Talk:Carbon steel

message: 0.284 lb/in3 is not a true density but a weight per volume. The lb unit is lb-force not lb-mass. I believe it is often stated this way so that steel vendors can quickly calculate shipping costs by multiplying .284 by the total steel volume. Maybe this should be pointed out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterwright (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That distinction is usually glossed over and doesn't really matter. Pounds per cubic inch is a density. Wikipedia seems to think the mass is the primary definition. I wouldn't change anything. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see now. From the  Pound (force) page lb-f and lb-m are equivalent at the surface of the earth. However, if you want to use newton's second law you have to first convert to slugs so that 1 (lb-m) = 1 (slug) * 1 (ft/s^2). Thank's for clarification BenFrantzDale. Hunterwright (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Density of Steel

message: High carbon steel or low carbon steel? which one is more ductile actually?
Thank you Dsdsasds (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Low carbon, but you should really ask questions like this in the future at the help desk. Wizard191 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ductility 

message: If someone has a better way for me to list my references that would help alot, because most of my references come from the same book and it's just the page numbers that change. Wizard191 02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article contain a mix of SI and non-SI units. Some sections of the article contain non-SI units, and these should be converted. I don't know for sure what Wikipedia's policy is regarding metrication, but some may find it helpful for both systems to appear in the article with SI units given prominence. Example: 0°C (32°F).
--B.d.mills 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrication 

message: How can the melting point be reduced while the temperature resistance is increased? Aren't those in opposite directions?68.180.38.41 09:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Just a guess: perhaps the creep temperature is increased? (The operating range of a metal doesn't go all the way up to its melting point.) That's just a guess, though. —Ben FrantzDale 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  durability 

message: moved.  Simple enough search finds carbon steel to be the nomenclature.  Teke (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support, though is there a non-plain carbon steel?  And would that article be long enough to merit its own, or should it be combined into carbon steel?  And is it just me or is the content between the two articles pretty much the same?  WLU 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Hi, the Simple.wikipedia.org version of this page refers to 'poopoo head' from vandal. I don't know the site well enough to edit, can this be fixed? Apologies for the format here as I say I am not familiar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.35 (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on simple page 

message: 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) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what it is, but it sounds from what you say that it's a colloquial name for mild steel. Why that makes it "sweet", I don't know. Also, I think of cold rolled steel as steel that's been cold rolled; I'm not sure it implies a particular chemical composition, just that it has been work hardened. But I'm not a metallurgist. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sweet iron" 

message: It's more likely 30,000 PSI, right?  A36 Steel is 36,000.  Maraging Steel(a super steel) is only 500,000 PSI at most. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the Young's modulus value, not yield or tensile strength. Wizard191 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "30,000,000 PSI???" 

message: Whoever converted some of the temperature rates from F to C did it wrong. In one case 100F per second of temperature drop is listed as 37C, and while a temperature of 100F converts to 37C, this is incorrect for the rate of cooling. 100F actually converts to 57C when you take into account that 0C is 32F. Someone needs to fix this. 151.200.31.19 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Be bold. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that the value is incorrect, but the proper conversion is: F = (9/5)C; therefore 38 degree C is 68.4 degree F. Wizard191 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature conversion problems 

message: Could the originator of this article please check the link for number 1.  It is dead and needs to be corrected.  I may Be Bold and fix it myself, but free time is an issue for me right now. Bikeric (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Wizard191 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference number 1 is a dead link 

message: The article does not separate the two categories. It states the carbon content in low-carbon steel but not in mild steel which is much higher, thus a difference in material properties. 101.174.62.1 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mild steel redirects to a non-existent section, and there is duplication and confusion between the Type and Types sections. Can we clarify any distinction between mild steel and medium carbon steel ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mild and low-carbon steel 

message: The section on Types defines carbon content ranges for Low, Medium, High and Ultra-high carbon steels, and refer to the "Classification of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels" reference for these values. However, they are quite different from the values quoted on that page. My vague recollection from metallurgy classes was that High would start at 0.6% (which would make sense, since Medium stops there). I had a look around and found that many web sites quote different percentages, so I haven't made any modifications. Also, High has "(ASTM 304)" written after it, but this appears to be a type of stainless steel. If someone who knows this stuff well and has a good source of data could fix this, I would appreciate it. Runox (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent definitions 

