Beware of Torigoe's temper...

[runagmc]

I was looking at it like all the dots and patches at the demarcation between the steels was patches of martensite, like ara nie. You can see a seperate nioiguchi in parts of the edge steel where ashi are reaching down also, which made me think that it could be nie. If not a difference in carbon content what could explain the difference in brightness of the two steels inside the yakiba... and if not clusters of nie, what could cause all the dotting and patchiness along the demarcation line in this picture? I have a blade that has some big patches of ara nie in the ji and it has a very similar look.

 

Here's an example to show what I mean. My understanding is the yakiba is made up of different size particles of martensite, a lot of times with bigger particles and patches along the nioiguchi. If anyones interested to see some more, http://www.ksky.ne.jp./~sumie99/hamon.html#nie/nioi

[Miura]

Hey Guys. This is my first post here and I am sorry that this is what it had to be. I noticed a rather verbose attack on this thread regarding an article that Boris Markhasin and myself published years ago. Thanks for giving me all the credit, but it WAS indeed co-authored by Boris and myself. The article has a lot of good information if it is not taken out of context, and my biggest problem with the attack is that the quotes were taken out of context, and there were diagrams etc. that did tie in the information. Yes there were some shortcomings to the article. It was an article written by two guys collaborating at a very busy time and things such as how rust wears away differently on iron of varying carbon content exposing bones, etc. should have been covered and detailed explanations given - but it had to be edited and cut to fit a magazine and perhaps some of the dots connecting things got edited out though they were still there in our heads. We should have had more outside readers, and we did have a couple.

I noticed Ian also brought to mind the surface of armor that is often covered by urushi - so it doesn't wear down as tsuba do over time with rust etc. This is stuff armor guys see and take as matter of fact. I work on a lot of armors. Mostly dating to the Momoyama and Muromachi Periods which is where my interest lies. Sometimes I have to cut it, drill it, file it etc to repair it. Haruta iron will burn your drill bit out, and haruta armor with myouchin patches half a century later will have the haruta iron looking like new and the myouchin patch looking as old as sin because it rusts like hell. I see a lot of things that I take for granted, and is maybe why I might have left something out and/or Boris mistakenly edited it out not knowing the significance. I don't think Ford Hallam was going after Boris' and my article with the purpose of internet bullying,(we have had our differences) but I do think that the out of context attacks on the article might confuse a new reader and perhaps be viewed as such. I don't think its where you want to go with this forum. If the points that were made were weak, and again I agree collaborating can convolute a theme, perhaps Mr. Hallam would wish to conduct his own research and publish an article that contradicts our article concisely with his own observations or better yet, write an article that brings new information to the table to be discussed. Unfortunately, the purpose of the out-of-context arguments confuses even myself. The articles that are posted on our site are basically there to generate interest and introduce some new points. Maybe at some point that particular article will get a re-write so it is easier understood. I wish I had more time to participate with you all on this topic. If any of you think I might have information that you would be interested in you are welcome to contact me personally.
Best,
Andy M.

[Soshin]

Hi Andy,

 

Thanks for the reply. It brings the discussion back into focus and not so off topic. In conclusion I will say I like iron bones the more the better! This I a am sure of more research is not necessary. I am a scientist at my day job and a fine art collector on the weekends.

 

 

 

Your truly,

David Stiles

[John A Stuart]

Hi Andy, It is always great to read your nuggets of wisdom about armour, as it is from others recognised in their respective fields, and I hope you can spare some time to share now and again, as you have elsewhere. There is so little available to those that are really interested in your field. John

[Ford Hallam]

Dear Andy,

 

I'm pleased you've decided to respond to my, some-what 'ad hoc' critique of your article.

 

What you seem unwilling, or unable, to recognise is that I don't need to do any new research to offer my contradictions to the points I highlighted is a bit disconcerting though. These are not matters of speculation. I was merely speaking from the point of view of established metallurgical/scientific understanding.

 

If you wish to offer a substantive riposte to my criticisms then I suggest you do so by citing some relevant evidence or established scientific facts that effectively dismiss the specific points I made.

 

Your characterisation of my commentary as a "rather verbose attack" is revealing. All I offered was my differing view on what you proposed, with the difference I offered some rationale. If I was verbose, in that I used a lot of words, I hope they were well employed to illustrate my objections. I can appreciate why you'd see that as objectionable.

 

I don't think Ford Hallam was going after Boris' and my article with the purpose of internet bullying,(we have had our differences) but I do think that the out of context attacks on the article might confuse a new reader and perhaps be viewed as such. I don't think its where you want to go with this forum.

 

Why even raise the childish notion of internet bullying? You published an article that purported to be serious research....I critiqued it. This is usual practice in every field of academic research. Rather disappointingly you have chosen not to respond to a single specific criticism I made but rather to make some sort of vague objection that has absolutely no intellectual basis. To imply that this forum doesn't want to go in the direction my criticism inevitably suggests is a very sinister aspect of your comment.

