Why Kamakura = best swords ever??

[mas4t0]

4 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

 

You should learn the basis of physic before talking, such the conservation mass law. Each layer of steel is a body independent of the others. The law of conservation of mass obliges you to preserve the same number of molecules or atoms in this body (constant of Avogadro). If you remove an atom you must replace it, then explain me how and by what.

 

ps your links makes me laugh a lot, thank you for that.

 

 

Pangloss,

 

In short, no it isn't. Why would you think that?

 

What do you think the relevance of N_A (the number of constituent particles per mole) is to this discussion? The number of molecules or atoms in a body would only be given by Avogadro's constant if the mass is equal to the molar mass - otherwise you have to multiply the number of moles by Avogadro's constant to get the number of particles. The amount of matter is given by the mass, N_A is simply a constant to allow conversion from the quantity of mass to the number of particles (assuming you know the chemical composition).

 

Conservation of mass does not imply conservation of mass within a given layer or indeed within the billet as a whole, just that no matter is created or destroyed. As you well know; the overall mass of the billet is reduced during processing (though the mass is obviously conserved overall as there has been no nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, annihilation, etc). The mass lost from the billet or from a given layer obviously still exists (somewhere) so mass is conserved.

 

Or were you going to tell us that gain weight (through overeating) and weight loss (through diet and exercise) are impossible, as the human body is an independent body and mass can neither be gained or lost? Of course mass and energy are zero sum (as they equivalate and are conserved), but the allocation can change.

 

I have a reasonable grasp on physics and chemistry, but I'm starting to seriously doubt that you do.

 

If your understanding of physics is misaligned with empirical findings to such an extent that you conclude (rigorously) observed phenomena to be impossible, perhaps it's time to reassess your grasp of physics?

 

As you contiunally refer to yourself as a physicist, that would imply you have a pHd in the field. How did you procure a pHd in physics without a basic grasp of the scientific method?

 

I'm referencing material from the relevant scientific discipline - maybe you should take up your misgivings with the field of metallurgy as a whole (as my physicist acquaintance mentioned earlier did with the field of economics)?

 

Why did you remove the Dunning-Kruger effect from your signature if you're so determined to be a poster boy for it?

[Guest Simon R]

[mas4t0]

5 minutes ago, SRDRowson said:

 

I apologise Simon and (almost) everyone else.

[Guest Simon R]

Please don't apologise, Mark - this is just 'path of the course'.

 

My sole comment on this subject is, as someone who has personally handled the best preserved (1,000+ years old) Viking sword in the world, that my deep respect for Kamakura blades is partially rooted in their absolutely extraordinary level of preservation.

No comments on metallurgy - just a great love of history and the incredible warriors who wielded these weapons a millennia ago. 

[Jacques D.]

3 hours ago, mas4t0 said:

 

Pangloss,

 

In short, no it isn't. Why would you think that?

 

What do you think the relevance of N_A (the number of constituent particles per mole) is to this discussion?

 

Conservation of mass does not imply conservation of mass within a given layer or indeed within the billet as a whole, just that no matter is created or destroyed. As you well know; the overall mass of the billet is reduced during processing (though the mass is obviously conserved overall as there has been no nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, annihilation, etc). The mass lost from the billet or from a given layer obviously still exists (somewhere) so mass is conserved; or were you going to tell us that gain weight (through overeating) and weight loss (through diet and exercise) are impossible as the human body is an independent body and mass can neither be gained or lost?

 

I have a reasonable grasp on physics and chemistry, but I'm starting to seriously doubt that you do.

 

If your understanding of physics is misaligned with empirical findings to such an extent that you conclude (rigorously) observed phenomena to be impossible, perhaps it's time to reassess your grasp of physics?

 

As you contiunally refer to yourself as a physicist, that would imply you have a pHd in the field. How did you procure a pHd in physics without a basic grasp of the scientific method?

 

I'm referencing material from the relevant scientific discipline - maybe you should take up your misgivings with the field of metallurgy as a whole (as my physicist acquaintance mentioned earlier did with the field of economics)?

 

Why did you remove the Dunning-Kruger effect from your signature if you're so determined to be a poster boy for it?

