Talk:Pig iron

History
The use of blast furnaces in Europe has been pushed back at least to the 12th century by archeological finds, see Lapphyttan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The meaning and the geographic/chronological/process applicability of the section beginning "The phase transition..." are quite opaque. It badly needs re-written for clarity, or deleted. Blether (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pollution
We removed Arvin from the Ezzati's because the statement regarding "releasing the impurities into the atmosphere" since silicon dioxide has low volatility in normal atmospheres; that is, you cannot simply evaporate it. I'm not completely familiar with this process, but I believe the slag is removed by virtue of its lower density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.193.92 (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pure iron -- in what sense?
"Pig iron has become a desirable supplemental feed stock (...) since it is pure iron" Is it a kind of jargon? At the beginning it is stated that raw iron contains up to 3.5% carbon. Or, it merely should read "relatively pure"? saimhe 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

References, Historical speculation
This page needs a great deal more refernces in general. There should be a reference for the statement

"The Chinese were making pig iron by the later Zhou Dynasty (1122 BC - 256 BC). In Europe, the process did not become common until the 14th century."

as the time period for Chinese technology is often wildly speculated/exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.60.28 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not in fact far fetched: see blast furnace. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some one had deleted this, obviously not having read my comment. I have therefore restored it and added references.  The reference to 'finers metal' was significantly inaccurate.  I am not sure whether this is a miscitation of Rajput's book or a misunderstanding by him.  I have removed the section to a more appropriate place in the article, but not removed the reference itself, because I have not seen it myself.  Perhaps, I should substitute a better source anyway.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious - Resin
Sure that resin was used as fuel? Doesn't sound cheap and abundandant enough to me. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An IP noted in the article that resin might equal limestone. Wizard191 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that "resin" must appear due to past vandalism. I have substituted "limestone".  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. --Wizard191 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement
A great deal of this article seems not to be about pig iron at all. The subject is much better covered in blast furnace. Could we have ideas about what ought to be in this article? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. Most of the "Uses" section should be merged into the blast furnace article. Otherwise, the intro is a good start, but that's about it. I don't know much about the topic, so I don't know what else should be included. The refined iron section definitely needs more beefing up. Wizard191 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick search for "pig iron" on google books and most of the results where in reference to determining the chemical composition of the pig iron...so perhaps that is an important facet to it? Maybe it should explained why it is important to know the chemical composition of the pig iron prior to further processing. Just something I could come up with real quick. Wizard191 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it might be useful to have an explanation of the difference between grey and white cast iron, and perhaps something on the significance of the presence of silicon or other elements as impurties. For example, I understand that Si makes the iron more fluid and hecne goood for founry work.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pig iron weights picture
The picture shows two iron weights, but they have a specific shape, no doubt related to their function. Pig iron should refer to blocks of iron cast into a standard generic mould. The material of which these weights are made is no doubt identical to pig iron, but they are cast iron weights (probably counter-weights) specifically cast for the purpose, not pigs of iron. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, those are cast iron weights. I'm going to go ahead and remove the picture. Wizard191 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

picture caption
Whatever is being done in the Chinese illustration, surely it is not properly described as "puddling". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You know I really hate that picture. It's "spammed" across a lot of the iron- and steel-making articles, and I feel that it is not very applicable to most of them. So I'd just go and delete it. Wizard191 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Africa
I have removed the following as almost certainly wrong: Pig iron workers were recorded to have been in parts of West Africa in some of the metalworking Bantu civilizations such as the Bunyoro Empire and the Nyoro people.Iron, Gender, and Power - By Eugenia W. Herbert and in East Africa. Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century By Ivan Hrbek, M. El Fasi - Unesco International This is almost certainly the result of a loose (i.e. inaccurate) use of terms. The author almost certainly meant "bar iron" or "blooms", neither of which are "pig iron". In searching to verify the nature of the source. I found an article in in Anglo-Saxon England 19, 9 similarly abusing the term. All these need better verification becfoer they can be included in the article, that is books articles recording the results of primary research. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sulfur in pig iron
The statement "The presence of a high sulphur content in pig iron makes it unsuitable for good quality castings." is ambiguous, at best. I removed it. It is such a broad statement it cannot be left in the article. Depending on the type of casting being made, sulfur may not be harmful. Depending on the type or grade of pig iron, the amount of sulfur may be minimal. Mfields1 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was doubtful about this, but do not known enough about foundries to comment. It is possible that the contributor had in mind something about sulphur in wrought iron, which makes it redshort.  That in turn measn that it cannot be forged, making it effectively useless.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Etruscans
I have just reverted the following: "In Europe, the process was used as early as the Etruscans, who used it to make many items such as chariots, helmets, urns. Source quoted: A History of the Roman People. 4th ed. Allen M. Ward, Fritz M. Heichelheim, & Cedric A Yeo. Prentice hall." This has been added by a relatively new user. I have not seen the source cited, but the claim is not credible. It is possibly due to the authors of the book cited not knowing what pig iron is. This is a common mistake among non-specialists, who have failed to understand the technology involved, and are using "pig iron" as if it were a synonym for iron made in bloomeries. Before such a claim can be accepted into the article, a citation from an acedemic publication on the history and archaeology of metallurgy would be required; not a citation from social history book. Unfortunately, even academic authros are prone to errors when not writing about their own subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

