Attachments area
Category: Uncategorized
Categories
Damascus steel or W.T.F.I.T. ?
This is one of the earliest and most beautiful steels made by man. Here is it’s story below:
https://youtu.be/shWWo4d-uP0?
Damascus steel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For Damascus Twist barrels, see Skelp. For the album of the same name, see Damascus Steel (album).
Close-up of an 18th-century Persian-forged Damascus steel sword
Damascus steel was a type of steel used for manufacturing sword blades in the Near East made with wootz steel.[1] These swords are characterized by distinctive patterns of banding and mottling reminiscent of flowing water. Such blades were reputed to be tough, resistant to shattering, and capable of being honed to a sharp, resilient edge.[2]
The steel is named after Damascus, the capital city of Syria. It may either refer to swords made or sold in Damascus directly, or it may just refer to the aspect of the typical patterns, by comparison with Damask fabrics (which are themselves named after Damascus).[3][4]
The original method of producing Damascus steel is not known. Modern attempts to duplicate the metal have not been entirely successful due to differences in raw materials and manufacturing techniques. Several individuals in modern times have claimed that they have rediscovered the methods by which the original Damascus steel was produced.[5][6]
The reputation and history of Damascus steel has given rise to many legends, such as the ability to cut through a rifle barrel or to cut a hair falling across the blade.[7] A research team in Germany published a report in 2006 revealing nanowires and carbon nanotubes in a blade forged from Damascus steel.[8][9][10] Although many types of modern steel outperform ancient Damascus alloys, chemical reactions in the production process made the blades extraordinary for their time, as Damascus steel was superplastic and very hard at the same time. During the smelting process to obtain Wootz steel ingots, woody biomass and leaves are known to have been used as carburizing additives along with certain specific types of iron rich in microalloying elements. These ingots would then be further forged and worked into Damascus steel blades. Research now shows that carbon nanotubes can be derived from plant fibers,[11] suggesting how the nanotubes were formed in the steel. Some experts expect to discover such nanotubes in more relics as they are analyzed more closely.[9]
Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Loss of the technique
2 Reproduction
2.1 Moran: billet welding
2.2 Verhoeven and Pendray: crucible
2.3 Anosov, Wadsworth and Sherby: bulat
2.4 Additional research
2.5 In gunmaking
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
History[edit]
See also: Wootz steel
A bladesmith from Damascus, c. 1900
Damascus blades were first manufactured in the Near East from ingots of wootz steel that were imported from India,[1] as well as Sri Lanka.[12] The Arabs introduced the wootz steel to Damascus, where a weapons industry thrived.[13] From the 3rd century to the 17th century, steel ingots were being shipped to the Middle East from India.[14]
Loss of the technique[edit]
Production of these patterned swords gradually declined, ceasing by around 1750, and the process was lost to metalsmiths. Several modern theories have ventured to explain this decline, including the breakdown of trade routes to supply the needed metals, the lack of trace impurities in the metals, the possible loss of knowledge on the crafting techniques through secrecy and lack of transmission, suppression of the industry in India by the British Raj,[15] or a combination of all the above.[5][6][16]
The original wootz was imported from India to Damascus, where Middle Eastern bladesmiths forged them into swords.[5][6] Due to the distance of trade for this steel, a sufficiently lengthy disruption of the trade routes could have ended the production of Damascus steel and eventually led to the loss of the technique in India. As well, the need for key trace impurities of tungsten or vanadium within the materials needed for production of the steel may be absent if this material was acquired from different production regions or smelted from ores lacking these key trace elements.[5] The technique for controlled thermal cycling after the initial forging at a specific temperature could also have been lost, thereby preventing the final damask pattern in the steel from occurring.[5][6]
The discovery of carbon nanotubes in the Damascus steel’s composition supports this hypothesis, since the precipitation of carbon nanotubes probably resulted from a specific process that may be difficult to replicate should the production technique or raw materials used be significantly altered.[16]
Reproduction[edit]
A bladesmith forging a Damascus blade
Recreating Damascus steel is a subfield of experimental archaeology. Many have attempted to discover or reverse-engineer the process by which it was made.
