Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
Rabindranath Tagore. :lol:nabs":750azpku said:
laminated irons (again)
- Thread starter nabs
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
interesting thought Custard, and look what has turned up in my laminated iron investigations.custard":3kkq1pt7 said:
to quote the 1937 leaflet 'For several generations the steel used In Stanley Plane Cutters has been especially made for Stanley, in one of the Steel mills in Sheffield, England, and it is called "Composite" Steel.'
(thanks to BrentBeach http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/nov2002.html)
And on that bombshell, I think we all know who to thank for the inspiration:
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
In Sheffield most work was subbed out. There were many specialist in making one thing or another. A toolmaker with a brand would be just the firm who got the bits together, perhaps adding bits of its own making. The same saw blade steel maker would be supplying many saw makers etc.
Record planes castings were made in Derby by Qualcast at one time.
Record planes castings were made in Derby by Qualcast at one time.
yep I know Record in later years used Qualcast for some of their castings, but in their prime (30s) they had a huge factory and I had previously assumed part of it was being put to good use melting blister steel in order to make their own special recipe 'tungsten' cast steel blades. Now I am not so sure.
Does anyone know one way or the other?
Does anyone know one way or the other?
iNewbie
Established Member
I was going to go on to say that Brent Beach did the smart thing and worked out the date of the pamphlet (1937- not 1921 as reported in the other link to a scan http://galootopia.com/old_tools/planes/ ... dish-iron/)) by adding 65 years to the date Stanley started making planes
I also think the end-of-production date (1941) is wrong in that link (c.f this advert from April 1946 in Popular Mechanics https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teE ... &q&f=false)
... but I was saving these thrills in the hope someone would confirm that Record made their own irons in the meantime!
I also think the end-of-production date (1941) is wrong in that link (c.f this advert from April 1946 in Popular Mechanics https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teE ... &q&f=false)
... but I was saving these thrills in the hope someone would confirm that Record made their own irons in the meantime!
custard
Established Member
I think it was Andy who mentioned that the laminated irons were manufactured in pairs, they were joined at what would become the sharp edge before being cut into two separate irons. I wonder how that was done? It'd be a long job with a Dremel!
actually it was your original comment that made me re-read the advert again a bit more carefully and for the point about the irons being made elsewhere to sink in - I think there is a more subtle clue about the way they were made also:
'For several generations the steel used In Stanley Plane Cutters has been ....and it is called "Composite" Steel'
.. which I think implies it was delivered already laminated, (which is what Andy was suggesting?)...
'For several generations the steel used In Stanley Plane Cutters has been ....and it is called "Composite" Steel'
.. which I think implies it was delivered already laminated, (which is what Andy was suggesting?)...
... the most puzzling thing about the advert for the Stanley 'composite irons' is the subsequent comment that 'Both parts (A and B) are welded together when originally cast in the Ingot and positively cannot be separated.'
Can anyone think of how this could be done so you would end up with the kind of layered effect that is shown in the picture, and also in the examples we have see (e.g Custard's example below - my record laminated irons are the same, incidentally).
Surely if the irons were somehow cut from an ingot made of two steels parts welded together you would end up with a solid cast steel tip?.
Furthermore, if the whole part of the blade under the slot was the same material, wouldn't that undo all the benefits Stanley claim in their flier (easier sharpening etc)?
hard bit layered on softer back:
hard bit forming the whole section under the slot (this is a HSS tipped bladed offered in Australia, and is apparently soldered on):
Can anyone think of how this could be done so you would end up with the kind of layered effect that is shown in the picture, and also in the examples we have see (e.g Custard's example below - my record laminated irons are the same, incidentally).
Surely if the irons were somehow cut from an ingot made of two steels parts welded together you would end up with a solid cast steel tip?.
Furthermore, if the whole part of the blade under the slot was the same material, wouldn't that undo all the benefits Stanley claim in their flier (easier sharpening etc)?
hard bit layered on softer back:
hard bit forming the whole section under the slot (this is a HSS tipped bladed offered in Australia, and is apparently soldered on):
nabs":fmfivcbe said:
If we concentrate on the word "welded" and treat "cast" and "ingot" as loose talk from a copywriter, this could just possibly mean the thing that I think I half remember reading somewhere, though I have no idea where. This was the suggestion that these mass-produced irons were made by taking a relatively large rectangular strip of iron and then welding a narrower strip of steel along one long edge. (You then have a big lump of composite material - let's call it an "ingot" in the sense of a biggish lump which will get rolled or hammered to size.) Having made the weld and hammered or rolled the big strip down to something like the thickness that was required, you then cut blade sized pieces out of it, each of them having a portion of the steel strip at its tip. This sounds more efficient than making each cutting iron as a separate object.
