pattern of the different metals welded together. Most are non-specific patterns, but talented smiths can really do some cool stuff with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_welding

[Anonymous No.454586]

A forged piece of steel, all other things being equal, is stronger than a machined piece. Steel has grain to it, a bit like wood. In a forged piece the grain follows the shape. In a machined piece the grain is cut across. Those who work wood know bent wood in always stronger than cutting a shape from a larger piece. Same with steel. This is why high end engine cranks are 'billet forged'.

[Anonymous No.454588]

>>454586
>This is why high end engine cranks are 'billet forged'.

And then...what do they do to it...

[Anonymous No.454597]

>>454588
forged aluminum or steel has been smashed with hundreds of tons of force into the shape it is. This realigns and untensions the metal to gain a ton of strength out of the same material.
Horseshoes are smithed to suit the horse onsite. It forges the metal, shapes it perfectly to the horses hoof, and also uses some of that leftover heat to burn and melt the hoof to work with it easier. The horse don't give a shit, and many are very happy when it's shoeing time, as they get a pedicure and comfortable stride afterwards.

[Anonymous No.454602]

>>454586

No,no it isn't.

At best,your forged piece will be equal to a machined piece. More than likely,it will be worse than a machined piece.

>This is why high end cranks are 'billet forged'
>doesn't know 'billet forged' means it's machined

[Anonymous No.454606]

>>454602
The billet was forged, and then machined.
All cranks are machined. Every one of them.

[Anonymous No.454607]

>>454602
...and it sounds like you don't understand the difference between the two.

[Anonymous No.454609]

>>454607
>>454606

>not understanding the argument at hand
>being this much of a mouthbreather

He's trying to say simply because it says "forged" it must be better than a machined piece,and ergo everything that is forged must be better than a machined piece. Which isn't fucking true at all.

[Anonymous No.454613]

>>454609

>>454586 used a bad analogy with the crank. A piece of metal that has been forged will be stronger than a piece that hasn't, regardless of the means it got that shaped.

Are you talking about hand-forging versus machine forging? because they're both forging. Machining will give you a cleaner, or accurate shape, but machining has nothing to do very little with the strength of the metal.

>being this much of a mouthbreather and understanding the difference between shaping and forging metal

[Anonymous No.454625]

>>454613

Except,no it won't.

If I go and buy 2 pieces of metal from my supplier and then have one piece forged to shape,and the other made by stock removal,and they receive the same heat treatment,they will be as strong as each other. And that's if the smith doesn't mess anything up.

Which,for an amateur is quite easy.

I would continue arguing with you,but it seems to me like you are one of the people who thinks to makes swords you need to fold the steel 100 times to give it SUPAR SEACRET STRENGTHZ.

OP's question has been answered. Yes,you can make about anything a blacksmith can by stock removal methods. Only thing you can't do is forge welding and a few other small things. You can buy pre-welded damascus stock and the like if you want.

[Anonymous No.454634]

>>454625
Well...sounds like you're a busy man, so I won't keep you from doing a bunch of wrong shit.

[Anonymous No.454641]

>>454556
I understand what pattern welding is, but is there any scenario where it would be a better method to use than modern welding techniques? It just seems like it's the way two pieces of metal were joined before modern technology came along.

[Anonymous No.454643]

So in summary, is there any benefit to smithing over machining beside initial investment cost?

[Anonymous No.454650]

>>454625
Heat treating those two objects will not make them equal in strength at all. It is the more homogenous structure of the forging process that gives it more strength than stock removal. This is why some things are forged, so they can be folded until the proper homogenous structure in the metal is attained.

Now, if you get forge folded metal and use stock removal to make your item it will be comparable. Though, it really depends on how homogenous the structure of the metal is. If it is visible to the naked eye like most folded stuff is then it will matter, but if it is techno-wootz and microscopic, it won't matter.

[Lei No.454651]

I don't understand this argument at hand. You guys do realize that generally, after forging, you do have to finish it off by machining right? What you are really seeing the difference between is CAST vs forged. Both are machined afterwards to make a crank.

In general:

Forging is a rough process

Machining is a rough to finishing process

Most of the time in production of larger parts, you forge or cast the rough shape, and then bring it to the final dimension by machining. Or more often, you bring only certain critical areas to the final dimension by machining.

Also, forging does increase strength. Don't necessarily think of it as grain like wood. Think of it as a bunch of small particles welded together. Basically, when you cast metal initially after smelting or recycling, you are left with certain defects that occur when parts of it cool before the crystalline structure can properly align in the lattice. This can be a missing crystal in a lattice, a row of crystals in a lattice pumped over one, or instead of aligning perfectly at right angles to each other, they are off slightly making it look like a wonky screw or twisted section of crystals. When you forge it, you smash out all these defect structures by forcing other crystals into the space. You also bend the lattice structure around the shape of the object you are forging.

Also, in general, other than when you start with a casting, the bar stock or whatever you start out with IS forged. Or more accurately, rolled, into that shape.

[Anonymous No.454656]

>>454641
Ah, I see. Actually, in that case it would matter. with forge welding two pieces you can be assured it will have a perfect bond. With modern welding using a 3rd metal there is a great chance the weld may have any number of problems with it. With modern welding when it does fail (for whatever reason) it is almost always going to fail right where the weld attaches to the metal piece. The metal use to weld won't break, but the metal it is welding together will kind of like when a glue joint breaks in wood and piece of wood from one side are torn off and stuck to the glue. With forge welded breakages the metals can break just about anywhere because it will be more homogenous.

>>454643
It really depends on what you are making. You can not say yes or no to that question without being inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.454659]

>>454651
I think the original seed to this argument is hand-working versus machining, then somewhere along the line someone got the two different principles wrong, then that became the arguing point I guess.

[Anonymous No.454664]

>>454651
>What you are really seeing the difference between is CAST vs forged. Both are machined afterwards to make a crank.

True. In that scenario, cast will be less structurally sound than forged. Which is why I can use my sledge hammer to bust apart cast car parts for my metalcasting and can't bust apart the same parts that are forged. One hit from a 16lbs sledge to a forged part and I'm like "NOPE" after I stop vibrating like a cartoon character. But, the cast stuff shatters like a porcelain toilet bowl.

[Anonymous No.454897]

>>454650

off the mill modern steel is as homogenous as you will find steel, so no, you are wrong.

You obviously are not a smith or metallurgist, Most 'folded stuff' is not visibly to the eye, if you make a good weld it will be totally invisible, the only way you will see folds is by including different types of steel, which is pattern welding and not simply folding, and definitely not about making the steel more homogenous.
Wootz has nothing to do with folding or pattern welding, it was a method of crucible steel production.

[Anonymous No.454911]

>>454897
You probably need better glasses, gramps. You info is incorrect too.

[Anonymous No.454932]

>>454664
depends entirely on the casting method, of course.

lostwax castings which are then heat-treated, normalised and tempered can, for example, be as fough as forged.

[Anonymous No.454937]

>>454911

Oh? What exactly was wrong? Why didn't you at least refute it, even without posting sources.

Oh yeah, fuck off, you don't know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.454946]

>>454937
>Most 'folded stuff' is not visibly to the eye

Get glasses. (sorry, no source, just anecdotal)

>definitely not about making the steel more homogenous
>Wootz has nothing to do with folding or pattern welding, it was a method of crucible steel production.

I said "techno-wootz", which is fully, "Techno-wootz Damascus Steel", not just "wootz" which is different.

http://www.angelsword.com/techno_wootz_steel.php

[Anonymous No.454951]

>>454946
>angelsword.com/

oh dear.

Hook, Line and Sinker. another one takes the bait and swallows it whole.


here's a little peice of advice. Angel Sword are shit, and their marketing buzzwords are just that. Utter bullshit thrown around for the gullible to lap up, with a load of barely-accurate pseudo-metallurgy used to justify scandalous price hikes.

there's one born every minute.

[Anonymous No.454958]

>>454659

The original question was poorly worded. You can't compare forging and machining.

It's literally like trying to compare growing a tree to cutting it into 2x4s.

Forging deals with the working of metals and alloys into a more uniform grain structure. You're essentially trying to remove defects from the crystal lattice of the metal, and this can be done either manually or via automated processes.