History??
The History section needs significant improvement. First of all, it is very brief. More importantly, it is very misleading. The smelting of iron to produce pig iron was quite developed in the Roman Empire. This is documented by Roman historians and verified by archaeology. Just because many technologies were forgotten during the Middle Ages doesn't mean that Europe didn't have the technology "until the late medieval ages." The Greeks also had pig iron technology before the Romans. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Chinese invented iron smelting. Archaeological findings suggest that the Hittites, the Egyptians, and the Indians all had iron-smelting technology before the Chinese. The Wiki Iron Age article gives a brief overview of some important findings. I suggest that the History section be rewritten and that different sources be used. --ElZarco (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Link missing
This should be linked to Italian "ghisa". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.105.51 (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Litter of piglets being suckled by a sow
I'd added a fact tag to this last month, after failing to confirm it to a reliable source. has been making a brave attempt to supply one, but nothing reliable so far. Please note that this anecdote has been in the article since it was created by an IP back in 2002. As such, it will almost certainly predate any websites that make the same statement, indicating that they will have drawn on WP for their sourcing. In some cases, this is really clear, as with the on-the-surface reliable IIMA, which on inspection is clearly sourced from WP (the language is nearly identical and they kindly reference WP at the end of their article).

Anyway, good luck to anyone looking for a source for this. I'd suggest that it probably needs to be in a serious book (i.e. not something like this. Likewise, it really should pre-date the WP article, so this 2009 book fails.  I note though that that is the fifth edition; if the claim is made in an earlier edition that predates 2002, that might work.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

And here it is. Reference added. Bromley86 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought Bromley86 was being pedantic as this is something that "any fule kno". What I am sure of is that sow iron is coarser than pig iron, therefore harder to re-melt.  eg "The remaining stock of iron should suit S Russell & Co as all the rough sows were sent away with the last American order.  The proportion of sows will not exceed 5%.

Yours obediently
 * A J Cornfield" - Backbarrow furnace manager's letterbook, Feb 19 1915 Peterrivington (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to WP, the world of the pedant! Seriously, it's not pedantic to require non-junk cites; I can find loads of people that think "posh" is derived from "port out, starboard home", but that doesn't make it correct.  Mind you, I made a mistake, as the cite I've used doesn't confirm right angles or the thickness or thinness of the sow.  Having had a quick look at it, it seems the sow is approximately the same width as the pigs, so I'll change the text to remove the thick/thin statement.  Added ref for "right angle" replaced the piglet one to cover "runner".   Bromley86 (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits in recent times
I have substantially altered the "history" section, because people have been adding material that is plain wrong. To the best of my knowledge (and I do know) there is no evidence for cast iron in the ancient West. I have removed the offending text and replaced it with something credible. I have not seen the work Bronze to iron which was in the citation I have removed, but it is either wrong or (more likely) misinterpreted by a WP editor, who did not know the difference between bloomer iron and pig iron. I used to watch iron articles in WP carefully, but in recent years I have not had the time and there has been much less vandalism and original research than their used to be. I hope I have not removed the results of constructive edits by others; if I have, I must apologise, but the article as I found it was just plain wrong. Specifically, in my edits, I have used pp.149-150 of Importance of Ironmaking (of which I have a copy). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence
Is there someone with some understanding of this subject or familiarity with this article who can take a look at the first couple sentences? The second sentence about "crude iron" isn't a sentence at all, and seems out of place. I don't know enough about iron to fix it. Cloud atlas (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Avoided phenomenon" ?
Last sentence in the "History" section: "The phase transition of the iron into liquid in the furnace was an avoided phenomenon"

I think this term "avoided phenomenon" is incomprehensible to the average reader (such as me). Please would someone add an explanation or appropriate link ?

Darkman101 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * QUOTE
 * A correctly-operated bloomery did not melt the ore and produced forgeable iron, unlike pig iron from a blast furnace. The bloomery operator had to be careful to avoid conditions which would produce liquid iron, as it would absorb carbon and effectively become pig iron, and decarburizing the pig iron into steel was an extremely tedious process using medieval technology.
 * UNQUOTE
 * I think the above is what that sentence is trying to say. Since my knowledge comes only from reading the article itself and the one on Bloomery, I will leave it to some other editor to concur and actually put it in the article. 14.201.84.108 (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)