Iron Smelt in Russia?

 (This is a much older piece that got caught as a draft somehow and I think never posted...)

This video clip was suggested by one of the Early Iron gang:



The clip shows a team from Russia (given the Cyrillic text) working at a large living history (Viking Age?) event.

I quite like the simplicity of the basic construction method. Use of bundled straw for interior form is elegant.

I do wonder at the purpose of the base construction.
The built up earth plinth may be primarily to raise the height of the furnace. This appears to be explained in commentary. Other than raising the furnace for ease of access, its hard to understand why.
Considerable care is taken with the construction of the base, with a layer of straw, covered with a clay cobb plate, this in turn with what appears to be a semi refractory layer. (Light coloured clay that appears to be mixed with charcoal fines.
This same light material is used as the inner layer for what looks like the first 10 cm of the furnace wall.

The interior diameter of the furnace looks to be roughly 20 - 25 cm.

Note the bellows size and style (medium size double action - Late Medieval) Depending on pump rate (hard to determine from the video) this equipment should be able to supply plenty of air volume.
Use of steel pipe for bellows tube / tuyere
Set at basically flat angle (only slight downwards)
Very shallow base distance below tuyere (perhaps 10 cm??)

The is use of round port for tapping. Appears to be at same height as the tuyere.
There was no tapping event recorded, and no tap slag visible in later parts of the smelt.

Total furnace height looks quite short, the entire furnace may achieve (barely) 40 cm total. Considering placement of the tuyere, this suggests a very short reactive column.

Charcoal is roughly broken for size, scoop from pile method for screening out fines.

Ore appears to be hematite / iron sand or oxide powder (brown ochre) ?
Laid in a large slabs rather than sprinkled through charges. Only two charges shown, and it would be important to know how much ore was used.

There is use of flux (a fine white powder - may be borax?) near end of smelt.
May be explained in commentary, but why?

Furnace is allowed to burn out and basically go cold.
Extraction is by breaking out rear wall to expose interior.

When the interior is exposed, the slag mass certainly looks considerably above the height of the tuyere. Was the smelt halted because the tuyere was blocked? (Commentary may explain?)

On the extraction, three pieces are pulled aside.
The first (which is the piece in the smelter's hand near the end) is holding heat in a manner that at least suggests there may be some iron in it. If so, it is extremely lacy and small. The second piece is dense and dark, and looks like iron rich slag. The last piece (seen again near the end of the video) is light coloured green, typical of an iron poor slag (melted furnace walls).
Obviously the comments of the team would be important to understanding their results.

It appears the smelt master has determined the pieces containing iron by look and weight. It might have been more instructive (for him and us) if these fragments had remained hot enough that they could have been hammer compressed

.

Shields, Wood and Grain lines...

Earlier, a discussion on Norse shield construction said something like: the
boards were split, as the Norse didn't saw their wood, implying that the
split wood was stronger as the grain wasn't cut.
..
If so, I'm curious as to how it worked.
Thank you,

Edward

 The following was prepared for the Norsefolk list this morning. May be obvious to those who work with wood - but I had the piece written...

I know those that know me well are likely laughing right now - Him, WOOD?
(First thing I teach my smithing students is ; "Metal Good, Wood EVIL".)

How does it work?
(*Real* woodworkers chime in and correct this!)

This might be a bit hard to explain with out proper diagrams - but bear with the use of symbols.

As has been described, a split plank comes from a clean, straight grained section of log. Wedges are used to break the circular diameter into half, quarter, eight - resulting in narrow 'pie' shapes.
The splits follow the natural lines of the grain - with the right piece of log, straight lines.
If you looked at the top of the piece - you would see a set of slight curved lines - the top edge of the grain.
If you looked at the side of your split plank, the ideal would be the side edges of each of those  grain lines
)))))))))))
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
This is extremely strong in *compression*.  If you push on the top of such a plank, the wood will bend before it ever actually breaks. Imagine the bow of a ship hitting a wave. The planks will flex rather than shatter.

If you had the technology for making saws (and the Norse could be considered NOT to have this *) you would be cutting a perfectly straight line through the log. You are slicing across a circular 'bulls eye' shape. Depending where the cut is, almost all the boards now have a combination of curved, diagonal cut, very few straight gain lines. This is especially seen on the side of the plank, with grain running pretty much all over the place.
(((==)))
\\\| |///
\\\| |///
\\\| |///
This is much weaker in compression. If you push on the top of such a plank, the wood can separate along the diagonal lines in the grain. Build that same boat out of equally thin *cut* planks, and when it hits the same wave, the hull will virtually disintegrate.