 

You are a perfect example of Dunning/Kruger effect and i remove it to replace it by the IPCC link which is far more important to my eyes (the number of signatures is limited).

 

Quote

What do you think the relevance of N_A (the number of constituent particles per mole) is to this discussion?

 

Because it's relevant as soon as you have material, whether it's solid, liquid or gas

Again, learn the basis of physic. 

 

 

 

[mas4t0]

1 hour ago, Jacques D. said:

 

You are a perfect example of Dunning/Kruger effect and i remove it to replace it by the IPCC link which is far more important to my eyes (the number of signatures is limited).

 

 

Because it's relevant as soon as you have material, whether it's solid, liquid or gas

Again, learn the basis of physic. 

 

 

Funny 

 

https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/what-is-carbon-migration.484147/

 

Ok Pangloss, lets review.

 

First off, regarding the Dunning/Kruger effect, that's precisely what I expected you to say.

 

Second, if you consider Avogadro's constant to be relevant whenever you have solid, liquid or gas (though for some reason not plasma) am I to understand that you write your recipes in terms of the number of particles rather than in terms of the mass of the ingredients?

 

If so, I'm impressed (but also perplexed) by your eccentricity.

 

Finally, with regards to the thread you linked (which you've now seemingly removed from your post, but which is fortuitously preserved in my quote in this post) this is a quote from Kevin R. Cashen (a highly respected ABS Master Smith and the only name on that thread I recognise).

 

Quote

As mete pointed out "Carbon migration" is just a nonsensical term that bladesmiths use to describe carbon diffusion. It seems that every smith that has written about it has described it as something that is bad or to be avoided, and this is the really unfortunate nonsense. All these years that smiths have been dumping mild steel into their damascus the only thing that has been saving their butts from the embarrassment of having huger chunks blow out their weakened edges is "carbon migration". Unless one goes to great lengths to overcome it, carbon diffusion is something that is unavoidable at welding temperature and we should embrace it. Real contrasts in the etch is very very weakly affected by carbon anyhow and one of the reasons that the whole folding and welding thing was done in ages past it to evenly distribute things like carbon, only modern smiths seem to want to do the opposite.

 

 

What's the problem?

 

This is the same thing as Jean and I have been explaining (i.e. carbon diffusion).

[Rivkin]

Mixing steels to produce broad patterns is a well known shinshinto technique which has some but limited connection to koto works. However when used with modernish steels this often results in a pattern that looks plasticky and artificial.

Broad pattern (o mokume etc.) can still be produced from a "single sourced" steel. If its a modern steel, the result will look rather bleak.

Yes, most crucible steels even from the same processing batch will be chemically and structurally different.

Carbon diffusion plays a limited role in historical metallurgy.

 

Its not a topic where there is one single definitive process which is the source of all things. Steel does not have a well defined chemical composition nor does it have a single crystalline structure, nor is it properties are completely homogeneous even when one really wants them to be. There are about 6-8 different types of structures often present in a single blade, to which one should add grain distribution, admixture of layers and other "topological" factors. In a non-Japanese steel for example much depends on how and S and P interact with a lattice; two blades with the same 0.1% of S one will be absolutely ok, another will fail.

There is plenty of specialized literature on the subject. It is important to note none was cited this far, instead it seems to concentrate on youtube video and anecdotes related by smiths.

However, even within the actual "steel related" industrial community there are only a handful of people who have more or less good understanding of the physical processes involved.

[Alex A]

Kirill, i know you like the old swords, with more character.

 

Also, as i have been saying, one size dont fit all.

[Jacques D.]

Mark 

 

 

I removed the link to the blade forum because, not being a native English speaker, I didn't realize at first time that what it said was not entirely accurate.
 

I've a gift for jean and you : 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_diffusion#:~:text=In the crystal solid state,structure of another crystalline element.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick's_laws_of_diffusion

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux

 

Try to digest this. For me it's enough, I leave you to your certainties, but I'm still a little disappointed because I only got denials but without any argument to support them.  
 

 

[mas4t0]

36 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

Mark 

 

 

I removed the link to the blade forum because, not being a native English speaker, I didn't realize at first time that what it said was not entirely accurate.
 