Forged metals are stronger than unforged metals, and a part that's been machined from forged metal will be stronger than a part machined from cast metal. Machining has nothing _at all_ to do with forging, excepting work-hardening metals (and even then, that's really tangential). Machining is simply cutting a part to the right shape. That's it. It doesn't even have to be metal; it's not uncommon to machine plastic parts.

[Anonymous No.454978]

>>454951
No, it isn't. But, that doesn't prevent you massive ass pain it seems, random anon on the internet. lol

[Anonymous No.454985]

>>454978
>No, it isn't

No what isn't?

[Anonymous No.455004]

>>454985
Nearly the entire post it seems.

[Anonymous No.455016]

>>454978
Yup, there we go. Swallowed hook, line and sinker. happily swimming along in blissful ignorance.

So, where do I start?
Well, lets start with Angel Swords' products. These swords are renfaire specials. They are, almost without exception, fantasy shit without a single reference point against real sword design. They are SSOs. Sword-Shaped Objects. They have neither the blade geometry, the profile, nor the distal profiles of real swords - infact, I know that a large number of their blades are made from 1/8th inch thick stock, and have absolutely no distal taper whatsoever. As a result of that, their weights are closer to crowbars than real swords (1h "archer's swords" that weigh 3lbs. 31-inch blade "great swords" that weigh 4.75lbs... That's not quality. its shit.) These ghastly lumps of metal are liberally coated in Buzzword-bingo soundbytes: "patented Advanced Thermal-processing heat treat to double the toughness and increase wear resistance of the steel by 500%" Translation: "We learnt to quench using a cryogenic tank."

And for the honour of lapping up the utter nonsense they produce, you get to pay as much as you would for not just one, but two swords from the likes of Patrick Barta, Peter Lyons, or Peter Johnsson. Actual swordsmiths - in PJ's case, a world-renowned expert historian on the subject - who arent charlatans.
Angel Sword, quite simply, are a rip-off of using "super high-tech" buzzwords to sell to gullible idiots who know little better, and to part with thousands, often more than ten thousand dollars, for a peice of shit which looks as bad, and performs little better than a $100 wallhanger from china in any sense of design or use, and only exceeds it in heat-treatment method used.

Their "techno-wootz" (dont forget the trademark!) page is an absolute textbook example of thier marketing strategy - multiple efforts to swamp the reader in soundbytes which are utterly irelegant, in the hopes that they'll be impressed.
(continued...)

[Anonymous No.455022]

>>455016
ctd:
the steel is "verified" by a Assistant professor.
Wow. You now what that means? A mechanical engineering gopher looked at it under a scope. Dr Alan Williams this is not. Somehow, I wonder if you even know who that is...

The text is littered with marketing redundancies: "individual crystals of tempered martensite are visible" Really. I'd love to find crystals of annealed martensite. That would be a miracle.
The rest, likewise, is pretty much as redundant. its marketing guff, with absolutely no metalurgical data, reference or accuracy whatsoever - photographs that "show indentations from hardness testing" - but no data on the test. Brinell? Vickers? Rockwell? Mohs? Its there for people who want to be wowed by science™ without ever realising they're being sold down the river and fed a con.

And you're another mark for them. someone stupid enough to fall for their shit, and to lap it up.

[Anonymous No.455028]

>>455022
Now, lets be fair. Angel Swords do have qualities.

their boss does know his metallurgy, and he knows how to do a cryogenic quench on steel alloys that arent commonly used. He's managed to create high carbon alloys in the wootz/bulat range, which is'nt easy, by a long way.

but he also knows that this is technology most people are unfamilliar with, and he uses that as a marketing lever, to swamp the product information with irrelevant crap.

And he is a master of the art of marketing.

Sadly, those are the limits of their quality.


So, Perhaps it may be that, far from the "massive ass pain" that you imagine, it may infact be simply the case that I do not wish to see anyone suckered into falling for thier crap. Not least, quite simply, as there are many better smiths out there for a fraction of the cost.

[Anonymous No.455039]

>>455028
>>455022
>>455016
All this mad and nothing at all to back it up with for good or worse in 3 hokey posts.

Thanks, random anon on 4chan, for the laughs.

