Talk:Steel

Template:WP1.0

Indian Wind powered Furnace

Evidence has not been provided that wind powered furnaces exsisted in India, even article which is referenced only mentions Sri Lanka and not India. Therefore the article has been edited for the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ela112 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwrapped?

A curious little stub popped up at unwrapped steel consisting simply of "a metal created specialy for the birds nest stadium in 2005". Can anyone elucidate? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this may be from a bad press release or bad translation. I don't think this "type" of steel exists. IT's certainly not on the phase diagram, as is typical of steel naming, such as "bainite steel" or "austenitic" steel. I placed an AFD on the article User A1 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That would have been a horrifically bad translation of structural steel, I believe. I've heard that term before. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My attempt to get it deleted was denied for some unclear reason. People seem to think a redirect is appropriate, can't see why for the life of me! User A1 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

On zh-wiki, I'd agree. It makes sense in Chinese, but it really comes across very badly in English. The best I can do is 加强和建立约束纯化钢, but that comes out sort of weird too, so instead we get 释放强度钢 or even 开皮肤钢. The problem comes when various dialects mangle this to even further unreadable levels. The redirect sort of makes sense, I guess. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Sweet iron"

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) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us links to the two sources you cited above? Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Boy, can't find them now. Basically, they were just sites about horse gear, and the quotes are verbatim, they said nothing more. It's basically black, duller than stainless, maybe a touch heavier than an equivalent bit made of stainless steel, it has a reputation for rusting (though I don't have trouble with that, but I live in a dry climate). I guess we are just trying to figure out if it's steel with a high carbon content or some sort of iron that isn't steel, or...? If you Google "sweet iron," you get zillions of links to horse bits, but not one of them says what it is (at least not in the first 50 or 60 hits), beyond what I have noted above. Catalog descriptions sometimes say "cold rolled" steel, but that's about it. Hoping someone in metallurgy has heard the term before and can explain it from that end. Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep looking. Stainless steel is an alloy of iron with another metal. Mild steel will rust. My guess is that it was originally wrought iron, which would be the normal material for ironmongery before 1860 and to some extent even after. However, mild steel from the Bessemer and the other processes that followed (with about .5% or 1% carbon) would serve most processes for which wrought iron was previously used, and thus gradually replaced it. I therefore guess that your "sweet iron" is indeed unhardened mild steel. Sorry I am a historian, rather than a qualified metallurgist. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that "mild steel" or carbon steel is sweet iron, too, but I have no sourcing. I'd probably have to contact a bit manufacturer. Was hoping the term was common enough that a metallurgist could give us a fast answer. Darn! Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Searching for "sweet iron horse bit" on Google Books returns many quotes, mostly in "horse" books. On the first page of hits, one book calls it "cold-rolled steel", another says the metal is tempered by the heat of the horse's mouth (I kid you not). --Una Smith (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what we get. This is why we are asking here..."cold-rolled" steel is the only thing I see consistently too. -- but that's apparently a process or technique, not a alloy (?) so...can you metalworking folks help us? The big deal is that it can rust, horses seem to think it tastes better than stainless steel, apparently. (And also some people claim to have tested this themselves by tasting various bit metals, I also kid you not...LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I did some googling as well and haven't found anything you didn't post here. I can explain cold rolled steel. It's a common general specification for steel. You can order cold rolled (carbon) steel, hot rolled (carbon) steel, stainless steel, alloy steel, etc. Therefore, it tells us that it's not any of the other types listed, however it doesn't narrow down what type of carbon steel it is. I hope that explains a little for you. Wizard191 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't called Turkey 4000BP

Terms from the present should not be applied to the past. Called Anatolia (accurate, in my view) or the Trans-Taurus region or northern Levant - but not Turkey--Levalley (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Changed to Anatolia, as suggested. Note the source article says "in Turkey". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"containing too much carbon to be called steel"

"Unlike copper and tin, liquid iron dissolves carbon quite readily, so that smelting results in an alloy containing too much carbon to be called steel." What does this mean? That smelting cannot be used to create steel ? This should be rephrased. 69.171.131.243 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is correct. When iron ores are smelted they become pig iron, which is similar to some cast irons. The pig iron is then converted to steel through a steelmaking process. Traditional methods cannot smelt iron ore directly to steel. Wizard191 (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is correct. Iron with too much carbon is not steel (a hard tough material), but cast iron, a brittle crystalline material. I am not sure that the statement about "traditional methods" is quite right, since there is evidence thsat it was possible to manage a bloomery so as to produce steel, but it is not clear what that involved. The statement is however certainly true of the blast furnace era. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Strength vs. Temperature

"However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers."

