Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Smelting

Expand Messages
  • kbs2244
    Thanks for the complement. Pre Columbus North America iron smelting is even more controversial than the trans Atlantic copper trade. Bronze replaced copper as
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the complement.

      Pre Columbus North America iron smelting is even more controversial than the trans Atlantic copper trade.

      Bronze replaced copper as a tool material because it would hold a better edge than the softer copper.
      So, even though it was harder to make, requiring secret copper/tin recipes, it won out as the material of choice.

      Everyone assumes iron replaced bronze for the same reason.
      But there are other reasons.
      First, iron ore is much more available through out the planet than copper and tin.
      There is no need for world wide trading networks.
      You can even find it in swamps. (Bog Iron.)
      Second, the smelting process is much simpler.

      But each step came with a need for an increase in another technology.
      There was a required higher temperature for each improvement.

      Copper needs temperature of apx 250 to 350 C
      Iron needs about 1250 C

      So far, how the knowledge to get to these higher temperatures came about worldwide is a mystery.
      But knowledge is a more valuable trade item than anything else.
      It is pretty light and all it takes is one guy who likes to travel.

      A good over view of smelting is at:
      http://www.reference.com/browse/smelting
    • Mark Bennett
      Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that bronze handles heat better and that the English bronze cannons held up better than the
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
        bronze handles heat better and that the English bronze cannons held up
        better than the Spanish cast iron ones, contributing to the Armanda
        victory. Mark


        > Thanks for the complement.
        >
        > Pre Columbus North America iron smelting is even more controversial than
        > the trans Atlantic copper trade.
        >
        > Bronze replaced copper as a tool material because it would hold a better
        > edge than the softer copper.
        > So, even though it was harder to make, requiring secret copper/tin
        > recipes, it won out as the material of choice.
        >
        > Everyone assumes iron replaced bronze for the same reason.
        > But there are other reasons.
        > First, iron ore is much more available through out the planet than copper
        > and tin.
        > There is no need for world wide trading networks.
        > You can even find it in swamps. (Bog Iron.)
        > Second, the smelting process is much simpler.
        >
        > But each step came with a need for an increase in another technology.
        > There was a required higher temperature for each improvement.
        >
        > Copper needs temperature of apx 250 to 350 C
        > Iron needs about 1250 C
        >
        > So far, how the knowledge to get to these higher temperatures came about
        > worldwide is a mystery.
        > But knowledge is a more valuable trade item than anything else.
        > It is pretty light and all it takes is one guy who likes to travel.
        >
        > A good over view of smelting is at:
        > http://www.reference.com/browse/smelting
        >
        >
        >
      • Rick O
        As some of you know, I ve devoted a lot of time to studying the worldwide development of copper and bronze industries. My findings differ significantly from
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          As some of you know, I've devoted a lot of time to studying the worldwide development of copper and bronze industries. My findings differ significantly from what you would find in most history classes or textbooks -- or even from some of the "wilder" hypotheses of academia. Most middle -eastern scholars attribute the entire early bronze age to copper from Egypt. Yet we know that Egypt imported copper. Other scholars attribute the wealth and influence (and Linear A script) of 1600 bce Crete to trading that copper from Egypt to elsewhere. The list that these scholars compiled is extensive and complex. It is also much in violation of the principles embodied in Occam's Razor. It is almost certainly wrong to the Nth degree.

          What no one addresses is where any of these cultures obtained the fuels for powering the smelting process. Certain Biblical scholars tout the idea that during forty years in the wilderness, the Israelites forged copper weapons from ore / very small nuggets found on top of the ground in furnaces formed from native clays. If so, what did they burn in those furnaces, camel dung? Nope, not not nearly hot enough! Yet, that is about the only fuel available in that desert.

          Now, those clay furnaces are real and there is real copper slag associated with them. Yet that very fact implies two things in complete violation of either the Biblical account or the scholars' association of the furnaces to the wandering  Israelites :  (1) the furnaces are not portable, therefore they (the  users of the furnaces) were not "wandering", and (2) they (whoever used the furnaces) had to have been trading for delivered high energy fuels. If they were buying imported fuels, why wouldn't they also buy imported copper that was already smelted or even already formed into weapons?

          So, you see, even the "mundane" scholarly explanation of the furnaces requires trade diffusion. Trade diffusion of any kind over long distances is unacceptable to most academic anthropologists, so,  "Buzz! Wrong answer. Thank you for playing!"

          Then we take a look at the Beaker / Bell Beaker culture. Copper trade was closely associated with nearly all their sites. And those sites spanned the Med, the British Isles, pretty much throughout Europe and even lower Scandinavia. At least one (a socketed arrowhead), probably two (an axe head), of the artifacts associated with the broad term "Bell Beaker" culture in Ireland are identified as made from copper from Upper Michigan.

          I could go on for many, many pages about this -  oh, wait, I did !



          --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Bennett" <mlbennett@...> wrote:
          >
          > Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
          > bronze handles heat better and that the English bronze cannons held up
          > better than the Spanish cast iron ones, contributing to the Armanda
          > victory. Mark
          >
          >
          > > Thanks for the complement.
          > >
          > > Pre Columbus North America iron smelting is even more controversial than
          > > the trans Atlantic copper trade.
          > >
          > > Bronze replaced copper as a tool material because it would hold a better
          > > edge than the softer copper.
          > > So, even though it was harder to make, requiring secret copper/tin
          > > recipes, it won out as the material of choice.
          > >
          > > Everyone assumes iron replaced bronze for the same reason.
          > > But there are other reasons.
          > > First, iron ore is much more available through out the planet than copper
          > > and tin.
          > > There is no need for world wide trading networks.
          > > You can even find it in swamps. (Bog Iron.)
          > > Second, the smelting process is much simpler.
          > >
          > > But each step came with a need for an increase in another technology.
          > > There was a required higher temperature for each improvement.
          > >
          > > Copper needs temperature of apx 250 to 350 C
          > > Iron needs about 1250 C
          > >
          > > So far, how the knowledge to get to these higher temperatures came about
          > > worldwide is a mystery.
          > > But knowledge is a more valuable trade item than anything else.
          > > It is pretty light and all it takes is one guy who likes to travel.
          > >
          > > A good over view of smelting is at:
          > > http://www.reference.com/browse/smelting
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • kbs2244
          I believe the correct, common, term is that bronze is not as brittle as cast iron. Therefore, if pushed hard, as in an overloaded cannon, it will stretch
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 8, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I believe the correct, common, term is that bronze is not as "brittle" as cast iron.
            Therefore, if pushed hard, as in an overloaded cannon, it will "stretch" ware as a cast iron cannon will just burst if overloaded.

            If you were a cannon master in those days you could not afford to let the "heat of the battle" effect your judgment as to powder loads.

            But.......
            Please bear with me on all this.
            I have never been in charge of big bore guns or smelted any kind of metal.
            This is all "arm chair" knowlege.
          • Ted Sojka
            In Leonardo s time, the riskiest job was at or around a canon. Loading powder into a hot cannon was dangerous enough, but if it exploded and shattered, it
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 8, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              In Leonardo's time, the riskiest job was at or around a canon.  Loading powder into a hot cannon was dangerous enough, but if it exploded and shattered, it became shrapnel.   

              He also invented a steam powered canon that shot a hollow cannonball loaded with powder and shot, that had a lit fuse, timed to explode among teh enemy.  He very much regretted using his mind to advance the art of killing for the Duke, but it is why he invented the tank, the submarine, diving bell, as well as many musical instruments, anatomy texts, moveable bridges.   He only finished about ten paintings.  

              ted
              On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:56 PM, kbs2244 wrote:

               

              I believe the correct, common, term is that bronze is not as "brittle" as cast iron.
              Therefore, if pushed hard, as in an overloaded cannon, it will "stretch" ware as a cast iron cannon will just burst if overloaded.

              If you were a cannon master in those days you could not afford to let the "heat of the battle" effect your judgment as to powder loads.

              But.......
              Please bear with me on all this.
              I have never been in charge of big bore guns or smelted any kind of metal.
              This is all "arm chair" knowledge.

              .   
            • james m clark jr
              Good to hear from you Oz, This is one of those AWS question and answers that would seem best to wander at. Pardon the pun as it is definitively not my
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 14, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Good to hear from you Oz,

                This is one of those AWS question and answers that would seem best to wander at. Pardon the pun as it is definitively not my intention either way to dispute. I assume Deut. 4:20 comes to mind. However, personally so does the distinction of desert and wilderness as David Stern puts it "bees don't inhabit the desert, bees are in the wilderness." Yet when it comes to migratory questions it seems their is a generic voice generally speaking of a voice that is assumed that the wilderness wanderings trace the steps almost wherever Abraham has said to have trod... until the time of Solomon who was acknowledged far beyond the desert as were many others such as Calcol whom some scholars label as a foreigner regardless if among others in Chronicles in which he is. From what I gather, Ps. 104 is not a refferece to a global Genisis flood but rather centralized or more local perhaps to the Black Sea & the Caucus mountains as Israel had yet to be discovered. Another flood, perhaps a reference to the book of Jasher was perhaps even futher away in the fertile crescent neither one of which these regions it wouldn't seem could have been mistaken as a vast wilderness. Surely in whatever wilderness they were in would have been noted. BI suggests that this wilderness was in Europe. I'm not sure exactly where Brit Am places this wilderness it would seem simular. Perhaps it is the same as Rome sent their exiles which was also in Gaul.

                be well,
                jamey

                --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick O" <ozman@...> wrote:
                >
                > As some of you know, I've devoted a lot of time to studying the
                > worldwide development of copper and bronze industries. My findings
                > differ significantly from what you would find in most history classes or
                > textbooks -- or even from some of the "wilder" hypotheses of academia.
                > Most middle -eastern scholars attribute the entire early bronze age to
                > copper from Egypt. Yet we know that Egypt imported copper. Other
                > scholars attribute the wealth and influence (and Linear A script) of
                > 1600 bce Crete to trading that copper from Egypt to elsewhere. The list
                > that these scholars compiled is extensive and complex. It is also much
                > in violation of the principles embodied in Occam's Razor. It is almost
                > certainly wrong to the Nth degree.
                > What no one addresses is where any of these cultures obtained the fuels
                > for powering the smelting process. Certain Biblical scholars tout the
                > idea that during forty years in the wilderness, the Israelites forged
                > copper weapons from ore / very small nuggets found on top of the ground
                > in furnaces formed from native clays. If so, what did they burn in those
                > furnaces, camel dung? Nope, not not nearly hot enough! Yet, that is
                > about the only fuel available in that desert.
                > Now, those clay furnaces are real and there is real copper slag
                > associated with them. Yet that very fact implies two things in complete
                > violation of either the Biblical account or the scholars' association of
                > the furnaces to the wandering Israelites
                > <http://isearch.avg.com/search?cid={be8ae63f-436c-41af-a77d-7523e3db295e\
                > }&mid=00171102515747d1a161d151b5e5bff3-bc460407e5825bc24d3d6a37ebd0b4cac\
                > 983a32f&lang=en&ds=ins11&pr=sa&d=2012-02-24%2020:06:28&v=10.0.0.7&sap=ds\
                > p&snd=did&q=Israelites> : (1) the furnaces are not portable, therefore
                > they (the users of the furnaces) were not "wandering", and (2) they
                > (whoever used the furnaces) had to have been trading for delivered high
                > energy fuels. If they were buying imported fuels, why wouldn't they also
                > buy imported copper that was already smelted or even already formed into
                > weapons?
                > So, you see, even the "mundane" scholarly explanation of the furnaces
                > requires trade diffusion. Trade diffusion of any kind over long
                > distances is unacceptable to most academic anthropologists, so, "Buzz!
                > Wrong answer. Thank you for playing!"
                > Then we take a look at the Beaker / Bell Beaker culture. Copper trade
                > was closely associated with nearly all their sites. And those sites
                > spanned the Med, the British Isles, pretty much throughout Europe and
                > even lower Scandinavia. At least one (a socketed arrowhead), probably
                > two (an axe head), of the artifacts associated with the broad term "Bell
                > Beaker" culture in Ireland are identified as made from copper from Upper
                > Michigan.
                > I could go on for many, many pages about this - oh, wait, I did
                > <http://www.gravedistractions.com/graves-of-the-golden-bears.php> !
                >
                >
                > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Bennett"
                > <mlbennett@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
                > > bronze handles heat better and that the English bronze cannons held up
                > > better than the Spanish cast iron ones, contributing to the Armanda
                > > victory. Mark
                > >
                > >
                > > > Thanks for the complement.
                > > >
                > > > Pre Columbus North America iron smelting is even more controversial
                > than
                > > > the trans Atlantic copper trade.
                > > >
                > > > Bronze replaced copper as a tool material because it would hold a
                > better
                > > > edge than the softer copper.
                > > > So, even though it was harder to make, requiring secret copper/tin
                > > > recipes, it won out as the material of choice.
                > > >
                > > > Everyone assumes iron replaced bronze for the same reason.
                > > > But there are other reasons.
                > > > First, iron ore is much more available through out the planet than
                > copper
                > > > and tin.
                > > > There is no need for world wide trading networks.
                > > > You can even find it in swamps. (Bog Iron.)
                > > > Second, the smelting process is much simpler.
                > > >
                > > > But each step came with a need for an increase in another
                > technology.
                > > > There was a required higher temperature for each improvement.
                > > >
                > > > Copper needs temperature of apx 250 to 350 C
                > > > Iron needs about 1250 C
                > > >
                > > > So far, how the knowledge to get to these higher temperatures came
                > about
                > > > worldwide is a mystery.
                > > > But knowledge is a more valuable trade item than anything else.
                > > > It is pretty light and all it takes is one guy who likes to travel.
                > > >
                > > > A good over view of smelting is at:
                > > > http://www.reference.com/browse/smelting
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • TRAYLOROO
                VERY  INTERESTING:  I can observe that if an error, or attitude, is published and is quoted a few times .... that error is near impossible to correct. 
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 15, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  VERY  INTERESTING:  I can observe that if an error, or attitude, is published and is quoted a few times .... that error is near impossible to correct.  There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support fleets of ships doing pre-Columbian commerce.   Fast forward, all.  
                   
