Talk:Steel/Archive 2

It wasn't called Turkey 4000BP
Terms from the present should not be applied to the past. Called Anatolia (accurate, in my view) or the Trans-Taurus region or northern Levant - but not Turkey--Levalley (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
 * Changed to Anatolia, as suggested. Note the source article says "in Turkey".  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"containing too much carbon to be called steel"
"Unlike copper and tin, liquid iron dissolves carbon quite readily, so that smelting results in an alloy containing too much carbon to be called steel." What does this mean? That smelting cannot be used to create steel ? This should be rephrased. 69.171.131.243 (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is correct. When iron ores are smelted they become pig iron, which is similar to some cast irons. The pig iron is then converted to steel through a steelmaking process. Traditional methods cannot smelt iron ore directly to steel. Wizard191 (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is correct. Iron with too much carbon is not steel (a hard tough material), but cast iron, a brittle crystalline material.  I am not sure that the statement about "traditional methods" is quite right, since there is evidence thsat it was possible to manage a bloomery so as to produce steel, but it is not clear what that involved.  The statement is however certainly true of the blast furnace era.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My main source book, that I don't have at hand, said that large chunks of cast iron have been found, from Medieval Europe, that were used as anvils. Once the steel melted, they had no way of recovering it or shaping it and could only use it in the form that the accident created.  Its carbon content was too high to forge and they had no way to control it if it melted.  David R. Ingham (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Strength vs. Temperature
"However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers."

Please add a graph of strength vs. temp for typical structural steel. -71.174.182.182 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi pls clarify
how the steel is processed after the blast furnace? and what is the process called either hot work or cold work?and at what stage it is seperated as cast steel and forged steel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.195.115 (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Recycling sources biased?
Most of the steel recycling facts come from the Steel Recycling Institute, not a neutral source. Even the EPA and the earth911 fact sheets source the SRI. A lack of independently verified facts concerns me that there's some green-washing going on. ---Ransom (--67.91.216.67 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
 * What makes you think that they are not collecting reliable facts? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recycling fact
In the recycling section the article claims that 110% of steel in cars is recycled. The article does not explain what this means, so unless recyclers can get more steel out of the cars they recycle than was used to manufacture them, this number must be wrong. If it isn't wrong, it needs to be explained. The  Seeker 4   Talk  15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the source is pretty vague, but I think it means the amount of steel recycled from cars (by weight) 10% more than the amount of steel produced for car production in the same year. Wizard191 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that makes sense, though it seems a silly way to measure recycling. I would think it would be more meaningful to measure how much of the original steel used in the production is recovered. Comparing amount recovered today (from cars made years and decades ago) with amount used today on cars that are lighter and utilize less steel in general seems unnecessarily confusing, but it is what the source says. (I should have mentioned above that I did examine the source and could not find a clear explaination for the number, or I would have clarified it in the article myself) Any suggestions on how to clarify this in the body of the article? I am not sure the best way to do this. The   Seeker 4   Talk  15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that this isn't the best way to measure steel recycling, but I think it would be pretty hard to come up with reliable numbers for measuring how much of the original steel was recycled. You would have to sort the incoming scrap cars by year and then weigh the piles separately before recycling. Moreover, there may not be good usage statistics for individual sectors from the past. As such, this is probably just the best they can do.


 * As for clarification, I can pretty much just add my first reply to the article (worded in a more encyclopedic fashion, of course), if that would help. Wizard191 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are right about this being really the only way to compare it with any accuracy. Too bad there isn't a better/more clear measurement, but I suppose this is the best there is. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need accurate figures. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of this 110% should be removed; it's deliberately misleading and it is pointless information anyway, since the amount of steel used for brand new cars is completely unrelated to the amount used in old cars, at least in terms of recycling. (Huey45 (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