[Anonymous No.455069]

>>455039
he's trying to help you faggot your lucky he posted as much info as he did. if you can't independently verify it please stop wasting air.

[Anonymous No.455072]

>>455069
its not worth trying to educate some people. You can tell them information to their face, and they dont even comprehend that you've told them anything.

[Anonymous No.455392]

>>454946
>http://www.angelsword.com
>got to take a look at their katana
>no hamon
>no kissaki
>plain wooden handles, not wrapped
>the ones that are wrapped have no rayskin
>shape just plain wrong
Holy shit, these are fucking terrible.
>the prices
Wow holy shit that's fucking awful.
>jump over to european swords
>same kind of shit, shapes often wrong, high prices, shitty fittings
This site is fucking awful.

[Anonymous No.455393]

>>455069
>>455072
>>455392
My god, it's like some sort of neckbeard smithy firestorm. Lemmee guess, Masters, not Knights? Fags.

[Anonymous No.455395]

>>455393
Look at this. Fucking look at it. It's five inches short and still the weight of a typical katana. There's no hamon. No kissaki. There's no ray skin, and the wood under the wrap is smooth, so there's nothing for it to grip. The shape is just plain wrong. Hell, even the pin placement seems wrong. It has only a passing resemblance to a katana.

[Anonymous No.455397]

>>455395
Here is a katana. The difference between them is fucking huge. This isn't even a great photo, but the kissaki and hamon are clearly visible, and you can see how totally different the shape is.

[Anonymous No.455478]

>>455393
>My god, it's like some sort of neckbeard smithy firestorm. Lemmee guess, Masters, not Knights? Fags.

Wow. you're really determined to try to discredit anyone who criticises Angel Swords, arent you? What's the problem? Were you so fucking gullible that you plonked $3000 on one, and you're now too proud to accept you were had?
Or is it that you're so insecure that you have to rip into people who do know what they're talking about, and have called out the company you fanwank over for the shit they are?

either way, its rather fucking sad. Get a life.

[Anonymous No.455481]

>angelsword.com

They are based gods of weapon forging in the 21st century. They had a katana for just over $10k that I was going to buy some years ago, but the day I called them about it, they'd just sold it 3 days before. They haven't made one exactly like it since. ;_;

[Anonymous No.455500]

>>455481
>They are based gods of weapon forging in the 21st century.

no, they really are not.

they make very, *very* overpriced stuff, which has nothing even close to the handling or actual practicality of real swords.
They... they're like making a formula 1 racecar body out of carbonfibre, sticking it onto the chassis of a VW beetle with its antiquated suspension, and then selling it for 100 million as a F1 car.
Doesnt matter how expensive it is, does'nt matter how skilled the people were in moulding carbonfibre, its not going to perform like a F1 car, and its not going to handle like an f1 car. And with a Beetle's wheelbase and chassis, its going to look wrong.

Same for swords. Angelswords have good metalurgy using some pretty impressive steel alloys. but they dont perform like real swords, they dont look like real swords.

See pic. This is a sword by Peter Johnsson. Its made from plain, simple 1080 alloy. Its not supertech™ ultraquenched™ spaceage™ steel with 25 patents. It does'nt need to be.

Its a sword. exactly like they were made. Designed through the same principles of geometry, designed for the same needs. Not some fantasy toy with an extra 0 on the end of the pricetag.

Just because they're expensive does not make angel swords any good. It just means their maker prices his stuff at an insane price point, and it shows how little their market audience know, that they fall for it. And I say this as someone who firmly considers swords to be an artistic creation nowadays, just like sculpture or other art. The fact is, angelswords are simply overpriced for their quality of design.

[Anonymous No.455501]

>>455500
forgot my pic though.

[Anonymous No.455519]

>>455039

Here are some authors(and some good books they have) that have written on this subject. Maybe you should learn a few things before talking out of your ass.

Wayne Goddard ( The Wonder of Knifemaking )
George Totten ( Metallurgy and Technologies - Steel Heat Treatment)
Jim Hrisoulas( The Complete Bladesmith)
Jack Andrews(Edge of the Anvil)
Alan Williams (The Sword and the Crucible)

[Anonymous No.455530]

>>455395

It looks like they were trying to make a wakizashi there.

