Talk:Crucible steel

message: Under the heading 'ancient history of south asian production' reads:
"In addition India's superior iron ore has trace vanadium and other rare earths which unintentionally leads to the formation of carbon nano tubes in Indian crucible steel which was famous throughout the middle east for its ability to retain its edge even after prolonged usage."
:This could use a reference, while vanadium improves hardenability I wouldn't suspect carbon nanotubes are in any way involved. This probably has more to do with the energy requirements for a martensitic phase transformation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.46.48 (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference?

message: THe end of the third paragraph reads: "Modern methods instead remove carbon from the pig iron, due to its low cost." Someone please clarify, if able. Sfahey 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To make crucible steel, pig iron is wrought to de-carburize it.  This wrought iron is then cementized by heating it with additional carbon.  Modern steelmaking skips a step; not having to work the pig iron reduces costs.--128.115.27.11 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: I regret that I have been guilty of reinstating a note on what blister steel is, referring to a new articel on the cementation process.  Contrary to what appeared when I stated, the cementation process (making blister steel) was not a derivative one from crucible steel production, but existed in its own right for 130 years before Huntsman's time.  Furthermore, from his time, only some of the blister steel was melted in crucibles and cast.  I therefore consider that the section on blister steel should NOT appear as part of an article on crucible steel; they are separate (and to some extent independent) processes.  Nevertheless, I have left where it is for the moment, but would appreciate the views pf others.   The raw material for crucible steel was blister steel.  The raw material for blister steel was bar iron, usually Swedish oregrounds iron; this is NOT correctly described as 'ore'.  I have not put sources here, as it is not my article, though I have where I have undertaken a substantial edit of that on the cementation process.  
Peterkingiron 20:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment on my editing of the article

message: I have tagged the above statement with "fact", because I think this requires evidence.  It may be right, but there was also a noted steel-making centre at Merv in central Asia.  Furthermore, it might be better to add detail to more detailed articles on Damascus steel and wootz.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sri Lanka exported Damascus steel to the Middle East" 

message: This article was promarily about the commodity known as crucible steel in recent times.  The massive recent expansion. without any discussion has conmpletely altered the balance of the article so that it is largely about medieval Asian production.  I am not suggesting that the new material is wrong.  What I am questioning is whether this artiucle is really the best place for it.  We already have an article on Wootz and another on Damascus steel, I would respectively suggest that this is the proper place for the material, with appropriate links from the presnt article.  The alternaive might be to merge those articles, but in that case the section on English crucible steel (from c.1740) would need to be greatly expanded to restore a proper balance.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent expansion 

message: Why do recent additions focus so much on the Bessemer process, which post-dates the advent of crucible steel in the UK by a century? It even goes into detail on basic vs acid Bessemer linings, which has even less relevance to crucible steel.
Last time I looked, Bessemer still hadn't replaced other processes for complex alloy steels, which is where the origins of the crucible process lie. Bessemer and oxygen converters are (AFAIK), still primarily the producers of bulk mild steel, not the high carbon and alloy steels that rely on open hearth and electric arc processes. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been addressed.  Please see if it looks satisfactory and supply a reference if you have one.Phmoreno (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bessemer 

message: user:Phmoreno has added several inappropriate  tags, each paired with a (more reasonable) .  I assume Phmoreno intended to provide a description of his concerns, and misused  for that purpose.  I have removed those, and added this section to discuss the  for the reason "Not in agreement with other sources".  As things stand, that comment seems inadequate to describe the problem.  Rwessel (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate ((disputed tag)) tags removed, discussion of ((disputed-section)) tags ("Not in agreement with other sources") 

message: The material below was apparently originally a separate article that was merged here, but it doesn't seem to add much to the subject.  It seems more relevant to the article Cementation process.  Suggest a merge there or with main Steel article.
--Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Really it belongs back under Blister steel, which was merged into oblivion years ago.  Cementation isn't really the same thing as blister steel.  There are a lot of preceeding small-scale blister processes that aren't cementation on that scale. Japanese tamahagane is an interesting one. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  " a product called cement steel or blister steel.", rather fails to see the distinction between blistering, as a small scale forge process, and as cementation in larger furnaces. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Early modern steel in Europe

message: "Crucible steel has aroused considerable interest for well over a thousand years and there is a sizeable body of work concerning its nature and production.Craddock 1995,276"
I've moved this paragraph here from the lead section because it seems unnecessary. This article is about the material itself and its history, not the body of work surrounding it.  I don't see anything in the rest of the article that this paragraph serves to summarize, and it doesn't give enough information itself: why has crucible steel "aroused considerable interest"?
--Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous paragraph 

message: We have a lot of information about archaeological iron and steel making without much discussion of the processes.  This needs to be cut down to what is really on the topic of crucible steel with the process specifics so comparisons can be made.  Also, care needs to be taken to not include crucible smelting, which is a separate process.Phmoreno (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much emphasis on other processes 

message: Actually a similar kind of steel was allready known during antiquity in Europe. The Celts produced this so called Noric Steel and it was fe. exported to the Roman Empire.--213.147.167.62 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Noric steel]] - Ferrum Noricum 

message: I have a question about the last section, describing a Russian steel called bulat. Does anyone have a reference for this? The reason I ask is that the wording in that section seems confused. The section says molten steel was quenched when the proper crystal structure was reached. Since liquid steel has no crystal structure, I was wondering what this was supposed to mean. (I could see quenching molten steel producing a certain crystalline structure, but it would have to be contained in a vessel if liquid quenched or the violent reaction should leave a porous, lava-like mess.) Zaereth (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulat?