Re: [hobbicast] Re: Is there Source of Mizzou Castable Refractory near York, PA or Baltimore MD area
- A couple of comments on the use of castable refractory,First it is a
consumable and will need to be replaces at some time. Next the stuff is
expensive so you want to get away with using as little as possible to
accomplish what you need to do. I am a fan of ceramic wool like kawool
that has been ridigized to stabilize the fiber. After the first heat the
Kawool will take a set and not be so springy. When using castable or
rammable refractory I use a two layer aproach. The first layer I use 2400
degree mixed 50/50 by volume with perlite. Perlite is good to 1800
degrees and then it melts. When encapsulated in refractory the insulating
properties are not affected as the void is still there. Then I use either
2400 degree or 3200 degree refractory as a hot face. I have had real good
luck with my furnaces doing this. The perlite has the benefit of
increasing the insulating properties of the refractory and since you are
using a lot of the perlite it reduces the amount of refractory that you
For burners I use a 2 inch collar on the forge with two sets of 4 screws
so I can aim the burner. Mike Porter has a book out that has a very good
design for burners,
My 3/4 inch burner will get my forge to welding temp with no problem. My
problem is getting the forge too hot .
For supplies I use dexonline to search. Common search terms for refractory
are refractory, furnace repair , boiler repair, foundry supply, pottery
Dan In Auburn, WA,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM, unicornforge <d_einhorn@...> wrote:
> To answer the why Mizzou. My hobby for about 40 years has been researching
> metal working topics having to do with blacksmithing. So far my researches
> have resulted in my first book titled, "Civil War Blacksmithing". I am now
> researching and compiling information that I hope will eventually be
> another book that will serve as a resource for other information for
> blacksmiths in an easily readable manner.
> Mizzou and Satanite are two commonly used castables to either build and/or
> line forges used in forge-welding. That is melting the surfaces of bars of
> metal so that when squeezed together merge into a single bar, resulting in
> patterns in the bar that is referred to by purists as pattern-welding and
> by the public as Damascus.
> My ambition is to construct several forges comparing both, different
> construction techniques, and more than one burner to test for durability
> and time to reach temperature. These parameters would include at least one
> forge cast of 2 inch thick castable, versus at least one forge of ceramic
> wool coated with a layer of castable... both forges coated with a
> reflective surface of ITC-100 or similar coating.
> Another parameter that I would like to test would be to compare more than
> one type of burner. The forges will be constructed with the ability to
> insert different burners.
> I would greatly appreciate brand names and sources for your "lite"
> castables, and any other information you would kindly and generously be
> willing to share that you feel would benefit my researches.
> --- In email@example.com, Carl <carl_r2000@...> wrote:
> > Your first message never showed up on my email. Maybe others also didn't
> receive it. I am on the other side of the country but I am curious why you
> want Mizzou Castable as opposed to one of the "lite" castables with the
> same 3000 degree temperature rating. The Mizzou is very dense and you will
> have to buy almost twice as many bags of it as "lite" castable to fill the
> same size furnace. Also the Mizzou is a poor insulator so you need twice
> the thickness as compared to the "lite". These two things added together
> means you need to buy almost 4 bags of Mizzou to replace one bag of 3000
> degree "lite". Then there is the added time of the initial heat up. All the
> heavy Missou is a big heat sink. It will take much longer for the first
> melt because of that. The second melt should be about the same as with the
> "lite". There are applications where the Missou is needed. It is stronger
> than the "lite" and will take more abrasion and some harsher chemical
> > environments. If that is why you are using the Missou I would use one
> inch of Missou next to the flame with the "lite" insulating castable behind
> that. Check with the pottery suppliers in your area. They often carry a
> limited supply of castable for building kilns. Carl
> > ________________________________
> > From: unicornforge <d_einhorn@...>
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:24 PM
> > Subject: [hobbicast] Re: Is there Source of Mizzou Castable Refractory
> near York, PA or Baltimore MD area
> > �
> > Is there anyone else on this forum?
> > --- In email@example.com, "unicornforge" <d_einhorn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of a source of Mizzou Castable Refractory near the
> York, PA or Baltimore MD areas? The manufacturer's web site shows that they
> are in Philadelphia, PA. I am hoping to find a distributor within driving
> distance of York Pennsylvania so as to avoid massive shipping costs.
> > >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Recently someone on one of the casting groups commented that there was no such thing as a cement that can have all of the water baked out of it; I believe this was done in defense of the use of Portland cement in a homemade castable refractory. The official answer would be that the chemically locked portion of water in lime based cement cannot be baked out, but the chemically locked portion of water in refractory cements can be. I have always accepted this official version as the only reality...in the past. The limiting factors on "baking out all the water" are that the refractory must be taken to yellow heat in the first place, and that over time, water content can recollect in refractory if you're not careful to seal the refractory surfaces against water vapor in ambient air.
However, truth of any kind is seldom found effortlessly; including technical "truths". I suspect that a healthy debate, with both sides airing their views, might adjust what the majority of us accept as practical reality--to our mutual profit; this could be important for people wanting to make insulating refractories as secondary layers. Homemade refractory as an insulating secondary layer might be quite forgiving of official standards; standards useful for hot-face layers may constitute a waste of money in secondary refractory layers.
While casually dismissing the Portland cement idea, I have noted both resentment, and a strong hint of "I'll match your official facts with personal experience" in passing (heated) comments from the other side of this issue. Isn't it time they had a FAIR hearing; something open minded, maybe?