                  To Rick .... I tried to open your YouTube type of video ... and ... nada .... it did not open for me:    "Rick discusses The Graves of the Golden Bear on Red Ice Creations Radio"      Cal           
                    
                   
                  ==================
                   
                  From: james m clark jr <jameyboy@...>
                  To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:36 PM
                  Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Smelting

                   
                  Good to hear from you Oz,

                  This is one of those AWS question and answers that would seem best to wander at. Pardon the pun as it is definitively not my intention either way to dispute. I assume Deut. 4:20 comes to mind. However, personally so does the distinction of desert and wilderness as David Stern puts it "bees don't inhabit the desert, bees are in the wilderness." Yet when it comes to migratory questions it seems their is a generic voice generally speaking of a voice that is assumed that the wilderness wanderings trace the steps almost wherever Abraham has said to have trod... until the time of Solomon who was acknowledged far beyond the desert as were many others such as Calcol whom some scholars label as a foreigner regardless if among others in Chronicles in which he is. From what I gather, Ps. 104 is not a refferece to a global Genisis flood but rather centralized or more local perhaps to the Black Sea & the Caucus mountains as Israel had yet to be discovered. Another flood, perhaps a reference to the book of Jasher was perhaps even futher away in the fertile crescent neither one of which these regions it wouldn't seem could have been mistaken as a vast wilderness. Surely in whatever wilderness they were in would have been noted. BI suggests that this wilderness was in Europe. I'm not sure exactly where Brit Am places this wilderness it would seem simular. Perhaps it is the same as Rome sent their exiles which was also in Gaul.

