If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:00:49 +0000, Abrasha wrote:
I have asked you many times to stop dispensing "knowledge" of things you know nothing or little of. Once again, please stop. And, finally, why don't you show us a picture of a piece where you have attached high caret gold balls to sterling silver with heat. If you can't show us that, then I am entitled to doubt you have ever done it, and I clearly know more about it than you do. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:10:59 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens
wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:00:49 +0000, Abrasha wrote: I have asked you many times to stop dispensing "knowledge" of things you know nothing or little of. Once again, please stop. And, finally, why don't you show us a picture of a piece where you have attached high caret gold balls to sterling silver with heat. If you can't show us that, then I am entitled to doubt you have ever done it, and I clearly know more about it than you do. Yeah, he started it. But stop bickering, please. Besides, you were discussing what you thought happened, and choosing words which might be argued as being imprecise, but which I'd suggest isn't a big issue. . He, on the other hand, was disputing your use of certain words. One of you discusses process, the other argues semantics. Now you propose to argue whether he knows anything about the metalurgy, or is it semantics, based on whether he's got photos? (which would depend not on knowledge, but on photographic record keeping.) Remember, at the least, that he does have formal credentials in his jewelry/metals training, which might, to some, count for something in terms of whether he can be assumed to know what he's talking about...) And I'd point out tht he doesn't need to have affixed granules. Any affixing of gold to silver by heating without additional solder would be the same type of joint. But as you guys seem to have done many times before, now you're managing to draw ME into your argument too. ( Oh crap. I didn't want that to happen.) I think we've all seen this movie before, gentlemen. I wouldn't mind these debates of yours if you guys would at least disagree about the same topic and debate that topic, and come to some useful conclusion, rather than each of you going on about your own, sometimes apparently unaware that your opponant is arguing a closely related, but not the same, subject. As often as not, both of you are correct in your own areas. Here, I'd guess that MBS is correct in what happens when the grains fuse, but has chosen the wrong term, which even if true, doesn't affect the validity of the metalurgical premise. . Abrasha, then pounces on the possibly incorrect useage of the term, and implies that the underlying knowledge of the process is lacking, which equally doesn't follow. .. Sheesh, guys. Lighten up. You, especially, please, Abrasha. You started this. Peter. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:44:03 +0000, C0nnie wrote:
I will try granulation with 22 K gold on Argentium or fine silver sheet some day soon. I would be interested in knowing how this comes out. I have not bought any argentium to experiment with yet. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:08:24 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:
It's the same type of bond produced by brazing, of course, but that's not really a valid label for it, since no external bonding alloy is formed, if the gold does not melt. I'm not sure I follow your point on this. When you braze steel, the steel does not melt. The bronze does move into any porosity in the steel (I have seen photomicrographs of this), but the main bond is still metallic, not mechanical, according to all sources I've come across. So then, perhaps neither welding, nor brazing, is accurate. Rather, then fusing would be most accurate. However, I'd guess that when the silver melts, the gold surface in contact with it at least slightly melts too, forming a thin layer of eutectic alloy. I don't know about that. The metal used on that ring seemed to have a very much, much higher melting point than sterling. If you're interested in specifics, I seem to remember the granules were from a Krugerrand. At any rate, none of the granules have fallen off after much hard use. In jewelry use, brazing is a term seldom used. Yes. It should be, but is not. I like to use brazing because it can never be confused with soft soldering. The term "fusing" is not especially specific. It does not require both surfaces to be the same, or both to actually melt. All it requires is that two surfaces or items melt together to form a bond. One can melt, or both can melt, so long as they join in the process. I've heard that applied to the adhesion of enamel to metal, and agree that it must be a good general term. However, in the case of this ring, I still think 'brazing' is a bit more specific and accurate, if nothing else because it is metal to metal and very probably a metallic bond. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:08:24 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:
However, I'd guess that when the silver melts, the gold surface in contact with it at least slightly melts too, forming a thin layer of eutectic alloy. This is at least possible, since the Krugerrand is alloyed with copper. However, the granules had no treatment save a light coat of Handy flux, and I rather doubt it. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:31:33 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens
wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:08:24 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote: However, I'd guess that when the silver melts, the gold surface in contact with it at least slightly melts too, forming a thin layer of eutectic alloy. This is at least possible, since the Krugerrand is alloyed with copper. However, the granules had no treatment save a light coat of Handy flux, and I rather doubt it. The copper doesn't play a major part in this, I don't think. In the usual methods of granulation, the copper forms a lower melting alloy when it mixes with the silver or gold with which it is in contact. But don't make the mistake of thinking copper is the only metal this can happen with. Because silver, mixed with gold (the two are completely soluable in each other), melts at a lower temperature than do either of the two alone, a contact between silver and gold will, if there IS a lower melting combination of the two metals in contact, also mix with each other at the contact point, and can do it below the melting points of either metal. Silver mixed with gold does not lower the melting point as drastically and quickly as does copper with either one, but it DOES lower the melting point of high karat gold. If the gold had lots of copper, then adding silver might, with some gold/copper alloys, raise the melting point of any resulting mix, so then this would not happen. But because there IS a mix of your high karat gold with silver, that melts below that of the gold alone, then a eutectic alloy will form when a small amount of the gold dissolves into the silver, alowing both to melt together. What I'm usure of is whether this potential alloy also melts significantly lower than the silver itself. I suspect not, which is why you end up with the silver almost melting before you get bonding, but then when it happens, I'll bet you find the gold grains seem to sink rather easily into the silver. The above mechanism would explain that. This is similar to what happens if you place a piece of brass, with flux, on a piece of silver and heat them. Because brass alloyed with silver forms a lower melting alloy (silver solder, to be exact, any of several grades depending on proportions), at the melting temperature of the lowest melting of the combinations of silver with brass (the eutectic temp of that system), the two still solid and unmelted surfaces, of brass and silver, will combine without first melting. They do that because the contact area itself, rather than one surface or the other, allows that eutectic alloy to form, melting the interface. This proceeds, of course, dissolving more and more of both surfaces into the mix, forming more of the eutectic mix. With silver and brass, the potential drop in melting point, ie the difference in temp between the melting point of the eutectic mix and that of the two parent metals is rather large, leading to a rather rapid combination when an unsuspecting jeweler heats the two together, perhaps trying to solder them together. The brass can quickly sink right into the silver as it does this, combining the two sometimes disastrously. I suspect, but don't have data in front of me, that the reduction in melting point that occurs at the contact between gold and silver is slight, making it a controllable situation. Again, in this case, you don't need to treat the granules, because the existing dissimilarity between the metal of the grains, and that of the silver, already provides the needed conditions for the bonding to take place. That is, of course, all dependent on whether the addition of silver to your kruggerand alloy raises or lowers the melting temp. Because there is already copper in the gold, it's melting point may already be lower than what is achieved by adding silver. If that is the case, AND if adding gold to the silver does not then lower the melting point of the silver, then what would be happening, as i said before, is simply that the silver is melting first and fusing to the gold, without any formation of a eutectic. If this is the case, then even so there will be some diffusion of the gold into the silver and silver into the gold, which is why the bond then has strength beyond just "wetting". Peter |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:31:26 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens
wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:08:24 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote: It's the same type of bond produced by brazing, of course, but that's not really a valid label for it, since no external bonding alloy is formed, if the gold does not melt. I'm not sure I follow your point on this. When you braze steel, the steel does not melt. No, but with brazing steel, you've introduced a third brazing alloy. That's the point. The bond takes place because a third alloy melts, flowing by capillary action between the two still solid surfaces, both wetting them, and also bonding to them. That's what happens with brazing. If, in your gold/silver granulation, a third alloy is formed at the interface, distinct from either the gold or the silver, then in metallurgical terms, a certain similarily exists. But even in that case, the third alloy is formed by the interaction of the two metals in contact with each other, which is NOT what