|quoted:
How does the ancient Nordic blade construction compare to ancient Japanese blade construction? I'm more interested in knifes rather then swords.
There was quite a bit of variation in construction as far as I can tell form the originals I have examined and all the cross sections I have seen of finds.
In general though there are a few different methods that seem more common. There is the higher carbon edge with iron body either butt welded or scarfed in ( I have seen examples in books that are wrapped and inserted). There is the multi bar construction, patterns normally done as a "panel" along the spine of the few I have seen spectro on the patterning was sometimes based on phosphorous content and none hardenable material with a Steel edge. Many of the small "pocket" sized knives appear to be Iron and unhardened.
MP
|quoted:
There was quite a bit of variation in construction as far as I can tell form the originals I have examined and all the cross sections I have seen of finds.
In general though there are a few different methods that seem more common. There is the higher carbon edge with iron body either butt welded or scarfed in ( I have seen examples in books that are wrapped and inserted). There is the multi bar construction, patterns normally done as a "panel" along the spine of the few I have seen spectro on the patterning was sometimes based on phosphorous content and none hardenable material with a Steel edge. Many of the small "pocket" sized knives appear to be Iron and unhardened.
MP
I thought I would add a little to this as I have read an academic paper on having read a paper on the multi-bar construction however i do have to go off memory here as no longer have the paper also this is simplified. topically the multi-bar wrap used a twist patter involving 2,5,7,9 bars twisted together to make a twist pattern and could also use a few of these bars twisted together again, then having an edge wrap applied. however in Japan smiths did and still take some their steel sort and break it into small piece, then make a small bar that is scarf welded to a holding stick to make a paddle, then they spend the time carefully stacking all the little bits of steel to make a 3-5 inch block, which is then folded many times however it's not twisted.
I have attempted both but can't compare them as I have not done enough of eather.
I can't remember the paper I got the information about the multibar blades from however if you want to learn more about Japanese smithing The Art of the Japanese Sword: The Craft of Swordmaking and its Appreciation is a great book to pick up.
|quoted:
I like to help folks understand the actual reasons and advantages of methods of blade construction. Today, the greatest advantage of this construction is in appearance, I personally find the wrought iron cladding even more attractive than the stainless. Functionally, the softer cladding doesn't offer any advantages, forcing a much lower yield point onto a normally more resilient core, and it is quite similar to hamons in the aesthetic vs performance misunderstandings. Historically, this type of construction was done to conserve the less abundant steel by supplementing the blade mass with more readily available iron. As soon as steel making advanced to the point that entire blades could be made from it, this method of construction was rendered to a few styles for the sake of tradition. You can stretch a little, thin, sliver of high carbon steel a long way by sandwiching it between two pieces of other material and make three or four knives, rather than one. There will be some carbon diffusion between the layers, but that is why it was done san mai, to stick just three layers can be done in one or two welding heats, and thus greatly limit the carbon loss from the core to the cladding. Folding and rewelding would do the opposite, and homogenize the carbon content, thus defeating the high carbon advantage.
wasn't wrought also used to help prevent rusting of high end kitchen utensils before stainless steel?