                  be well,
                  jamey

                  --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick O" <ozman@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > As some of you know, I've devoted a lot of time to studying the
                  > worldwide development of copper and bronze industries. My findings
                  > differ significantly from what you would find in most history classes or
                  > textbooks -- or even from some of the "wilder" hypotheses of academia.
                  > Most middle -eastern scholars attribute the entire early bronze age to
                  > copper from Egypt. Yet we know that Egypt imported copper. Other
                  > scholars attribute the wealth and influence (and Linear A script) of
                  > 1600 bce Crete to trading that copper from Egypt to elsewhere. The list
                  > that these scholars compiled is extensive and complex. It is also much
                  > in violation of the principles embodied in Occam's Razor. It is almost
                  > certainly wrong to the Nth degree.
                  > What no one addresses is where any of these cultures obtained the fuels
                  > for powering the smelting process. Certain Biblical scholars tout the
                  > idea that during forty years in the wilderness, the Israelites forged
                  > copper weapons from ore / very small nuggets found on top of the ground
                  > in furnaces formed from native clays. If so, what did they burn in those
                  > furnaces, camel dung? Nope, not not nearly hot enough! Yet, that is
                  > about the only fuel available in that desert.
                  > Now, those clay furnaces are real and there is real copper slag
                  > associated with them. Yet that very fact implies two things in complete
                  > violation of either the Biblical account or the scholars' association of
                  > the furnaces to the wandering Israelites
                  > <http://isearch.avg.com/search?cid={be8ae63f-436c-41af-a77d-7523e3db295e\
                  > }&mid=00171102515747d1a161d151b5e5bff3-bc460407e5825bc24d3d6a37ebd0b4cac\
                  > 983a32f&lang=en&ds=ins11&pr=sa&d=2012-02-24%2020:06:28&v=10.0.0.7&sap=ds\
                  > p&snd=did&q=Israelites> : (1) the furnaces are not portable, therefore
                  > they (the users of the furnaces) were not "wandering", and (2) they
                  > (whoever used the furnaces) had to have been trading for delivered high
                  > energy fuels. If they were buying imported fuels, why wouldn't they also
                  > buy imported copper that was already smelted or even already formed into
                  > weapons?
                  > So, you see, even the "mundane" scholarly explanation of the furnaces
                  > requires trade diffusion. Trade diffusion of any kind over long
                  > distances is unacceptable to most academic anthropologists, so, "Buzz!
                  > Wrong answer. Thank you for playing!"
                  > Then we take a look at the Beaker / Bell Beaker culture. Copper trade
                  > was closely associated with nearly all their sites. And those sites
                  > spanned the Med, the British Isles, pretty much throughout Europe and
                  > even lower Scandinavia. At least one (a socketed arrowhead), probably
                  > two (an axe head), of the artifacts associated with the broad term "Bell
                  > Beaker" culture in Ireland are identified as made from copper from Upper
                  > Michigan.
                  > I could go on for many, many pages about this - oh, wait, I did
                  > <http://www.gravedistractions.com/graves-of-the-golden-bears.php> !
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Bennett"
                  > <mlbennett@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that
                  > > bronze handles heat better and that the English bronze cannons held up
                  > > better than the Spanish cast iron ones, contributing to the Armanda
                  > > victory. Mark
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > Thanks for the complement.
                  > > >
                  > > > Pre Columbus North America iron smelting is even more controversial
                  > than
                  > > > the trans Atlantic copper trade.
                  > > >
                  > > > Bronze replaced copper as a tool material because it would hold a
                  > better
                  > > > edge than the softer copper.
                  > > > So, even though it was harder to make, requiring secret copper/tin
                  > > > recipes, it won out as the material of choice.
                  > > >
                  > > > Everyone assumes iron replaced bronze for the same reason.
                  > > > But there are other reasons.
                  > > > First, iron ore is much more available through out the planet than
                  > copper
                  > > > and tin.
                  > > > There is no need for world wide trading networks.
                  > > > You can even find it in swamps. (Bog Iron.)
                  > > > Second, the smelting process is much simpler.
                  > > >
                  > > > But each step came with a need for an increase in another
                  > technology.
                  > > > There was a required higher temperature for each improvement.
                  > > >
                  > > > Copper needs temperature of apx 250 to 350 C
                  > > > Iron needs about 1250 C
                  > > >
                  > > > So far, how the knowledge to get to these higher temperatures came
                  > about
                  > > > worldwide is a mystery.
                  > > > But knowledge is a more valuable trade item than anything else.
                  > > > It is pretty light and all it takes is one guy who likes to travel.
                  > > >
                  > > > A good over view of smelting is at:
                  > > > http://www.reference.com/browse/smelting
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >



                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.