 

Frankly, if my commentary is considered to be 'unacceptable' , as you seem to think it is, I await some indication from the admin here. If the consensus is with you that my critique and objections to you article are unpalatable I will happily remove myself from this arena.

 

But you are absolutely correct, articles like the one you published will confuse new comers to the field. All the more reason for speculative and poorly argued articles to be critiqued. If you disagree with my critique don't get overly verbose critiquing me....rather concentrate on supporting your thesis and demonstrating where and how I am wrong.

 

As for your 'escape clause' of context I'd like to see a single example in what I wrote that is distorted by me taking it out of context. Please show me a specific point I referred that is made correct by a change of context.

 

Ford

[kusunokimasahige]

I must say I side with Ford in this matter after reading your posting Andy.

 

What I see is not a critique on your article by Ford which lives up to peer review, nor do I get any inclination to read your article since at no point in your subsequent attack on Ford do you yourself include reference to either literature on the subject and/or other viewpoints/surveys on the subject, which also does not comply with the rules of proper peer review.

 

What I do see however is a fair discussion and some valid points and questions raised by Ford, being reacted to in a quite unbecoming manner by yourself.

 

Now I know nothing about metallurgy since I am a historian, but I do know something about academic discourse. Neither of you have written a full critique on each others opinions and statements the way it should be done. That does not disqualify you at all as scholars or learned men, since this is a forum and not a scientific journal or magazine so there is no obligation to do so.

 

However, if both of you would like to continue this argument, please do so according to academic standards.

 

Write your opinions backed by references to current data, current research or current literature, and include literature, data et cetera of other previously held surveys so that the fellow board members can form their own educated opinion. That is not only courteous, it is of the greatest importance if you want this to evolve into a true and open minded academic discussion.

 

KM

[ROKUJURO]

Andy,

 

Critics on the content of a treatment are not an attack on the writer!

 

If I correctly understand these forums, most NMB members are interested to improve their knowledge, and critical opinions and discussions may well serve this purpose. I am sure you wrote the text on TEKKOTSU in the best of your knowledge, but as so often opinions are just individual thoughts and not facts.

 

My critics are based upon my personal experience and knowledge, and I am willing to learn if you could prove my comments to be wrong. But then some fat books have to be re-written at least in parts....

 

Kindly check my comments, you will find that we both are striving for the same 'truth' behind some very special forging secrets.

 

Regards,

 

Jean C.

[cabowen]

I would have to echo the above comments as I was quite disappointed by the lack of any substantive rebuttal to Ford's criticisms. I too fail to see how any of the points made by Ford could be resolved by context...I have no dog in this hunt but again have to agree with the statements above regarding the supremacy and importance of the truth.

[cabowen]

I want to add to my earlier comments regarding carbon diffusion....

 

Further discussion on this topic with one of the authors of the article I cited has confirmed that the time for equalization of the carbon levels depends on time, temperature, and the distance between the layers of different carbon content. When the material has been folded 8-10 times, the layers are thin enough that the diffusion at welding temps occurs in seconds.

 

This may play a role in forging tsuba....

 

As for multipiece sword construction, apparently the single boundary between pieces would lengthen greatly the time needed at heat to cause an equalization in carbon levels across the boundary. As a result, it would seem that there should indeed be a gradient in carbon percentage across a transverse section of the blade. The quicker the smith was able to form the blade, the more each piece would retain its original carbon percentage.

[ROKUJURO]

....Further discussion on this topic with one of the authors of the article I cited has confirmed that the time for equalization of the carbon levels depends on time, temperature, and the distance between the layers of different carbon content.....

I would like to underline this. I already wrote about this subject on Saturday: (......One word to the subject of carbon diffusion. This is influenced greatly by time, temperature and the way to travel , e.g. the thickness of layers. It ist quite well possible to create a decorative Damascus steel from high carbon steel and carbon free iron without having considerable carbon diffusion. This needs as few weldings as possible and thick layers.

 

When it comes to longer periods of forge welding and folding, the overall time of heat application gets longer and the layer diameter diminishes, ending in a balanced carbon content in all layers. An obstacle to carbon diffusion is a layer of pure nickel.....).

 

Steel 'behaves' like steel, and the knowledge of general physical properties of steel is helpful in understanding forging techniques of TSUBA.

[Miura]

Dear Ford,

 

I take it back, maybe there is something personal directed at me because I continue to get full credit for an article that I wrote only part of. I wonder why this is? Anyway, thanks for making me out to be such a hard working author. It was quite a bit of work to put together, as fragmented as it was.

 

I think I explained the reasons for some of the so-called "contradictions" and I think I was pretty harsh on the article myself.