Do bear in mind that I have no evidence at all for this theory except the shaky belief that I have not deliberately made it up myself!
and good point about the marketing peeps. that process does sound efficient, but wouldn't you end up with a thin strip of hard steel across the whole length of the iron, rather than just a section at the cutting end? Or did I misunderstand the description?I did say way back in this thread that laminated blades were superior metallurgically, and one should necessarily not think of cost as the driver.
I don't think the words "cast" and "ingot" are copywriters' blurb. The brochure says:
"Both parts, (A and B) are welded together when cast in the ingot and positively cannot be separated".
It looks to me (as a trained metallurgist, though not a steel specialist) that it its describing the "casting on" process. Here, a piece of the harder metal is placed in the mould, in a recess in this case, and the backing, softer metal is cast on to it. That seems to me to describe exactly what is said in the brochure.
Temperature control of the melt and the mould needs to be quite tight, in order that the molten metal does not simply melt the hard metal. If the mould has reasonably good thermal conductivity, this would be manageable, and certainly so if the hard slip was cooled from the back side. This is the basis of modern continuous casting. So it's not a trivial process, but perfectly possible.
Note that the source of iron is the same for both components but the edge part is alloyed quite extensively with carbon, tungsten, manganese and other elements. This is going to be a hard steel, and I don't think it would be easy to roll or forge without cracking, though I wouldn't rule it out. Laminated sword blades were certainly made this way historically (see wikipedia on laminated steels). However, Stanley state that the blades are made by casting, not forging, and I see no reason to doubt this.
It's possible that two blades were cast together, end to end. Since they would be ground anyway, a V-shaped grinding wheel is the obvious way to do this, probably just snapping the last bit off. This is speculation, though.
It does look to me as if Stanley developed a very good process, which resulted in the best combination of properties as could formerly be achieved by skilled swordsmiths, but in an economical, production environment.
I don't think the words "cast" and "ingot" are copywriters' blurb. The brochure says:
"Both parts, (A and B) are welded together when cast in the ingot and positively cannot be separated".
It looks to me (as a trained metallurgist, though not a steel specialist) that it its describing the "casting on" process. Here, a piece of the harder metal is placed in the mould, in a recess in this case, and the backing, softer metal is cast on to it. That seems to me to describe exactly what is said in the brochure.
Temperature control of the melt and the mould needs to be quite tight, in order that the molten metal does not simply melt the hard metal. If the mould has reasonably good thermal conductivity, this would be manageable, and certainly so if the hard slip was cooled from the back side. This is the basis of modern continuous casting. So it's not a trivial process, but perfectly possible.
Note that the source of iron is the same for both components but the edge part is alloyed quite extensively with carbon, tungsten, manganese and other elements. This is going to be a hard steel, and I don't think it would be easy to roll or forge without cracking, though I wouldn't rule it out. Laminated sword blades were certainly made this way historically (see wikipedia on laminated steels). However, Stanley state that the blades are made by casting, not forging, and I see no reason to doubt this.
It's possible that two blades were cast together, end to end. Since they would be ground anyway, a V-shaped grinding wheel is the obvious way to do this, probably just snapping the last bit off. This is speculation, though.
It does look to me as if Stanley developed a very good process, which resulted in the best combination of properties as could formerly be achieved by skilled swordsmiths, but in an economical, production environment.
custard
Established Member
MusicMan":2bdeu03s said:
I've got one or two Record or Stanley laminated irons that do indeed show cracking, here's one,
DW suggested it might be corrosion, I guess that's possible but this iron shows very little corrosion, plus I've seen other laminated irons which have worse corrosion but no cracking, and I can't find any similar crazing pattern on non laminated Bailey style irons. However, my sample size is a couple of dozen irons, so probably not statistically reliable.
Incidentally, while checking through the irons for this cracked example I also found another laminated Record iron that has a War Office logo together with the date 1951. I've posted a photo on my previous laminated iron thread. That might scupper my suggestion that laminated irons were finished by 1939.
Attachments
Jacob
New Luddism. Wake up and resist.