Moran: billet welding[edit]
Characteristic “organic”[citation needed] pattern of Damascus steel
Since the well-known technique of pattern welding produced surface patterns similar to those found on Damascus blades, some blacksmiths were erroneously led to believe that Damascus blades were made using this technique, but today, the difference between wootz steel and pattern welding is fully documented and well understood.[17][18][19] Pattern-welded steel has been referred to as “Damascus steel” since 1973 when Bladesmith William F. Moran unveiled his “Damascus knives” at the Knifemakers’ Guild Show.[20][21]
This “Modern Damascus” is made from several types of steel and iron slices welded together to form a billet, and currently the term “damascus” (although technically incorrect) is widely accepted to describe modern pattern welded steel blades in the trade.[22] The patterns vary depending on how the smith works the billet.[21] The billet is drawn out and folded until the desired number of layers are formed.[21] To attain a Master Smith rating with the American Bladesmith Society that Moran founded, the smith must forge a damascus blade with a minimum of 300 layers.[23]
Verhoeven and Pendray: crucible[edit]
Question book-new.svg
This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
J. D. Verhoeven and A. H. Pendray published an article on their attempts to reproduce the elemental, structural, and visual characteristics of Damascus steel.[5] They started with a cake of steel that matched the properties of the original wootz steel from India, which also matched a number of original Damascus swords that Verhoeven and Pendray had access to. The wootz was in a soft, annealed state, with a grain structure and beads of pure iron carbide, which resulted from its hypereutectoid state. Verhoeven and Pendray had already determined that the grains on the surface of the steel were grains of iron carbide—their goal was to reproduce the iron carbide patterns they saw in the Damascus blades from the grains in the wootz.
Although such material could be worked at low temperatures to produce the striated Damascene pattern of intermixed ferrite and cementite bands in a manner identical to pattern-welded Damascus steel, any heat treatment sufficient to dissolve the carbides would permanently destroy the pattern. However, Verhoeven and Pendray discovered that in samples of true Damascus steel, the Damascene pattern could be recovered by aging at a moderate temperature. They found that certain carbide forming elements, one of which was vanadium, did not disperse until the steel reached higher temperatures than those needed to dissolve the carbides. Therefore, a high heat treatment could remove the visual evidence of patterning associated with carbides but did not remove the underlying patterning of the carbide forming elements; a subsequent lower-temperature heat treatment, at a temperature at which the carbides were again stable, could recover the structure by the binding of carbon by those elements.
Anosov, Wadsworth and Sherby: bulat[edit]
Question book-new.svg
This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In Russia, chronicles record the use of a material known as bulat steel to make highly valued weapons, including swords, knives and axes. Tsar Michael of Russia reportedly had a bulat helmet made for him in 1621. The exact origin or the manufacturing process of bulat is unknown, but it was likely imported to Russia via Persia and Turkestan, and it was similar and possibly the same as damascus steel. Pavel Petrovich Anosov made several attempts to reproduce the process in the mid-19th century. Wadsworth and Sherby also researched [6] the reproduction of Bulat steel and published their results in 1980.
Cementite crystal structure. Iron atoms are in blue, carbon atoms are in black.
Additional research[edit]
A team of researchers based at the Technical University of Dresden that used x-rays and electron microscopy to examine Damascus steel discovered the presence of cementite nanowires[24] and carbon nanotubes.[25] Peter Paufler, a member of the Dresden team, says that these nanostructures are a result of the forging process.[9][26]
Sanderson proposes that the process of forging and annealing accounts for the nano-scale structures.[26]
In gunmaking[edit]
Prior to the early 20th century, all shotgun barrels were forged by heating narrow strips of iron and steel and shaping them around a mandrel.[27][28] This process was referred to as “laminating” or “Damascus”.[27][28] These types of barrels earned a reputation for weakness and were never meant to be used with modern smokeless powder, or any kind of moderately powerful explosive.[28] Because of the resemblance to Damascus steel, higher-end barrels were made by Belgian and British gun makers.[27][28] These barrels are proof marked and meant to be used with light pressure loads.[27] Current gun manufacturers make slide assemblies and small parts such as triggers and safeties for Colt M1911 pistols from powdered Swedish steel resulting in a swirling two-toned effect; these parts are often referred to as “Stainless Damascus”.[29]
Categories
NSFW
| August 27, 2015
A stroll in the woods is nearly always an enjoyable endeavor; what’s not so enjoyable is discovering a red, itchy rash the next day. Each year, millions of Americans come in contact with poison ivy, poison oak, or poison sumac. While there are numerous other poisonous plants, these three are grouped together because they share a common irritant: an oily resin/sap called urushiol. This resin is potent — it only takes 1 nanogram to cause a reaction. And unfortunately, it coats all parts of these plants.
While some of the characteristics we describe below aren’t necessarily unique to these plants, we’ll get you enough information to avoid these poisonous foes and confidently walk your favorite trails (or create your own!).