Standard units should be used
I noticed that the density of steel was recorded in grams per cubic centimetre. Seeing as the standard measurements of mass and volume are kilograms and cubic metres, respectively, the density should be recorded in kilograms per cubic metre. Someone who's more savvy with the text controls than me will need to do this. I wonder how many other measurements in this article are recorded with obscure units of measurement.(Huey45 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I have to disagree that kg/m3 does or should have any preference to g/cm3. The early attempts to force the use of meter only units have clearly failed, at least in scientific literature, and g/cm3 is by far the most popular (simply because density of water is 1 and there are no those triple zeroes). Materialscientist (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The units should be relative to water under standard conditions. David R. Ingham (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Values
Some detailed values of density for SS are given at. They seem precise, except are given as specific gravity and with an incorrectly-placed decimal point. —DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Steel gas?
Just to put it out there, has anyone ever considered what temperature steel becomes a gas? Or does it combust first? Me is monkey123 (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Steel is an alloy (or rather many alloys). The answer you want will be found in the article on iron, the main element involved in the alloys.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Steel, Hiroshima and spaceships
A cite from the Norwegian article on steel: (translation below) "Det kreves mye luft til produksjon av stål, og etter atombombe-eksplosjonen over Hiroshima innebærer dette at alt stål har i seg noe av strålingen fra dengang. Ved produksjon av spesielt følsomme strålingsmonitorer, f.eks i romskip, er man helt avhengig av å ha tilgang til stål produsert før 1945."

This says something like: "You need much air/oxygen to produce steel, and after the atom-bomb over Hiroshima this means that all steel today contain some of the radiation from then. The production of sensitive radiation monitors, such as in spacecraft, are therefore in need of steel produced before 1945". Is this anywhere near true? If so, it should be included. If not, I would like to know so it can be removed from the Norwegian article. Matsemann (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the Norwegian article, do you mean the Norwegian Wikipedia article? I find it very hard to believe that a) the atom bombs detonated in 1945 contributed a significant amount of radioactive particles that are still floating around in the air today and b) that whatever radioactive particles present today from the bombs detonated in the past would contribute more than the natural "background" radioactive species that were present before the bomb and are still present today. If you want to add that, you would definately need to provide a reliable, meaning peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted, source for the information. The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This think strikes me as a piece of WP:OR, from soem one who think there was no radioactivity before the Bomb. Certainly nuclear explosions have released radiation, but hardly in significant amounts.  The conclusion drawn from it si also improbable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope this appears to be legit:
 * http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F23%2F545%2F00012791.pdf%3Farnumber%3D12791&authDecision=-203
 * http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2007/08002/A_Historically_Significant_Shield_for_In_Vivo.3.aspx
 * http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..DNP.GB008B
 * http://www.c-n-t-a.com/srs50_files/271boni.pdf
 * http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn7.htm#G7 (probably not a RS)
 * Wizard191 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Too bad I dont' have access to the full articles, I would be interested in seeing just what the difference between steel from 1930 and today would be. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The radioactivity is not from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, it is from them and the more than 1000 above ground nuclear tests. I have never heard that it has contaminated steel; I heard it has contaminated everything. Including it in the steel article might be pointless. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But I have heard that lead (Pb) contamination is accumulating in steel to a degree that old liberty ships are more valuable for scrap than newer ships because they are cleaner. Since this is a concern for recyclers and their buyers, perhaps this should be in the article? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I meant the Norwegian article about steel on Wikipedia, yes. I found the comment a bit odd, so I wanted to double check with the English version, but here it's not mentioned. The Norwegian article also mentions that to get steel produced before the bombs, they have used scuttled ships from Scapa Flow where they need this kind of steel. I would very much like a definite answer to the comment I posted above from the Norwegian article, so that I can fix it, add sources or so (and update this English article if it's true). Thanks. Matsemann (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess that a prefernece for older steel is that it was made direct from pig iron, rather than containing some recycled scrap, which is liable to have picked up other elements, such as tin (from old tin cans). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just came upon this discussion and must say none of those links above support the claim from the Norwegian Wikipedia that Matsemann has translated for us. There are passing mentions of pre-1945 battleship armor but this is not explained sufficiently at all.  The statements should presumably be removed from the Norwegian wikipedia if nobody can find an inline citation to a reliable source that makes the claim.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The main English wikipedia article on radiation in steel is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The first link is not "in passing", however I don't have a subscription to the site the read more than the summary listed; however, I'm sure a full read would be very enlightening. Also, the fourth link is fully readable, a RS, and states essentially the same idea as the quotation above. This isn't a RS, but it is an interesting read. Wizard191 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mention of steel in the Bible

 * Steel is mentioned in the Bible: Jeremiah 15:12 of the Authorized King James Version, it reads: "Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?". However, it seems the Hebrews had no word for "steel" but used instead אסטמא (istoma), akin to the Greek word οτὀμωμα (otómoma) or hardening.[17]