I read somewhere that a similar process was used for making cast iron hinges. One leaf would be cast, bearing faces machined, pin inserted, then the other leaf cast on to it in a mould but kept loose by having some sort of oil compo put on meeting faces first.MusicMan":2lp7h2u1 said:
There's a historical site somewhere, google Baldwin, Paton cast iron hinges, how made etc.
Similar process with sash pulleys - the pulley made first, the casing cast around it. Presumably separated, and internal spaces formed, by some sort of casting sand compo.
Thanks for that MusicMan, most enlightening.
It's remarkable that the soft/hard combination construction survived so long - from the 12th century to the 20th.
Also, it makes perfect sense that the details of how the two metals were combined into a single cutter developed and changed over that time.
In the eighteenth century it makes sense to think of quite small pieces of metal being heated at a forge and welded together by a smith, then beaten out to the required flat shape, but that would not have made sense for Stanley in the 1930s, so thanks for describing the "casting on" process as the successor to welding.
Also, I've found the source for what I was wittering on about.
This is from John Whelan. Not in his big encyclopedic survey of the wooden plane but in his shorter book, "Making Traditional Wooden Planes" (1996) page 114. It's a bit vague as to what period he is describing.
"Authentic irons were made by forge welding together long strips of steel and wrought iron, then cutting or punching the product into blanks. The line of union of the wrought iron (the shank end, if a molding iron) and the steel is usually visible. There must be enough steel remaining to permit shaping the profile you need."
It's remarkable that the soft/hard combination construction survived so long - from the 12th century to the 20th.
Also, it makes perfect sense that the details of how the two metals were combined into a single cutter developed and changed over that time.
In the eighteenth century it makes sense to think of quite small pieces of metal being heated at a forge and welded together by a smith, then beaten out to the required flat shape, but that would not have made sense for Stanley in the 1930s, so thanks for describing the "casting on" process as the successor to welding.
Also, I've found the source for what I was wittering on about.
This is from John Whelan. Not in his big encyclopedic survey of the wooden plane but in his shorter book, "Making Traditional Wooden Planes" (1996) page 114. It's a bit vague as to what period he is describing.
"Authentic irons were made by forge welding together long strips of steel and wrought iron, then cutting or punching the product into blanks. The line of union of the wrought iron (the shank end, if a molding iron) and the steel is usually visible. There must be enough steel remaining to permit shaping the profile you need."
And here's another bit of evidence from history to put on the table for discussion.
In "The Wooden Plane" page 34, John Whelan described the tapered form of bench plane irons and wrote:
"The wedge shape may have originated as a natural result of welding the steel tip to the body and dressing the final product, but it does have the advantage of resisting the thrust of the work better. A patent by William Harvey (10 Mar 1830 restored US 5867X) describes running steel and iron blanks through eccentric rolls to produce this taper."
I didn't look at this patent at first, as I was looking for evidence of welding long strips of iron and steel to make multiple irons, but I've now had a proper look and found this. Before introducing his improvement - the use of eccentric rollers to make the taper - he describes current practice:
"In forming or producing the moulds for my plane irons, up to the point where my improvement commences, I take the following method. I weld the steel on to large bars of iron and roll them into plates, the steel being applied to the whole length of the plate. I then cut the plate crosswise into pieces of suitable width for plane irons."
He then goes on to describe his method of tapering by rolling rather than hammering.
There are no drawings and the patent is handwritten - the whole thing is here https://www.google.com/patents/USX5867
This must be the source of Whelan's statement in his other book.
And there is also this earlier patent, from Charles West, in 1827, claiming the idea of the combination of long strips of iron and steel, rolled out and chopped across to make individual irons https://www.google.com/patents/USX4632
So, I tentatively reckon we have at least three methods of production of composite or laminated plane irons. I expect the old methods continued even after newer ones had been devised.
1 The original fire welding and hand forging, as demonstrated by Peter Ross in the axemaking videos.
2 Welding of bigger pieces and cutting out individual irons as described here, in the early 19th century.
3 Casting on, in the 20th century.
In "The Wooden Plane" page 34, John Whelan described the tapered form of bench plane irons and wrote:
"The wedge shape may have originated as a natural result of welding the steel tip to the body and dressing the final product, but it does have the advantage of resisting the thrust of the work better. A patent by William Harvey (10 Mar 1830 restored US 5867X) describes running steel and iron blanks through eccentric rolls to produce this taper."