Identifying Poison Ivy
The old saying is true: “Leaves of three, let them be!” While there are other plants which have leaf clusters in threes, both poison ivy and poison oak share this trait, making it best to avoid plants with this feature altogether. What you’ll most likely encounter with poison ivy is a stem with a larger leaf at the end, and two smaller leaves shooting off the sides. The leaves can be notched or smooth on the edges, and they have pointed tips. The plant is reddish in the spring, green in summer, and yellow/orange in the fall. It’s not uncommon to see clusters of greenish-white berries on poison ivy through the spring and summer, as well as green/yellow flowers.
Poison ivy can take the form of a vine or a shrub. The plant’s appearance varies widely based on the region and specific environment where it grows, which is everywhere in the US with the exceptions of Hawaii, Alaska, and parts of the southwest deserts.
Identifying Poison Oak
Like poison ivy, this plant most often grows leaves in clusters of three, although some varieties display five or seven per cluster. The defining feature is that the leaves have a lobed, wavy appearance (also described as scalloped), similar to oak tree leaves, but more subdued. Another characteristic that sets it apart from poison ivy is that the tips of the leaves are rounded rather than pointed. Its leaves are bright green in spring, turn yellow-green or pink in summer, and finally turn yellow into dark brown in the fall.
Poison oak is generally a shrub, averaging about 3 feet tall, but shoots of it can also grow as a vine. Not commonly found in the middle part of the U.S., poison oak is primarily situated on the West coast, and the East coast/Southeast.
Identifying Poison Sumac
Poison sumac stems (which are generally red — another of the defining features) have 7-13 leaves, in pairs, with a lone leaf at the end. Leaves are oval, elongated, and smooth-edged, usually 2-4 inches long. They are bright orange in spring, dark green in summer, and red-orange in fall.
Poison sumac thrives in watery, swampy environs, present mostly in the Midwest and Southeastern U.S., where high humidity is common. It grows as a tree or tall shrub, 5-20 feet tall.
Allergic Reactions to Poison Ivy, Oak, or Sumac
An allergic reaction to poison ivy, oak, or sumac can occur when your skin makes direct contact with the plant, when you touch something that has been in contact with the plant, and even when the plant is burned, as particles of urushiol can make their way into your eyes, nose, and throat. Urushiol is very sticky and tenacious, so it easily adheres to firewood, dog fur, and gardening tools, and then transfers itself to your skin once you lift, pet, and pick up these things. Because urushiol is present in the plants’ roots, stems, and leaves, it remains potentially poisonous even in the wintertime.
Anyone can get an allergic reaction if exposed to urushiol in a large enough dose. But some folks are more sensitive than others. About 85% of the population is fairly to extremely susceptible to getting an allergic reaction, while 15% of lucky folks are resistant to reaction. One’s sensitivity/resistance is thought to be largely genetic in origin, so if your parents have had severe reactions to poisonous plants, take extra care to avoid contact yourself.
Sometimes you only get a rash after being exposed to the plant numerous times. So don’t automatically assume that you’re resistant because you touched poison ivy/oak/sumac once, and didn’t get a rash.
On the other hand, sensitivity to these poisonous plants can lessen over time. So if you had a bad reaction as a child, you may have developed more resistance over the years.
How to Treat a Rash From Poison Ivy, Oak, or Sumac
If you know you’ve touched one of these poisonous plants, you have about 10 minutes before the sap penetrates the lower layers of your skin and binds to its cells, at which point an allergic reaction will set in. So you can head off this reaction by immediately rinsing the exposed area with running water. Use a mild detergent soap if you have it; fatty soaps can spread the urushiol oil, creating a worse reaction. Rinsing with rubbing alcohol is also effective. If wipes are all you have to clean the area, that’s better than nothing.
If you don’t wash off the resin in time, and you’re sensitive to ivy/oak/sumac, then a rash will develop. Rashes from all three of these plants appear in the same form and are treated in the same way since the irritating agent in all of them is urushiol. If you’ve been outdoors and have the following symptoms appear, you may have a rash from one of these plants:
- patches of swollen redness
- outbreak of blisters
- intense itching
These are the primary symptoms, and they generally appear within 12-72 hours of contact. Luckily, if the rash isn’t severe, it can be treated at home without having to see a dermatologist.
The American Academy of Dermatology recommends the following treatment plan:
- Immediately rinse your skin with lukewarm, soapy water. Urushiol is an oil, so if not washed off, it can continue to spread. (Note: there are special washes out there that claim to remove urushiol more effectively and to lesson the severity of a rash once a reaction has set in; Zanfel is a popular one, but Mean Green Scrub uses the same ingredients/composition but costs way less per ounce.)