A quick google shows that the New International version translates this as "northern iron and the bronze", so we need a knowledgeable editor to go to the source. If the mention of "steel" in the original is ambiguous and a better translation is "hardened metal", then the above two sentences should probably be removed from this article. If for accuracy's sake we have to replace the above text with The Bible doesn't mention steel; the closest to this is אסטמא which means "hardened metal", then I think this is of a little interest, but probably not enough to merit inclusion in the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with references
Reference 45 apparently does not explain what it's supposed to. I didn't check all references to see if there are other issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.142.211 (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure it does. It states: "The British Geological Survey reports that in 2005, China was the top producer of steel with about one-third of world share followed by Japan, Russia and the USA." Wizard191 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Conjuring Trick??
For example, in 2007, more than [...] 110% of automobiles were recycled.

So 10% more automobiles are being recycled than actually exist. 86.137.53.246 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See . Wizard191 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That whole sentence about recycling is confusing, misleading and most likely made up anyway. (Huey45 (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

Ingots cast
There's got to be more than 4000 steel ingots made in a year. The US imported 2 or 3 thousand tons of ingots a month (and I suspect the average weight of an ingot is closer to 10 tons than to 100 tons) in 2008 alone according to this. If 96% of steel is continuously cast (and I find *that* surprising, too) then 4% of world steel is many more times than 4000 ingots in a year. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you are getting at. Tonight, when I get home I'll check my reference again, but I'm pretty sure it said 4000 ingots a year. Perhaps that was the US steel production number for circa 2002. Wizard191 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to the answer; unfortunately Google Books doesn't have this one ( and the library is FOUR WHOLE BLOCKS from here!). It's original research but I was astonished to realize the human species makes about 3 times its own weight in steel each year...that's enough to put a galvanized roof over Belgium every few months...what the *bleep* are we doing with all that steel? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Smith states: "Today approximately 96% of the steel is cast continuously, with about 4000 ingots still being cast individually." Now the source on this sentence is "Table 23, pp. 73-75 of the annual statistical report of the AISI", which makes me think that the figure is for US production, however it's not for sure. On a side note, 96% continuous casting is pretty reasonable seeing how continuous casting is must more economical than casting ingots. Wizard191 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Smith book must have got it wrong. I wonder if the AISI report is on-line? If Arcelor Mittal makes 100 million tons a year and 96 million tons is continuously cast, that leaves 4 million tons to be split among 4000 ingots, making them each 1000 tons - that's not an ingot, that's a mountain!  And Arcelor Mittal is just the largest of the steelmakers - world total steel production is 13 times more than Arcelor Mittal produces.
 * I think ingots still get used for large sections, forgings, and some sheet production - continuously-cast strip was still bleeding edge technology when I was a steel worker, but that's 11 years ago now and I'm out of touch with the current state of the industry. However, I don't imagine the world's stock of strip mills has been completely replaced in the last 11 years, either. The research continues... --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The AISI source is online, however it costs 350 USD to access it, which is a bit out of my price range for a Wikipedia article =P. I'll see what else I can drum up on the internet. Wizard191 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I've never spent more than $50 or $60 to buy any single reference, and I try to tell myself that I'm sufficiently interested in the topic that I would have bought the book anyway. I did bump up my IEEE membership a little so that I could access more of their site, but like you I'm not willing to sink a lot of take-home pay into acquiring more Wikipedia references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well here's what I got, but it ain't much: . It's a chart of percentage of continuously cast steel production from 197x to 1997 for the largest steel production nations. I'm not sure what you'd like to do with this, seeing how the current ref is quite ambiguous, but this ref doesn't give a nice round percentage for the whole industry.
 * As a side note, I found which states ingots can range from 2 to 600 tons in weight. Wizard191 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BOS vs EAF steel
The recycling section compares/contrasts the terms BOS steel and EAF steel without explaining what those acronyms mean. This appears to be a copy/paste from the source article. 76.235.163.210 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The terms are defined earlier in the article. Also, it is not copy and pasted from the source. Wizard191 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dangling modifier
The second paragraph of the article says "Alloys with a higher carbon content are known as cast iron..." Does this mean a carbon content higher than the 2.1% mentioned in the first paragraph? Then the sentence should state so. 152.121.19.254 (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chemical formula
Why not include the chemical formula? whiskers75 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because steel is an alloy not a compound. Wizard191 (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fe3C + some distorted matrix of BCC + Carbon Zedshort (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Austenite at room temperature
the article states:

"At room temperature, the most stable form of iron is the body-centered cubic (BCC) structure α-ferrite. It is a fairly soft metallic material that can dissolve only a small concentration of carbon, no more than 0.021 wt% at 723 °C (1,333 °F), and only 0.005% at 0 °C (32 °F). If the steel contains more than 0.021% carbon then it transforms into a face-centered cubic (FCC) structure, called austenite or γ-iron. It is also soft and metallic but can dissolve considerably more carbon, as much as 2.1% carbon at 1,148 °C (2,098 °F), which reflects the upper carbon content of steel."

but I'm not sure this is quite right. Austenite is not generally found at room temperature in carbon steels, which is what I would interpret from the above. The current version makes sense for 800 °C but not for room temperature. If steel contains more than 0.021% carbon at room temperature it should form Cementite/Perlite, which is described in the next paragraph.

188.221.70.79 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite right; I changed the text to state "at steelmaking temperatures". Wizard191 (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrought iron and suggested change
I am an amateur blacksmith doing volunteer work at Sutter's Mill, Calif., USA.

This article refers to the differences between steel and wrought iron and I think it is wrong.

In the amateur blacksmith community, it is believed (and I have seen it) wrought iron rusts LESS than steel as its slag stringers form a protective barrier around the outside.

Wrought iron can be FORGE welded (I don't know about modern techniques) much easier than steel as its lack of carbon lets it be heated above 2,100 F without burning the steel.

About steel production: The figures above are way too low for steel. They might be about right for the modern production of wrought iron, which is now a specialty product and produced in quantity by only one mill in the world.

I don't have the interest to research and make any corrections. Will someone else take my word that there's a possible problem and make the fix? Thanx.Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right about wrought iron rusting less than steel. I heard in a lecture by a corrosionist that the carbon iron compound is less stable than iron is.  However I don't see a related problem in the text.  Perhaps someone has fixed it.  David R. Ingham (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011
Please change

"The Haya people of East Africa discovered a type of high-heat blast furnace which allowed them to forge carbon steel at 1,802 °C (3,276 °F) nearly 2,000 years ago.[24] This ability was not duplicated until centuries later in Europe during the Industrial Revolution"

into

"The Haya people of East Africa discovered a type of high-heat blast furnace which allowed them to forge carbon steel at 1,802 °C (3,276 °F) nearly 2,000 years ago.[24]"

That is, leave the second sentence out. Both the Europeans and the Romans manufactured carbon steel, and the melting point of iron and above (>1535 °C) was reached in larger-scale smelting the Middle Ages. The author probably meant that steel was not produced en masse in Europe until the Industrial Revolution, but for that matter it was never produced on such a large scale by the Haya.

Please see http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/def_en/kap_5/advanced/t5_1_4.html

Thank you. T. von Gehlen 212.21.63.172 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)




 * I have made the deletion requested. I do not know about the precise temperature achieved by the Haya, but crucible steel was certainly melted in India and at Merv in medieval times.  Steel made in a bloomery probably did not melt, and so probably did not attain that temperature.  The statement is thus incorrect, but not for the reasons given.  The website cited is not necessarily the best source: it looks far too like lecture notes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything about melting in the quotation, unless you take "blast furnace" to imply it.