Please add a graph of strength vs. temp for typical structural steel. -71.174.182.182 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is not "steel" until another metal is added to make an alloy. It is still considered iron until the metal is added. The carbon content not withstanding. I also want to point out that there is a difference between cast iron and cast steel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.238.250 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hi pls clarify

how the steel is processed after the blast furnace? and what is the process called either hot work or cold work?and at what stage it is seperated as cast steel and forged steel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.195.115 (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Recycling sources biased?

Most of the steel recycling facts come from the Steel Recycling Institute, not a neutral source. Even the EPA and the earth911 fact sheets source the SRI. A lack of independently verified facts concerns me that there's some green-washing going on. ---Ransom (--67.91.216.67 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

What makes you think that they are not collecting reliable facts? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

recycling fact

In the recycling section the article claims that 110% of steel in cars is recycled. The article does not explain what this means, so unless recyclers can get more steel out of the cars they recycle than was used to manufacture them, this number must be wrong. If it isn't wrong, it needs to be explained. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source is pretty vague, but I think it means the amount of steel recycled from cars (by weight) 10% more than the amount of steel produced for car production in the same year. Wizard191 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, though it seems a silly way to measure recycling. I would think it would be more meaningful to measure how much of the original steel used in the production is recovered. Comparing amount recovered today (from cars made years and decades ago) with amount used today on cars that are lighter and utilize less steel in general seems unnecessarily confusing, but it is what the source says. (I should have mentioned above that I did examine the source and could not find a clear explaination for the number, or I would have clarified it in the article myself) Any suggestions on how to clarify this in the body of the article? I am not sure the best way to do this. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this isn't the best way to measure steel recycling, but I think it would be pretty hard to come up with reliable numbers for measuring how much of the original steel was recycled. You would have to sort the incoming scrap cars by year and then weigh the piles separately before recycling. Moreover, there may not be good usage statistics for individual sectors from the past. As such, this is probably just the best they can do.

As for clarification, I can pretty much just add my first reply to the article (worded in a more encyclopedic fashion, of course), if that would help. Wizard191 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right about this being really the only way to compare it with any accuracy. Too bad there isn't a better/more clear measurement, but I suppose this is the best there is. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need accurate figures. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of this 110% should be removed; it's deliberately misleading and it is pointless information anyway, since the amount of steel used for brand new cars is completely unrelated to the amount used in old cars, at least in terms of recycling. (Huey45 (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

Density

Standard units should be used

I noticed that the density of steel was recorded in grams per cubic centimetre. Seeing as the standard measurements of mass and volume are kilograms and cubic metres, respectively, the density should be recorded in kilograms per cubic metre. Someone who's more savvy with the text controls than me will need to do this. I wonder how many other measurements in this article are recorded with obscure units of measurement.(Huey45 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

I have to disagree that kg/m3 does or should have any preference to g/cm3. The early attempts to force the use of meter only units have clearly failed, at least in scientific literature, and g/cm3 is by far the most popular (simply because density of water is 1 and there are no those triple zeroes). Materialscientist (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Values

Some detailed values of density for SS are given at [1]. They seem precise, except are given as specific gravity and with an incorrectly-placed decimal point. —DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Steel gas?

Just to put it out there, has anyone ever considered what temperature steel becomes a gas? Or does it combust first? Me is monkey123 (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Steel is an alloy (or rather many alloys). The answer you want will be found in the article on iron, the main element involved in the alloys. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Steel, Hiroshima and spaceships

A cite from the Norwegian article on steel: (translation below) "Det kreves mye luft til produksjon av stål, og etter atombombe-eksplosjonen over Hiroshima innebærer dette at alt stål har i seg noe av strålingen fra dengang. Ved produksjon av spesielt følsomme strålingsmonitorer, f.eks i romskip, er man helt avhengig av å ha tilgang til stål produsert før 1945."