- Wash your clothing and anything else the oil may have touched, including tools, pets, car seats, etc.
- Do not scratch; doing so can open the skin and possibly cause an infection.
- Leave blisters alone; do not peel overlying skin, as it protects the wound underneath from infection.
- Apply calamine lotion or hydrocortisone cream/lotion.
- Apply a cool washcloth to skin to ease burning and itching.
The rash should heal in about 1-2 weeks. Though it may look gross, it’s not contagious. If the rash is particularly large or painful, or doesn’t heal in that timeframe, it’s best to see a dermatologist who may prescribe a round of oral steroids or other treatments.
Above all, wearing long clothing when you go out is recommended — especially pants to guard against brushing these plants while wandering around. Be sure to wash these clothes right when you get home.
You’re now equipped to head out to the woods and avoid these itchy fiends!
Categories
No Shit
Categories
May the Force be with you! NSFW
Categories
First aide videos
Hopefully you will not need this, so Good Luck! Grumpy
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video My First Aid Kit and Wilderness Safety Ideas
Preview YouTube video What’s inside my Car First Aid Kit
Preview YouTube video Organizing the Kitchen – Making a First Aid Kit
Preview YouTube video Basic First Aid Kit – Pelican 1460 EMS Case
Preview YouTube video What you should have in a First Aid Kit for the home
Say this poor thing has had a rough life?
| The Baby Hammerless Revolver by Ed Buffaloe |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The early history of the Baby Hammerless revolver is a bit murky, but the variants of the gun are well documented. My original intent was simply to document the Kolb specimen I collected, but there is so little information about the Baby Hammerless on the internet that I thought I should at least record the various manufacturers and types, and provide what history I can find. Foehl & Weeks Charles G.W. Foehl engaged in the business of making firearms in Philadelphia for a number of years. He was born in the state of Würtemberg, Germany in September of 1840, and immigrated to the United States in 1859. Foehl was apprenticed to Philadelphia gunsmith John Wurfflein, and is said to have worked for Henry Deringer, Jr. before the U.S. Civil War. After the war Foehl worked for the Deringer Rifle and Pistol Works, which was owned by a great-grandson of Henry Deringer, Jr. The firm made cartridge firearms, and its First Model Deringer Revolver utilized some features from Foehl’s first firearms patent, U.S. patent #139,461. The firm also manufactured single shot rifles based on Foehl’s next two patents, which were variants of the Martini action rifle. Foehl died on 4 October 1913, at the age of 73. In 1889 Foehl formed a company with a Philadelphia machinist, Charles A Weeks, to make guns based on Foehl’s patents. They called their company the Foehl & Weeks Firearms Manufacturing Company. In the next few years, they took out several patents together for various features of the revolvers they produced, including U.S. patents #447,219, #468,243, and #471,112. Their revolvers were mostly top-break, in .32 and .38 caliber, some with a grip safety on the front of the grip, some with a safety behind the trigger guard. They were usually marked “THE FOEHL & WEEKS F. A. MFG. CO.” Some were marked “PERFECT” on the topstrap. Foehl & Weeks may have never actually manufactured the Baby Hammerless under their own name, since the company went bankrupt in the financial panic of 1893, and while they continued to be listed in city directories until 1896, there are no Baby Hammerless other than prototypes that can be definitively traced to this period. The two patent dates on the Baby Hammerless are February 2, 1892 and February 4, 1896. The 1892 patent applied to the Baby Hammerless Revolver was Foehl & Weeks’ patent #468,243, and the 1896 patent was Foehl’s patent #554,058. Frank Sellers, in his book Baby Hammerless Pistols, estimates that the entire production of all types of Foehl & Weeks revolvers was no more than a few thousand. The Columbian Firearms Manufacturing Company Columbian was probably formed in 1893, soon after the financial difficulties of Foehl & Weeks became apparent, and almost certainly named in honor of the World’s Columbian Exhibition, held in Chicago in 1893. The president of Columbian Firearms was Henry Ruhland, a Philadelphia financier who just happened to be the bankruptcy referee for Foehl & Weeks (the equivalent of a modern bankruptcy judge). Foehl managed the company, which occupied the same factory that had been previously used by Foehl & Weeks. Essentially, Ruhland and Foehl created a new legal entity which could continue producing firearms using Foehl’s patents, without being liable for Foehl & Weeks’ debts. Later, a half interest in two of Foehl’s patents (#530,759 of 1894 and #554,058 of 1896, the latter of which was