 * I think "discovered" is far too optimistic a word to describe engineering, especially in the Middle Ages. Things are "developed".  David R. Ingham (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Map translation needed
The units on the map "Steel production by country in 2007" are not in English. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Historical balance
It is surprising that an entire era of human development is termed the Iron Age, yet is not built on. Similarly, although the history of Eastern and Chinese steel is invaluable, the meme seems out of balance on two counts, the development of European steel in the 13th Century and more importantly the development of metallurgy as a corpus of knowledge, independantly of locality. The comments on the cementation process and blister steel ignore the evidence from the grain structure of surviving artefacts that Toledo, for example, was producing some form of cementation steel from Roman times - Agricola's annotations, for instance, set a date to the history of the knowledge rather than the history of the technique. Equally, the first blast furnaces date from the 14th century, and although these are rather associated with the production of iron, they provide evidence of the production of iron of sufficient quality to produce steel, and of processing at the necessary heat level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.222.219 (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you perhaps specify what you mean by the fact that "Agricola's annotations [...] set a date to the history of the knowledge rather than the history of the technique."? Agricola strived to document technology that was in use, and, by his own statement, never described equipment or techniques that he had not personally witnessed in use, or had from reliable sources that were in common use. This fact is discussed by many historians of science, such as Bruce T. Moran (Distilling Knowledge, Harvard Press 2005, pp. 45-46) and Clifford D. Conner (A Peoples History of Science, Nation Books 2005, p. 315), and William Eamon (Science and the Secrets of Nature, Princeton University Press 1994, p. 131) gives an excellent discussion on the integrity of this type of documentation. How do you separate knowledge from technique, when the 'knowledge' is knowledge of a technology?
 * As to the development of European steel in the 13th century (and later for that matter) I agree with you that this article could expand a lot more. Also, there seems to me that the word 'steel' may not always have been used to mean iron alloys. It was pointed out in the Mention of steel in the Bible section of this Talk that in a passage in the Bible "steel" has been translated in the New International version to "bronze". I have seen descriptions from the early 17th century of steel as being a composition of brass and tin, in other words bronze. This was in the book 'The Art of Glass' by the Florentine chemist Antonio Neri. I believe it was written in 1611, but the English translation was made in 1662, a pdf of which can be retrieved from the Corning Museum of Glass. The quote in question can be found on page 22 of this pdf.
 * As to the development of European steel in the 13th century (and later for that matter) I agree with you that this article could expand a lot more. Also, there seems to me that the word 'steel' may not always have been used to mean iron alloys. It was pointed out in the Mention of steel in the Bible section of this Talk that in a passage in the Bible "steel" has been translated in the New International version to "bronze". I have seen descriptions from the early 17th century of steel as being a composition of brass and tin, in other words bronze. This was in the book 'The Art of Glass' by the Florentine chemist Antonio Neri. I believe it was written in 1611, but the English translation was made in 1662, a pdf of which can be retrieved from the Corning Museum of Glass. The quote in question can be found on page 22 of this pdf.

production, in Properties section, near the top
I am not as clear on this part as on the early history, but isn't steel made from ore in essentially one step now days? The current text describes the Bessemer process of converting pig iron, which I think is two or three generations of steel plants behind. David R. Ingham (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

high speed steel
The article says "Tungsten interferes with the formation of cementite, allowing martensite to preferentially form at slower quench rates, resulting in high speed steel." This seems to focus on the production of the steel, while the advantages of high speed steel (and armor plate) are to do with how it changes when heated. At best it is confusing, but I don't know enough to fix it. David R. Ingham (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
fourth paragraph, first sentence, blacksmithsl shouldn't have that l at the end 24.136.136.42 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Bloomery Smelting During the Middle Ages" Issue
In the "History of steelmaking" section, there is an image ostensible portraying smelting in the middle ages. This image is from a book called "De Re Metallica," describing mostly state of the art metalworking in the 16th century,certainly after the middle ages were over. While this is a minor issue, it serves to cast further doubt on the dubious accounts of "ancient steel" in this article, as observed in the talk section "Suspect Sources in History of Steelmaking." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.25.156 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

suspect sources in History of Steelmaking
Many of the sources seem too weak to substantiate the listed claims within the Ancient Steel and Wootz/Damascus Steel subsections. I suggest a rewrite after proper review of the sources. As I am not a subject matter expert on steel in any sense, I would prefer to defer to someone who at least has the time to do the proper research.

I would also note that "The Hindu", source 16, does not provide clear proper sourcing information for it's article (or any as far as I can tell), source 15  -Wagner, Donald B. "Early iron in China, Korea, and Japan". Retrieved 2007-02-28.- appears to be a broken link as well as not a proper citation unless the proper link is re-established, source 17 Richard Hooker of WSU does appear to be a reputable expert in the subject of history but this is a link to a web archive from 1999 and as such could have easily been edited to eliminate the minor inclusion that substantiates the claim made on the wiki if such a fact was found erroneous or unfounded. On the subject of source 17, it is my recommendation that more sources are sought out to reinforce this claim, preferably not from a web-archived page as the containing information is never updated for accuracy due to the nature of an archived web page. (Maybe even cite a textbook by Hooker, as he has written some) 75.252.34.148 (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not good at Wikipedia editing, but a lot of the history needs cleaning up: Alexander is 4th c. BC, not 3rd, and the Indian steel-making is 6th AD, not BC., for example.98.246.74.86 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Intro text is a bit too pedantic
Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. That's all it should say in the first sentence. While it technically does have other substances, it can be confusing for a new reader, and should just mention it further down the paragraph. ScienceApe (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Environmental effects of steel making
Why is there no section on the byproducts/amount of pollution/modern steelmaking efficiency, etc. in this or the steelmaking article? It seems to me if this article were made about some other natural resource, there would be discussion about the cost in making it, including environmental costs. Is this article biased towards the perspective of the steel industry or is it an objective look at the reality that is huge amounts of steel produced every year at varying levels of technology? 142.58.132.195 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