 

I don't think that you people really want the article to be removed do you? I do think that you all, yes even you Ford see the merit in the work. It was years ago and was the first article to get down to the topic. Im glad that our research inspired some of you to ask more questions. Building on other's research is what it is all about.

 

The reason that it was written was inspire people to get to the "truth" that you folks speak of . We saw a great deal of inconsistency amongst designated so-called katchushi tsuba and wanted to throw out some new info. and get brains working. Nobody had done anything like it before. The Armor info I was responsible for, and I have a pretty good idea of the composition of the items I contributed. Unfortunately, at that time I did not have a budget for analysis. I did use some some chemical techniques to test, and of course used a record of knowledge gained through physical testing of materials I knew to be old.

 

Yes there were some holes in the chain of reasoning that had to be filled in by the reader, and left openings for critique. There are some critics that you just can't satisfy unfortunately - no matter what.

 

The best critique is a well organized paper that contradicts the information. Ford, the challenge is still there. Go ahead and publish your own article. Open yourself up to critique. Hopefully people will be more constructive with you than you were with Boris and myself. Bring some new information to the table and you will make a lot of people happy.... even if you have a couple mistakes here or there.

 

On the other hand, to formulate a critique the way you did with the words you chose will only result in people who disagree with you to shut up and remain quiet. Is that what you hope to achieve? I think there are a lot of people who agree with me here who are in fact the quiet type and don't want to come into conflict with you Ford.

 

Look at us, here wasting time when we could be making a work of art. This is silly. I cant be drawn out any more on this guys I'm just to busy.

Best,

Andy

[Ford Hallam]

Dear Andy,

 

you're quite right, I've been remiss in not apportioning some criticism for the omissions (as I see them) from your article to your collaborator. Here I will now 'officially' direct my comments to both of you. I can assure you there is nothing personal behind my opinion of the validity, or lack thereof, of the article.

 

My point was simply that you made repeated assertion regarding the composition of the metal but failed to provide any evidence that you'd done any analysis' nor did you cite any relevant work that would substantiate your claims. That fact alone, in my view, renders the article relatively worthless. In addition, and this is the point I was making in this thread, articles like yours, that provide no evidence or sound reasoning for the ideas they present, simply add to the overall confusion that we are forced to wade though. The fact that Mariusz referred to your article in good faith proves that particular point. He assumed it was a reliable bit of work. I demonstrated quite clearly why it is not.

 

You claim you "wanted to throw out some new info. and get brains working." But you didn't really presnent any new information at all, did you? You just made a load of unsubstantiated assertions.

 

I did use some some chemical techniques to test, and of course used a record of knowledge gained through physical testing of materials I knew to be old.

Could you elaborate on the nature and exact relevance of this data? , because unless you established scientifically the carbon content of the sample pieces you were writing about I fail to see the connection or relevance.

 

yes even you Ford see the merit in the work.

No, I don't see any merit in the work I'm afraid. I regard it as yet more muddying of the water. How is it you would even claim to know what I think now?

 

As for presenting my own 'research' or theories most regular readers of this forum will be well aware of my contributions here. I'm more than willing to debate or argue my points with anyone who cares to challenge them. On occasion I've even changed my view or at least altered my initial ideas as a result.

 

to formulate a critique the way you did with the words you chose will only result in people who disagree with you to shut up and remain quiet. Is that what you hope to achieve? I think there are a lot of people who agree with me here who are in fact the quiet type and don't want to come into conflict with you Ford.

 

I'm not sure which words I used are supposed to be so intimidating but this is just pathetic nonsense. If ideas can't stand up to scrutiny then perhaps they are best kept out of a public discussion forum. I will remind you that I have kept my comments directed firmly on the issue of metal composition and the articles failure to provide any evidence to validate those claims. I don't have to contradict anything at all in this case. I merely have to point out you have not proven anything but merely asserted without evidence your ideas. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

I think there are a lot of people who agree with me here who are in fact the quiet type and don't want to come into conflict with you Ford.

 

You may well think this...but can you prove it? :lol: Even if every single member of this board secretly agreed with you ( ) it would still leave you (and you army of secret admirers ) without a shred of evidence to support your assertions regarding the composition of the armours you discussed in your article.

 

As for me being more constructive in my criticism, I thought I was. I pointed out very clearly where the weaknesses in your article were and why, as a consequence, I regarded the piece as unreliable. This is only my opinion, of course, others may be happy to simply go along with your train of speculation just because you say it's so.

 

regards,

 

Ford

[John A Stuart]

I am so sorry that another thread that had potential to lead to a better understanding or at least a questioning stance has devolved to argument over how to argue rather than discourse on the subject at hand. I lock this thread now only because of that reason and hope the subject can be addressed anew reasonably and pacifically. John