on the Baby Hammerless) was assigned to Henry Ruhland. The firm manufactured top-break revolvers nearly identical to those manufactured by Foehl & Weeks. Some were marked “COLUMBIAN F. A. MFG. CO. PHILA. PA. U.S.A./ PAT. DEC. 11.1894 PAT.PDG.” Others were marked “COLUMBIAN AUTOMATIC PAT.PDG./ NEW YORK ARMS CO.” The Baby Hammerless was probably first manufactured by Columbian, though some knowledgeable collectors maintain that all Baby Hammerless models were manufactured after Henry Kolb took over. However, there remains the fact that the early Baby Hammerless had hard rubber grips with vines or scrollwork in the upper circle, whereas Kolb’s revolvers all had a K in the circle. I can’t help but think that if Kolb had made them all, they would all display Kolb’s K. Columbian apparently went out of business in 1897 or 1898, and their guns are rather scarce. Henry M. Kolb Henry M. Kolb was born 16 January 1861 in the Würtemburg state of southern Germany, and was first listed in the Philadelphia city directory in 1895 as a machinist. He claimed in his ads that he founded his firearms company in 1897, which was also the last year the Columbian Firearms Company was listed in the city directory. It is known that Kolb opened a model shop in 1899 and a machinery business in 1900. There is no evidence he ever occupied the address of the old Foehl & Weeks/Columbian com- panies, nor is there any record that he purchased their machinery, though it is possible that he may have done so. Here lies the root of the question as to who made the Baby Hammerless. Other than the hard rubber grips, there are no differences between the Columbian and Kolb Baby Hammerless revolvers–they were probably made with the same equipment. Charles Foehl was also associated with Henry Kolb–they took out several patents together after Kolb entered the firearms business, though none of them were related to the Baby Hammerless. Kolb himself took out two patents in 1910 that relate directly to the Baby Hammerless revolver. The first was #954,190, for a “firing-pin for hammers for firearms,” and the second was #954,191, for a means of mounting and locking the cylinder. Kolb’s business, which apparetly was simply called Henry M. Kolb, became Henry M. Kolb & Company in 1910, and this change may mark the occasion of Reginald F. Sedgley becoming manager of the firm, though this is an inference with no hard data to back it up. R. F. Sedgley, Incorporated Reginald Sedgley was born in England on 3 September 1876 and arrived in the U.S. on 9 May 1894. He is believed to have worked in Philadelphia as a machinist as early as 1896. There is no documentation to show exactly when he worked for Kolb, but it is probable that he began working for him before 1910, several years before Charles Foehl’s death. Sedgley bought out Kolb’s business in 1916, and Kolb returned to the machine shop business by 1917. Sedgley marked his catalogues “R.F. Sedgley, Inc., Established 1897.” Having bought the company, he adopted Kolb’s founding date. While it is possible that Sedgley worked for Kolb as early as 1897, Sellers does not consider it likely. Sedgley was granted two patents for improvements to the Baby Hammerless. The first, #1,216,001, was granted on 13 February 1917 for a new combination mainspring. The second, #1,236,608, was granted 14 August 1917 for a cylinder ejection system. He was also well known for custom gunsmith work, converting 1903 Springfields into sporting guns and sniper rifles, and for his flare gun. Sedgley died on 30 March 1938. Variants of the Baby Hammerless Revolver I despair of making a complete list of Baby Hammerless variations, because the sheer number of them is overwhelming and sometimes confusing. For the most complete coverage available please see Frank Sellers’ book, Baby Hammerless Revolvers. I will cover the high points here. Serial numbers for the Baby Hammerless revolvers are usually found stamped into the frame under the right grip plate.
The gun shown here had both grips broken. I was able to repair them with black epoxy putty, which you can easily see on the rear portion of the left side grip. The gun must have been reasonably well made, as it still functions despite its age. This one is marked with serial number 475. However, Sellers states that duplicate serial numbers are often encountered. It seems that numbers regularly ran from 1 to 999, and then started again at 1.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| References Baby Hammerless Revolvers, by Frank M. Sellers. Privately Printed: 2004. Pistols of the World, by Ian V. Hogg & John Walter. Krause Publications, Iola, WI: 2004. “R.F. Sedgley, Inc.,” by Pete Dickey. American Rifleman, June 1984. Special thanks to Homer R. Ficken for researching information about Charles Foehl. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copyright 2008-2011 by Ed Buffaloe. All rights reserved. Click on the pictures to open a larger version in a new window. |
||||||||||||