message: The percentages quoted for the carbon content of steel are mostly not qualified. They are percentages by weight, and I would like to suggest that this should be made clearer. The only section that mentions that they are percentages by weight is "Higher-carbon steels"
The density of carbon (2,250 kg/m3) and iron (7,850 kg/m3) are quite different, which means that percentages of carbon by volume will be larger. E.g. take a 1% carbon steel composed of just iron and carbon. If I have my sums right every 1,000 kg of that will be composed of 990 kg of iron and 10 kg of carbon.The iron will occupy a volume of 990/7850 = 0.1261 m3. The carbon will occupy a volume of 10/2250 = 0.0044 m3. The total volume of the steel will be 0.1305 m3, of which the carbon will be 3.37% by volume.
The density of the 1% carbon steel will be 7,663 kg/m3.I notice that http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-alloys-densities-d_50.html gives the density of steel as 7,850 kg/m3, the same as for iron. For low carbon steel this is reasonable, but as the carbon content rises the density falls. This won't matter in most real world applications, but it shouldn't be forgotten.
David.Boettcher (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The calculations above may not allow for the smaller carbon atoms largely locating (interstitially?) between the larger iron atoms ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, carbon interstitial in the iron crystal matrix is how it works to harden / strengthen, by breaking up dislocation planes (to grossly simplify).  It's essentially not changing the matrix spacing at all.   Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages not qualified , and densities 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carbon steel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018015022/http://www.ameristeel.com:80/products/msds/docs/carbon_steel.pdf to http://www.ameristeel.com/products/msds/docs/carbon_steel.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't there be a paragraph or so on the effects of different carbon-contents? 
Example: 
Higher carbon-content steels are stronger, but less malleable. This means that higher carbon-content steels can take more stress before showing signs of damage, but, instead of bending under stress, higher carbon-content steels tend to fracture, and so are much harder to repair when they are damaged. Higher carbon-content steels are also less dense than lower carbon-content steels, meaning that they are somewhat lighter, which is favorable for some roles (knives, saws, furniture, etc.) and unfavorable for others (hammers, axes, and other tools that work by delivering harsh impact). 2606:A000:4A96:7200:A0F3:A33C:C5DD:8F87 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Carbon-content 

message: In the section "AISI Classification", the four classess are listed as containing 0.05-0.30% (Low), 0.3-0.6% (Medium), 0.6-1.0% (High), and 3.25-4% (Ultra-High) carbon. So what's a steel with 1.0-3.25% carbon content? "Really-Awfully-High-Carbon"? 
Looking at the cited article ( http://www.keytometals.com/Articles/Art62.htm ), it describes ultrahigh-carbon (sic) steel as having 1.25-2.0% carbon - I can't find any references to 3.25% or 4% anywhere on the page, and it even states "Generally speaking, carbon steels contain up to 2% total alloying elements and can be subdivided into low-carbon steels, medium-carbon steels, high-carbon steels, and ultrahigh-carbon steels". Knowing only slightly more than nothing about steel composition ('it involves steel, and, um... stuff it's composed of?'), I don't want to go editing it... but is there a deliberate reason for the difference in figures, or did someone's finger just slip a couple keys to the right while editing? 
71.234.116.22 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  High- to Ultra-High-Carbon Percentage Mismatch 

message: Please would someone knowledgeable add information or a section about BMS - Bright Mild Steel ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman101 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMS - Bright Mild Steel 

message: Dear historians of metallurgy: would it be possible to have a short history of the carbon steel? I am interested in piano strings and I can't find the date and the person who 'invented' or 'discovered' the addition of carbon to change its properties. I heard it was in Birmingham but I got different names and dates, ranging from 1822 to 1834. I know by modern analysis that iron strings by 1780's had a content of carbon about 0.03 %, mostly as residues rather than added on purpose. The addition of carbon took the pianos (and also other instruments) into a new era as they needed to support much more tension so the whole industry had to adapt to the change leading to what we know as the modern piano. That's why I think it's important to state who did it and when that happened.Cesarhernandez1967 (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: For Pete's sake, why not include at least a single photo showing an item made from carbon steel in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of photo

message: From the lede:
Carbon steel is a popular metal choice for knife making due to its high amount of carbon, giving the blade more edge retention.
...true, to an extent. Compared to bronze or iron age knives, the modern carbon steel has way better edge retention. But the iron age is over and, as also noted in the lede, stainless steel is often distinguished from carbon steel in the common vernacular.
Modern stainless steels have far better edge retention than carbon steels, due to having harder and larger vanadium carbides, and better wear resistance. The main advantage of carbon steel is low cost and ease of heat treatment. When I find the time I hope to post some citations for this. -- Hunan201p (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knives 

message: The second half of "Types: Higher-carbon steels" is written terribly. Its not in the passive voice, missing capitals at the start of some sentences, has extra capitals on some words, meanders, has poor flow, grammar is bad/wrong. 
Recommend delete all of text below till someone can re-write it. 
There are two types of Higher carbon steels which are High Carbon Steel and the Ultra High Carbon Steel. The reason for the limited use of High Carbon Steel is simple which is it has extremely poor Ductility and Weldability and not to mention the cost it incurs during its production. the applications best suited for the High Carbon Steels is its use in the spring industry, farm industry and in the production of wide range of high-strength wires. now let's talk about the Ultra High Carbon Steels which are mostly famous because they have a special property called the Superplasticity. Superplasticity exists in Ultra High Carbon Steels because of their microstructure which contains uniform distribution of very light, shape like sphere, but non-continuous particles which are present abundantly in the ferritic matrix and to produce the Superplasticity in Ultra High Carbon Steel is very simple i.e. by applying the thermomechanical treatment 198.84.204.137 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second half of "Types: Higher-carbon steels" is written terribly. 

message: This text, under Heat Treatment -> Full Annealing, contains an inaccurate Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion:
"The steel must then be cooled slowly, in the realm of 20 °C (68 °F) per hour."
20 C above zero is equivalent to 68 F above zero, but that's relative to each scale's zero.  This is about the rate of cooling per hour, so it's not 9/5 + 32, it's just 9/5.  20 C per hour is 36 F per hour, not 68 F per hour. 142.161.231.175 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right! I have made the necessary amendment. Thanks for drawing the error to our attention. Dolphin (t) 07:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error in unit conversion