However, the question was about shields.
Now you are forcing a thin wedge (a blade) against the edges (mainly) of the plank.
    V
)))))))))))
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I

    V
(((==)))
\\\| |///
\\\| |///
\\\| |///
You see that in *either* case, the thin blade attempts to force into the lines of the edge grain. Some argument may be made that with a cut to the edge of a split plank - the board is actually *more* likely to break.
 But remember the shape of your shield - most of those blows are not going to come in exactly at 90 degrees to the end grain - but mostly coming in towards the side of the grain
)))))))))))
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I<
I I I I I I I I I

(((==)))
\\\| |///
\\\| |///<
\\\| |///

With the split board, the force of the cut is directly across the grain line - against its very strongest portion.
With the cut board, the force of the cut is applied to a possible *diagonal* grain line - a point of weakness.

(Since I think attempting to draw this would prove difficult bear with me)
Now cut two very thin planks - and stack them on top of each other. The line of the grain is offset by 90 degrees in the two planks.
                        V
  )))))))))))  V - - -
  I I I I I I I I I V - - -
>I I I I I I I I I V - - -
  I I I I I I I I I V - - -
                     V
 (((==)))    V\\\
  \\\| |///    V\\\
>\\\| |///    I  I I I
  \\\| |///    ^///
You see what you get with the split planks is that any angle of cut is attempting to slice through the strong side line direction of the grain
With the cut planks, almost any angle of cut is attempting to slice through the much weaker *diagonal* line of the grain.

Clear??

* In the case of the Norse, the metalworking problem of making a wood cutting saw in the first place is actually the limiting factor. The first plank cutting saws are wide, long, straight blades. Such a blade should be thin in cross section - to remove the least wood and so require the least force to move through the piece of timber. It needs to be absolutely dead straight - the smallest variation in thickness or warp (in any plane) will cause the saw to bind in the cut. The metal needs to have some flex in it, to withstand irregular sideways pressures likely during long hours of use. It also needs to be hard enough that the teeth do not instantly wear down to the point they do not cut.
Axes on the other hand, are much smaller cutting surfaces, and considerably more robust in construction. In smaller diameter VA forges, an axe blade can be pretty much all heated at the same time - not at all possible for a long pit saw blade.

(I have made many axes, enough swords - but has never even considered trying to hand forge a pit saw!) 

Why do I even bother

 For any of you considering the joys of being self employed, or what you end up spending so much time on? Consider this from this mornings e-mail dump:

On 30/10/12 2:12 AM, Cam L wrote:

Am I missing something or am I supposed to be an idiot for ordering from you?  I am not trying to be rude but I really do not understand!!!!

You keep talking on your site on how this is made in Canada and is made to be affordable......  Then when I go to order the price is 47.46 including HST (I am in alberta  and do not pay HST!).  And then the price is $36.00 for Americans!!!!!

Should you not  be saying that it is made in The USA as it certainly seems you are trying to KISS American ass and screw over your countrymen!

What am I missing?

Cam

You are in fact being amazingly rude.

I take it from your references you are referring to Viking Game?
Normally I would just blow this kind of comment off - but you should understand  a few things:

Made in Canada?
- The piece of canvas is likely woven off shore some place. I do purchase the boards, which are cut and the edges bound, by a small company in Kitchener Ontario.
- The board printing is done by a local business near my home in Dundalk Ontario
- The glass counters are likely made off shore (Europe I think). I do purchase these in bulk from a supplier in Georgetown Ontario.
- The king piece is made here in my own workshop.
- I have the rule sheets printed at a different local business in Dundalk.
- The main offshore component is the bag. Sorry, I just can not even get the bags even made locally, much less made, printed both sides. Ordered from a US company, work done in India. The bags account for about 15 % of the cost of production.
- The pieces are all assembled into the finished games by myself.

The government requirement for 'Made in Canada' is that at least 50% of the wholesale value needs to be applied in this country. My estimate is that a minimum of 75 % of the wholesale value is from Canadian sources.

Made to be affordable:

Reality check please.
- All the other commercially available versions of Nefatafal retail for *over $50*. My version retails at almost *half* that amount - at $28.
- As the primary sales of Viking Game are not retail, but are in fact wholesale to museum gift shops, consider that normally I only get $14.50 for each game produced. Do the math. Dealing with all those other small local suppliers, how much do you think * I * get to keep?


Unless its produced in *China* and sold via *Wallmart*, I absolutely defy you to find another game of this type in the same price range.



But I see your REAL problem is not with the cost of the game itself?

Shipping cost of $14

Blame Canada Post - not me!
- I set the shipping cost  based on what I actually get charged by Canada Post to send one game, in a padded envelope (which also needs to be paid for). Since I have to cover all of our country, I use the raw cost (rounded up to the closest dollar) I get charged to send something from central Ontario to Vancouver.
- I do not include anything for the time to pack the order.
- I do not charge anything for the time and gas cost to drive the 20 + km and back into the closest Post Office. 
I freely admit the cost of shipping is horrible - but *I do not control this*

HST of $5.46

Blame Revenue Canada - not me!
My *legal instructions from Revenue Canada* are:
-  As a business in Ontario grossing over $30 K per year, I am *forced* to collect HST.
-  All products or services originating in *Ontario*, then delivered within *Canada* must have HST applied.
I do *not* determine this.
(I absolutely HATE the HST system. Did you know I am forced to spend hours keeping accounting records on the sole behalf of Revenue Canada - for which I get *absolutely no* bennifit of any kind?)