Maybe they just can't be arsed to do actual research, so just google "japanese sword" images and when they find one they like they make it and call it a katana.

[Anonymous No.455532]

>>455478
I'm not the dude you were referring to. I'm from farther up in the thread, gave up on the thread, and decided to do a drive-by, as your creepy sperging heartily deserved it.

So don't mind me; continue fighting your war. Just be aware that your target may only be continuing out of a misguided effort to keep you in check, or simply has abandoned. You're making everyone else sad for you.

[Anonymous No.455540]

>>455016
>>455500

I remember somewhere a while ago seeing a company that made plain looking steel swords and axes, all european/western IIRC. I remember them stating that they could be used perfectly fine (some of the axes could be used to chop wood, for instance) and they had a money-back guarantee if they broke. Something else was that they apparently were used pretty often as weapons for extras in films.

I do remember distinctly an axe which was plain looking (no designs on it) and it had options for the handle grip as either "olden style" leather or something more modern. Most things on the website were around the $500 range, but a couple were cheaper and a couple were more expensive. One or two were over $1000, but not by much.

Does anyone know the people I'm talking about? I think I saw the website in like 2008 or so.

[Anonymous No.455551]

>>455540
could be one of several. Arms and armor of minnesota do good stuff and have been in films, so could've been them. Manning Imperial are high prices but pretty good. There's a metric fucktonne of czech smiths who it could've been too.

there's a *lot* of companies out there in that sort of price range, where the pricetags are pretty reasonable value.

[Anonymous No.455554]

>>455540
cold steel?

[Anonymous No.455578]

>>455554

I think that was the one, looking around the site now.

>>455551

These look pretty cool too.

Thanks guys!

[Anonymous No.455692]

Yeah, because you know... swordfighting is such a valuable skill in modern combat, amirite? Reading this thread, you'd think it was the fucking dark ages. You're gonna hang the thing on your wall and say "wull ain't that purdy",and then go out on weekends and slice watermelons in half.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like you can't take pride in your hobby and know what you're talking about, but you'd think some of you guys were legitimately going to defend yourselves on a battlefield with it...

[Anonymous No.455711]

>>455692
that's no reason not to do them right.

besides, if its not got an edge on it, there's thousands of people worldwide who DO go out and fight with 'em every weekend or tuesday night in their local sports hall.

the thing is, when the sword was being made, it was designed for a purpose - often a particularly specific one, like stabbing or cutting, etc. Those criteria are what shapes the production and creation of the weapon. In he case of medieval european stuff, there's some incredible details behind them - proportions which were often shaped by geometry, exactly the same as the medieval cathedrals were designed.

These weapons will thankfully never be used for their intended purpose; to kill, but that does'nt mean you should just stik bits anywhere and make them of daft shapes which dont work.

You would'nt spend $10,000 for a shotgun to be displayed above the mantelpiece, with a barrel that's shaped like a banana, a trigger that neither hand can reach, and a stock that would only fit a 3-foot midget, would you? You wouldnt spend 10 grand on a car that rolls over if you turn a corner at more than 5mph, and which has the pedals in the passenger footwell, would you?
Then why the hell would you do that for a sword?

[Jackie Chan No.455794]

Forging process creates the strongest steel parts of any process. Machining is for dimensional accuracy

I have a degree in this field

[Anonymous No.455805]

>>455794
Surprisingly, they're not really arguing about that.

[Anonymous No.455829]

>>455711
>You would'nt spend $10,000 for a shotgun to be displayed above the mantelpiece, with a barrel that's shaped like a banana, a trigger that neither hand can reach, and a stock that would only fit a 3-foot midget, would you?
I dunno, was it made by Damien Hirst?

[Anonymous No.455845]

Steel produced for machining often has sulfur added to improve machinability on a lathe or a mill. However, sulfur will reduce the strength of the steel and make it more susceptible to damage under normal use.

Some machine shops (sadly, not the one I worked in briefly) will employ blacksmiths. Not necessarily because they can potentially produce a higher quality grain structure in the steel, but because it saves on raw material.

If you forge a piece nearly to shape and then chuck up the piece and turn out the critical dimensions, you will literally save tons of valuable material in the long run.