This says something like: "You need much air/oxygen to produce steel, and after the atom-bomb over Hiroshima this means that all steel today contain some of the radiation from then. The production of sensitive radiation monitors, such as in spacecraft, are therefore in need of steel produced before 1945". Is this anywhere near true? If so, it should be included. If not, I would like to know so it can be removed from the Norwegian article. Matsemann (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

By the Norwegian article, do you mean the Norwegian Wikipedia article? I find it very hard to believe that a) the atom bombs detonated in 1945 contributed a significant amount of radioactive particles that are still floating around in the air today and b) that whatever radioactive particles present today from the bombs detonated in the past would contribute more than the natural "background" radioactive species that were present before the bomb and are still present today. If you want to add that, you would definately need to provide a reliable, meaning peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted, source for the information. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This think strikes me as a piece of WP:OR, from soem one who think there was no radioactivity before the Bomb. Certainly nuclear explosions have released radiation, but hardly in significant amounts. The conclusion drawn from it si also improbable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope this appears to be legit:

• http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F23%2F545%2F00012791.pdf%3Farnumber%3D12791&authDecision=-203
• http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2007/08002/A_Historically_Significant_Shield_for_In_Vivo.3.aspx
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..DNP.GB008B
• http://www.c-n-t-a.com/srs50_files/271boni.pdf
• http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn7.htm#G7 (probably not a RS)

Wizard191 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Too bad I dont' have access to the full articles, I would be interested in seeing just what the difference between steel from 1930 and today would be. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The radioactivity is not from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, it is from them and the more than 1000 above ground nuclear tests. I have never heard that it has contaminated steel; I heard it has contaminated everything. Including it in the steel article might be pointless. Abductive (reasoning) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But I have heard that lead (Pb) contamination is accumulating in steel to a degree that old liberty ships are more valuable for scrap than newer ships because they are cleaner. Since this is a concern for recyclers and their buyers, perhaps this should be in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I meant the Norwegian article about steel on Wikipedia, yes. I found the comment a bit odd, so I wanted to double check with the English version, but here it's not mentioned. The Norwegian article also mentions that to get steel produced before the bombs, they have used scuttled ships from Scapa Flow where they need this kind of steel. I would very much like a definite answer to the comment I posted above from the Norwegian article, so that I can fix it, add sources or so (and update this English article if it's true). Thanks. Matsemann (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that a prefernece for older steel is that it was made direct from pig iron, rather than containing some recycled scrap, which is liable to have picked up other elements, such as tin (from old tin cans). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I just came upon this discussion and must say none of those links above support the claim from the Norwegian Wikipedia that Matsemann has translated for us. There are passing mentions of pre-1945 battleship armor but this is not explained sufficiently at all. The statements should presumably be removed from the Norwegian wikipedia if nobody can find an inline citation to a reliable source that makes the claim. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The first link is not "in passing", however I don't have a subscription to the site the read more than the summary listed; however, I'm sure a full read would be very enlightening. Also, the fourth link is fully readable, a RS, and states essentially the same idea as the quotation above. This isn't a RS, but it is an interesting read. Wizard191 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mention of steel in the Bible

Steel is mentioned in the Bible: Jeremiah 15:12 of the Authorized King James Version, it reads: "Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?". However, it seems the Hebrews had no word for "steel" but used instead אסטמא (istoma), akin to the Greek word οτὀμωμα (otómoma) or hardening.[17]

A quick google shows that the New International version translates this as "northern iron and the bronze", so we need a knowledgeable editor to go to the source. If the mention of "steel" in the original is ambiguous and a better translation is "hardened metal", then the above two sentences should probably be removed from this article. If for accuracy's sake we have to replace the above text with The Bible doesn't mention steel; the closest to this is אסטמא which means "hardened metal", then I think this is of a little interest, but probably not enough to merit inclusion in the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with references

Reference 45 apparently does not explain what it's supposed to. I didn't check all references to see if there are other issues.