I've a gift for jean and you : 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_diffusion#:~:text=In the crystal solid state,structure of another crystalline element.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_diffusion#:~:text=In the crystal solid state,structure of another crystalline element.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux

 

Try to digest this. For me it's enough, I leave you to your certainties, but I'm still a little disappointed because I only got denials but without any argument to support them.  
 

 

 

Pangloss,

 

I'm familiar with the content in each of those pages.

 

You'll notice that the page on atomic diffusion has the following to say with regards to diffusion in polycrystalline materials (i.e. solids that consist of many small crystals [“grains”]) such as the material we've been discussing.

 

Quote

Diffusion in polycrystalline materials can involve short circuit diffusion mechanisms. For example, along the grain boundaries and certain crystalline defects such as dislocations there is more open space, thereby allowing for a lower activation energy for diffusion. Atomic diffusion in polycrystalline materials is therefore often modeled using an effective diffusion coefficient, which is a combination of lattice, and grain boundary diffusion coefficients. In general, surface diffusion occurs much faster than grain boundary diffusion, and grain boundary diffusion occurs much faster than lattice diffusion.

 

*I used your own words next for clarity.

 

and on the other you say that (picture below)

 

 

Wouldn't it be like a contradiction. (sic)

 

Quote

You should learn the basis of physic before talking, such the conservation mass law. Each layer of steel is a body independent of the others. The law of conservation of mass obliges you to preserve the same number of molecules or atoms in this body (constant of Avogadro). If you remove an atom you must replace it, then explain me how and by what.

 

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,

Here is a basic question for you. What is it that causes nie to form in some layers, but not others? In this Gassan example what are the likely differences between the two steels that form the contrast in the ayasugi hada?

Cheers,

Bryce

 

[Jacques D.]

Bushido journal January 1981 

 

 

[Jacques D.]

W. M. HAWLEY Laminating techniques in Japanese swords 

[Jacques D.]

3 hours ago, Bryce said:

G'day Guys,

Here is a basic question for you. What is it that causes nie to form in some layers, but not others? In this Gassan example what are the likely differences between the two steels that form the contrast in the ayasugi hada?

Cheers,

Bryce

 

 

Nie are martensite particules you will find them in steel with a high carbon content

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensite

 

 

[Baba Yaga]

Where are the "Smiths" actual notes? Not hearsay rewritten, but actual notes. I understand paper doesn't last an a question of illiteracy but?    

[Guest Simon R]

[ROKUJURO]

Unfortunately no reply from ASANO-SAN. I don't give up my hopes for a competent statement from him and will remain patient. 

[gc82]

On 8/29/2022 at 10:37 AM, Valric said:

 

This is something which personally interests me. Does anyone know of an academic paper that compares the steel composition of top smiths in different regions and compares light reflection? 

 

The steel "hue" enigma truly puzzles me. Blackish steel in the North, Bluish in the south, etc. We need a formal analysis of steel composition between different regions / periods, and link this to light reflection. 

 

IV: Nakago powded beneath the hamachi (edge side, mune side) x Region (Bicchu/Bizen, Sagami, Kyoto) x period (Mid kamakura vs Late Kamakura vs End of Nambokucho/Early Muromachi)

DV: steel composition + light reflection 

 

The loss of luster of Sagami steel, the rise of hitatsura, similar trends observed in other schools. We need to figure this out. Some material ran out and it's a big piece of the Kamakura Golden Age enigma. 

 

 

Hello Christopher,

where did you get this graph from? 

In regards to the study, did you find anything in the meantime? I took a look on some search engines for scientific papers and the closest I've found to a comparison is the following:

 

From Koto age to modern times: Quantitative characterization of Japanese swords with Time of Flight Neutron Diffraction

F. Grazzi, L. Bartoli, F. Civita, R. Franci, A. Paradowska, A. Scherilload and M. Zoppia

 

You can find it online.

 

KR,

Giulio

[Hoshi]

Hi Giulio, 

 

I made this graphic myself some time ago during the course of my research. It warrants some updating, but it's generally accurate. Do keep in mind there is missing data (e.g., imperial collection, unpapered shrine swords, etc.). 

 

Thank for the reference, I'll check it out.