An insipid statement?
The history of steel making begins: "Steel was known in antiquity, and may have been produced by managing bloomeries, or iron-smelting facilities, in which the bloom contained carbon.[15]"

That statement does nothing for me. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the history of steel making to venture something more interesting and insightful. Zedshort (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead sent
Sentences that begin "Steel is..." are either lazy (and potentially confusing or misleading) substitutes for sentences beginning "Steels are...", or just plain false. So i recast the lead sentence accordingly. (Similar changes later in the article might also offer improvement, but the lead may be the only place prominent enuf to make the issue urgent.) --Jerzy•t 05:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Steel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223184922/http://www.wkm.mw.tum.de:80/Forschung/projekte_html/transtrip.html to http://www.wkm.mw.tum.de/Forschung/projekte_html/transtrip.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Steel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329111924/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200903261611.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200903261611.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/IRONAGE.HTM
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1576&Itemid=46
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dimet.unige.it/resta/studenti/2002/27839/26/TWIP%2CTRIPandDualphase%20mirko.doc
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://aisc.org/MSCTemplate.cfm?Section=Steel_Interchange2&Template=%2FCustomSource%2FFaq%2FSteelInterchange.cfm&FaqID=2311
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://astm.org/BOOKSTORE/PUBS/DS67B_SampleChapter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Steel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221070822/http://www.materialsengineer.com/E-Alloying-Steels.htm to http://materialsengineer.com/E-Alloying-Steels.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430044256/https://www.es.ucl.ac.uk/iams/jour_25/iams25_Feuerbach.pdf to https://www.es.ucl.ac.uk/iams/jour_25/iams25_Feuerbach.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618230340/http://bx.businessweek.com/steel-industry/ to http://bx.businessweek.com/steel-industry/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225211327/http://steel.keytometals.com/default.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&NM=103 to http://steel.keytometals.com/default.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&NM=103

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

An oversight ?
In the first rows of section 1 "Definitions and related materials", there is a sentence about "alloying elements such as manganese, chromium, nickel, iron, tungsten, and so on". Can iron be considered an alloying element for steel?Ekisbares (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Why has Japan been left out of this article?
I'm no expert on metalworking, but seeing as e.g. the article Japanese swordsmithing is long and detailed and contains a section about (traditional Japanese) steel production, I cannot understand why Japan isn't mentioned in this article before a brief mention in the context of the 2005 CE production statistics. --Ronja (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The more open FCC structure of austenite can dissolve considerably more carbon, as much as 2.1%
The fcc structure of austenite has a greater packing factor than the bcc one of ferrite, so "more open" does not seem the correct explanation - at least IF it is the correct explanation should involve not immediately evident properties of the holes rather than the obvious meaning of a lower packing factor.

It is possible to state explicitly if the carbon atoms are in the tetrahedral or in the octahedral holes? (my personal feeling is that the experts feel so obvious that the tetrahedral holes are too small that do not care to state this -- but I may be totally wrong on this).

pietro 151.29.1.146 (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Graphite is not a phase of steel
In the side panel, under the heading 'Phases', graphite is listed among Austenite, Martensite etc. To my knowledge, graphite is ONLY a form of carbon, and while it is used in the process of adding carbon in steel manufacturing, it is not itself a phase of steel. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but it seems out of place.


 * What's more, the link is to the Wikipedia article on graphite. I am inclined to remove the link. Is there any reason to keep it? Paul Foxworthy (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"First step in European steel production"?
As the article makes clear, Europeans obviously processed steel since Antiquity so what exactly is that supposed to mean? Am I the only one confused by that phrasing? 2A02:810D:12BF:FB6C:177:D15A:FA33:11FA (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)