'Suck up to Americans"

????

1) HST is not applied to any product shipped outside of Canada (Revenue Canada)

2) It costs LESS to ship one game to CALIFORNIA than it does to ALBERTA (Canada Post)


Now, you are bitching to me about all the aspects of fixed costs over which I have absolutely NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER - which are in fact IMPOSED on me by the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

 If you are feeling 'screwed over' - you had better direct your displeasure at those responsible.

To make yourself feel better, go to Walmart (and American Multi-national company well known for screwing local businesses) and purchase something made in China.
Or better, try to order something from the USA and see what happens to your shipping costs.

with no respect at all
Darrell

Review - 2012 Re-Arc Conference

'Students Make the Future'

The third annual Reconstructive & Experimental Archaeology Conference was hosted by the Schiele Museum of Natural History at Gastonia North Carolina, USA, over October 20 - 22.

Although the cost of the conference itself was minimal ($35 pre-registered, $20 for students) the large travel distances within North America always become a major consideration for participation in any such event. (We certainly came the furthest, a 1400 km distance from Central Ontario, Canada.) This may have effected the overall attendance, with about 60 total, about a third of these students. In reality, the smaller size of the gathering proved one its most positive qualities. You could easily find any individual and engage them in conversation, which is exactly what happened.

A total of 8 formal presentations were given, along with 6 hands on workshops, poster based presentations, and a keynote lecture. This programming pretty much packed the available time. The presenters were drawn from professional academics, independent researchers and senior students. Topics ranged from the highly technical ('A Study of the Effects of Weathering on the Geochemical Signature of Southeaster US. Rhylites Using PXRF Analysis') to overviews and the more experiential. All approached their topics with enthusiasm and obvious passion, which in turn made all the presentations engaging and thus capturing the interest of the participants. If there was any weakness in the programming it was that everyone was trying to pack so much information into the short time frames! With so much of North American archaeology focused on Pre-Columbian cultures, the two researchers working with European Early Medieval technologies was a great addition.
(Unfortunately, both of us had to miss the keynote lecture by Dr Bill Marquardt, as we needed time to prepare for our afternoon demonstrations.)

The hands on workshops were an obvious draw for the participants. Two of these definitely stood out. Neil Peterson's demonstration of a possible Viking Age glass bead furnace allowed individuals to make their own glass bead. Almost everyone at the conference tried their hand at doing so.

Brave Squirrel Hunters - Early Sunday morning.

Doug Meyer lead a session that demonstrated the construction and use of a simple bamboo tube blowgun. The student participants especially participated in this - the result being the only thing saving the local squirrel population was poor aim.
The general opinion of all attending was that the hands on opportunities added considerably to not only illustrating ongoing experiments, but also directly improving personal understanding with specific materials and methods. At one point Steve Watts said : 'Today Museums are collecting objects, but tomorrow they will be collecting technology'.  An insightful comment.

Coming in from outside the normal academic community, as a serious but still 'amateur' researcher, you are always uncertain just what kind of reception you might receive. What was wonderful about Re-Arc 2012 was the way everyone was so enthusiastic about not only their own work, but how easily parallels were being drawn into other experiments. Everyone was genuinely interested in hearing about each others trials, successes (and failures!)

The presence of so many undergraduate and graduate students most certainly contributed to the overall energy of the gathering. With some humour one instructor quipped 'If you want students to come, make it a course requirement'. The general feeling for all was that the participation of what will become the next generation of experimenters and researchers was one of the most positive aspects of the conference. 'Students make the future'.

The open discussion on the possible future of Re-Arc brought forth many good, positive suggestions for both developing the conferences and the organization itself. Some of the best observations came from the participating students, ideas that hopefully will be implemented for the 2013 conference:
- One significant element is that the Schiele Museum has committed to hosting future conferences.
- Considerable discussion was made about expanding the use of the internet, both for communications but more importantly for information sharing / publication.
- Consideration was given to how to better recruit and involve students.
- A discussion was made about forming closer ties to the existing ExArc organization in Europe.
- Ensuring solid programming for future conferences through an earlier call for papers, plus expanding the physical demonstration / hands on component.

Although a smaller conference, there is no doubt the generally informal atmosphere at Re-Arc 2012 was one of its greatest strengths. The enthusiasm of the participants was certainly addictive. Being able to share common problems and discuss similar approaches with others transcended individual topic areas. It left you feeling that you are not alone in your personal passion for ancient technologies.

My own contribution - Demonstrating the Aristotle Furnace. (Image Neil Peterson)