I didn't look at this patent at first, as I was looking for evidence of welding long strips of iron and steel to make multiple irons, but I've now had a proper look and found this. Before introducing his improvement - the use of eccentric rollers to make the taper - he describes current practice:
"In forming or producing the moulds for my plane irons, up to the point where my improvement commences, I take the following method. I weld the steel on to large bars of iron and roll them into plates, the steel being applied to the whole length of the plate. I then cut the plate crosswise into pieces of suitable width for plane irons."
He then goes on to describe his method of tapering by rolling rather than hammering.
There are no drawings and the patent is handwritten - the whole thing is here https://www.google.com/patents/USX5867
This must be the source of Whelan's statement in his other book.
And there is also this earlier patent, from Charles West, in 1827, claiming the idea of the combination of long strips of iron and steel, rolled out and chopped across to make individual irons https://www.google.com/patents/USX4632
So, I tentatively reckon we have at least three methods of production of composite or laminated plane irons. I expect the old methods continued even after newer ones had been devised.
1 The original fire welding and hand forging, as demonstrated by Peter Ross in the axemaking videos.
2 Welding of bigger pieces and cutting out individual irons as described here, in the early 19th century.
3 Casting on, in the 20th century.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Very interesting thread, with some thoughtful and insightful comments.
Just a short note about 'ingots'. We tend to think of ingots as huge lumps weighing tons - indeed, in modern bulk steel production, they are. However, in the crucible cast steel process, an ingot was limited in size to about as much as a strong man could lift from the furnace and pour into a mould, so allowing for the weight of the crucible itself, the cast ingot would be about a hundredweight or a bit less.
Considering this in regard to the 'casting-on' process Musicman outlined, the resulting billet would not be that large, so the rolling mill required to bring it to near finished blade thickness would also not be large (at least, not in modern rolling mill terms). By casting the softer backing onto a hard strip inset into the mould in it's middle, and rolling out the resulting billet into a strip about two blade-lengths wide (possible if care is taken to maintain sufficient heat to keep the hard steel plastic), then cropped to blade width required in a shear, and the two blades seperated by shearing, blanks ready for slot-punching (easier with the slot being in softer steel) and finish grinding, the whole process would not need a huge works or major capital investment.
I have no idea whether that was the case, but I do know that Sheffield had a huge range of works of sizes ranging from one-man shops to works employing several thousand people, and produced not just edge tools, but cutlery, silver plate, and steel products of all sorts from engineer's tools to specialist machine part forgings, springs, blades for almost anything from scalpels to shipyard shears. There was considerable business in making railway wheels and axles, rail rolling, heavy castings, armanents and armour plate - indeed, pretty well anything steel. Woodworking tools were actually a minor side-line! Consequently, a medium-sized firm of crucible steel makers with a rolling shop could have made laminated blade blanks almost as a sideline, without any publicity, and dropped the work under wartime pressure to support the war effort.
That's mostly speculative - except for Sheffield's variety of steel products!
Just a short note about 'ingots'. We tend to think of ingots as huge lumps weighing tons - indeed, in modern bulk steel production, they are. However, in the crucible cast steel process, an ingot was limited in size to about as much as a strong man could lift from the furnace and pour into a mould, so allowing for the weight of the crucible itself, the cast ingot would be about a hundredweight or a bit less.
Considering this in regard to the 'casting-on' process Musicman outlined, the resulting billet would not be that large, so the rolling mill required to bring it to near finished blade thickness would also not be large (at least, not in modern rolling mill terms). By casting the softer backing onto a hard strip inset into the mould in it's middle, and rolling out the resulting billet into a strip about two blade-lengths wide (possible if care is taken to maintain sufficient heat to keep the hard steel plastic), then cropped to blade width required in a shear, and the two blades seperated by shearing, blanks ready for slot-punching (easier with the slot being in softer steel) and finish grinding, the whole process would not need a huge works or major capital investment.
I have no idea whether that was the case, but I do know that Sheffield had a huge range of works of sizes ranging from one-man shops to works employing several thousand people, and produced not just edge tools, but cutlery, silver plate, and steel products of all sorts from engineer's tools to specialist machine part forgings, springs, blades for almost anything from scalpels to shipyard shears. There was considerable business in making railway wheels and axles, rail rolling, heavy castings, armanents and armour plate - indeed, pretty well anything steel. Woodworking tools were actually a minor side-line! Consequently, a medium-sized firm of crucible steel makers with a rolling shop could have made laminated blade blanks almost as a sideline, without any publicity, and dropped the work under wartime pressure to support the war effort.
That's mostly speculative - except for Sheffield's variety of steel products!