the term brazing usually describes, even if the end bond has similarities. The bronze does move into any porosity in the steel (I have seen photomicrographs of this), but the main bond is still metallic, not mechanical, according to all sources I've come across. Well, both. The penetration of porosity forms a mechanical bond, to be true. But diffusion of the copper alloy into the steel, even if only slight, as well as atomic bonds forming between atoms of iron and copper, etc, mean there is also that metallic bond as well. The degree to which atomic bonding (metallic bonding) occurs depends a lot on the difference in melting points. Because the iron melts a LOT higher than does the brazing alloy, the diffusion depth, and degree of metallic bonding that can take place, is limited to a very narrow interface zone, and the difference in strength between a metallic bonded surface and one that is just mechanical, or based just one wetting of the the one surface with the other (like a glue), is probably not that much. You can illustrate this difference by soldering/brazing a wire onto a piece of metal with varying solders. With the lowest melting brazing or soldering alloys, it's sometimes possible to just peel the wire away, like opening a sardine can, breaking the bonds, but not the wire. Platinum soldered to gold or even more, using gold solder, is a good illustration of this, as is platinum soldered to itself just using the lowest grades of platinum solder. With a joint like this, there may be some diffusion taking place at the joint interface, but it's so slight in depth that for all intents and purposes, it doesn't do much more than wetting the surface the same as a glue would do. Soft solder (lead solders, etc), also fall into this catagory. Although they are metals too, and potential alloys exist between the bonded surfaces and the metals in the soft solder, the differences in melting point are so great as to confine the bond to a narrow contact zone, thus limiting it's strength. .. So then, perhaps neither welding, nor brazing, is accurate. Rather, then fusing would be most accurate. However, I'd guess that when the silver melts, the gold surface in contact with it at least slightly melts too, forming a thin layer of eutectic alloy. I don't know about that. The metal used on that ring seemed to have a very much, much higher melting point than sterling. If you're interested in specifics, I seem to remember the granules were from a Krugerrand. At any rate, none of the granules have fallen off after much hard use. I'd expect that. Among other things, silver and gold are totally soluable in each other. So diffusion zones can form that do not have lots of stress in them. With copper, because it's much less soluable in either gold or silver at room temp, diffusion zones/bonds can tend to be hard and sometimes prone to cracking from the stresses that can build up as a result. That wouldn't be happening here, so your bonding would likely be quite strong. In jewelry use, brazing is a term seldom used. Yes. It should be, but is not. I like to use brazing because it can never be confused with soft soldering. It's been said that each profession develops it's own vocabulary to talk to itself, in part because it must, but also in part to build exclusivity between it, and outsiders. Nobody ever said it had to make sense, and the English language is rife with examples of words used in one context differently from in other contexts, with no apparent logic other than convention. In this case, while it's technically correct to use the word brazing to describe jewelry hard soldering, you're setting yourself in a rather small minority, apart from the conventional usage. In our field, soft soldering is distinguished by using extra terms, ie "soft", or "lead", rather than the word "soldering" itself. Again, no real logic, but on the other hand, jewelers themselves don't seem confused on the issue... For one thing, there's often the issue of non-verbal communication aiding things, since when talking about soft, or lead, solders, most jewelers also communicate a sense of disgust, regret, or disdain for the inferior method and material, again removing doubt as to what's being discussed... (grin) The term "fusing" is not especially specific. It does not require both surfaces to be the same, or both to actually melt. All it requires is that two surfaces or items melt together to form a bond. One can melt, or both can melt, so long as they join in the process. I've heard that applied to the adhesion of enamel to metal, and agree that it must be a good general term. However, in the case of this ring, I still think 'brazing' is a bit more specific and accurate, if nothing else because it is metal to metal and very probably a metallic bond. Mike, welding is also metal to metal, and so is soft soldering, and so is brazing, etc etc. And in all cases, even including lead solder, there is also that metallic bond. That's not a useful distinction. All these bonds are at least in part, a metallic bond. The useful distinction is the source of the alloy that has flowed between the surfaces to be bonded. Does it come from the parent metals themselves, either just one surface melting onto the other or both surfaces combining and melting together? Or does it come from a seperate, externally applied alloy? THAT's the distinction being made. The end result bond type is "metallic", essentially the same in all these instances even if specific details of bond layer or composition, etc differ. . Brazing, as with jewelers hard soldering, implies the ADDITION/introduction of solder/brazing alloy in some form to the joint, rather than the formation of a bond from existing metal. Welding or fusing do not require that addition, (though welding often needs it for a good weld geometry). You're fusing the grains on, not soldering or brazing them. Peter |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:16:10 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:
You were right in another post that all this arguing about terms is of much less importance than trying to understand exactly what was going on when the gold was attached to the silver. None of the terms are so perfectly clear that all speakers of English or jewelers will agree on the use of all of them. However, this seems to be entertaining both of us, so I shall try to forge ahead for a while to try to clearify the concepts. In this case, while it's technically correct to use the word brazing to describe jewelry hard soldering, you're setting yourself in a rather small minority, apart from the conventional usage. I don't really think so. Most jewelers here understand that hard soldering is really a form of brazing, and are willing to accept either term. I would accept silver brazing or silver soldering for the way the granules are attached on this particular ring. It might have been more politic of me to have used "silver brazing" instead of "brazing" to be more specific, but I think it is still correct and easily understood. The term "fusing" is not especially specific. It does not require both surfaces to be the same, or both to actually melt. All it requires is that two surfaces or items melt together to form a bond. One can melt, or both can melt, so long as they join in the process. I've heard that applied to the adhesion of enamel to metal, and agree that it must be a good general term. However, in the case of this ring, I still think 'brazing' is a bit more specific and accurate, if nothing else because it is metal to metal and very probably a metallic bond. Mike, welding is also metal to metal, and so is soft soldering, and so is brazing, etc etc. And in all cases, even including lead solder, there is also that metallic bond. That's not a useful distinction. Yes, but I was arguing just above that fusion can even apply to the bond between glass and metal, where there is no metallic bond. Brazing cannot be applied to things like enamel adhesion; this suggests that brazing (hard soldering) may be closer in the family of concepts of what happened when this ring was made. And, more traditional granulation is actually fused. All these bonds are at least in part, a metallic bond. The useful distinction is the source of the alloy that has flowed between the surfaces to be bonded. Does it come from the parent metals themselves, either just one surface melting onto the other or both surfaces combining and melting together? Or does it come from a seperate, externally applied alloy? THAT's the distinction being made. I don't think that is how it is applied, because brazing can be applied for things like coating of a parent metal to protect it from corrosion, etc. The thing that distinguishes brazing, or hard soldering, from welding and soft soldering is that it occurs above a certain temperature (to distinguish it from soft soldering), and that one metal is flowed onto the other which does not melt, and forms a bond. The end result bond type is "metallic", essentially the same in all these instances even if specific details of bond layer or composition, etc differ. . Brazing, as with jewelers hard soldering, implies the ADDITION/introduction of solder/brazing alloy in some form to the joint, rather than the formation of a bond from existing metal. Well, that is what I have been arguing against. I have another counter-example. Solder inlay using silver solder. Here, only the solder is joined to the non-melting metal. I don't see how we are to deny that the application of this is silver brazing or hard silver soldering, or just plain brazing. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:16:10 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:
Brazing, as with jewelers hard soldering, implies the ADDITION/introduction of solder/brazing alloy in some form to the joint, rather than the formation of a bond from existing metal. It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood your argument in my reply to the above statement. Under everyday conditions it *happens* to be true that a flowing alloy is introduced to a joint. But the usage of "hard soldering" or "brazing" does not *require* this. It seems to me that the physical attributes of the join itself are more important. If those physical join attributes are closer to that of an everyday brazed joint than to, for instance, the attachment of enamel to metal then it would be better to use "braze" than "fuse." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:12:47 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens
wrote: I was arguing just above that fusion can even apply to the bond between glass and metal, where there is no metallic bond. Brazing cannot be applied to things like enamel adhesion; this suggests that brazing (hard soldering) may be closer in the family of concepts of what happened when this ring was made. And, more traditional granulation is actually fused. As I said, the term fusing is fairly imprecise, and refers to multiple types of operations. All it really implies is a melting together. To suggest, however, that fusing two pieces of metal together is the same thing as fusing enamel to metal just because the same term may be used, is incorrect. The two operations produce a different type of bond, as you seem to also suggest. The fact that melting enamel onto metal can be called fusing does not somehow give the word brazing, a greater breadth of meaning. Here's the main key concept. In brazing, or traditional hard soldering, what melts is a distincly different alloy, one who's different composition gives it a lower melting point than the metals being joined. The generally high temperatures involved mean the difference between these melting points may not be all that much, and brazed or soldered joints made with a lesser difference in melting point between filler alloy (solder, etc) and the bonded surfaces, will enjoy a greater degree of diffusion of the filler alloy into the bonded metals, and thus a stronger joint, and a better looking one. But this is still soldering or brazing, not fusing, because it's taking place via the melting of this distinctly different alloy. In fusing, the parts being bonded are themselves simply melted together, or one melted onto the other. In classic soldering or brazing operations, the filler metal is added as a seperate piece of metal, or placed on or in the joint, where it melts bonding the pieces together. it can also be "added" by being generated in situ, which is what happens with the classic methods of granulation, where the distincly seperate and lower melting bonding metal is alloyed in place when the plated-on copper mixes with the gold or silver at the surface of the grains, allowing that surface layer to melt at a temperature below that at which the body of the grains or substrate itself would melt. Granulation can also sometimes be done without this added material, so there is not a seperate alloy formed at the joint. In this case, generally bonding takes place because the metal, such as sterling silver, does not melt into a puddle at one single temperature. Sterling silver is a mix of two types of crystal compositions. One is a eutectic alloy of copper and silver that melts at that combinations eutectic temperature. The majority is mostly silver with just a small amount of copper that melts considerably higher. When you melt sterling silver, as you reach the eutectic temperature, those copper rich grains start to melt, allowing the metal to look "wet", and starting to melt, while the main bulk of the metal, and it's shape, are maintained by the larger mass of higher melting silver rich crystals. Only as you raise the temperature, allowing the eutectic alloy to dissolve more and more of the silver rich phase, does the whole mass melt. When you granulate with sterling silver as either the base metal or the grains (the first is more common), yet without added copper, then what you're relying on is that as the silver first starts to melt, it's surface becomes "wet", allowing bonding to take place. However, this is not due to a distincly different alloy formed at the surface. That is simply how the whole mass of metal is acting, and it's structure returns to it's prior state upon silidification. The bonding you see with your gold grains onto sterling silver may look like just the surface is starting to flow, but this isn't correct. What is happening is that a small PERCENTAGE of the silver is melting, both on the surface and through it's bulk. You only see it at the surface, however. If you doubt that this is the case, heat sterling to that temperature where it starts to look "wet", and press something into it. It will yield easily, like a mass of wet sand, because the copper rich crystals having melted, the rest of the structure is only barely holding together. It's not just the surface. The whole mass becomes slightly slushy. Because the bonding is taking place simply because of the way the silver itself melts, allowing the higher melting gold to bond without it's losing integrity, but doing so without the introduction or formation of any different and lower melting alloy, I still say you're fusing your grains on. If you'd copper plated the gold or silver, or otherwise treated or changed the surfaces of the metals, to force the formation of a specific eutectic alloy which would then do the bonding for you, then you'd be correct in calling this soldering or brazing. I'll admit the difference is subtle in some cases, and linguistically confusing in others. But you also state that what should distinguish the difference is the nature of the bond. Here, you're on thin ice, since unless you're talking about bonding very dissimilar materials like metal and enamel, there is not that big a difference in the nature of the bond. Two pieces of sterling silver bonded by just fusing them together, versus the same two bonded with a tiny bit of hard solder, do not have a clear difference in the nature of the bond. If, in soldering, a minimum amount of solder was used with a good fitting joint, and if the soldering heat was maintained for a little bit, then the different componants of the solder will have diffused into the silver enough so that subsequent remelting of the solder might be difficult or impossible, so then in essence, the joint is the same as a fused one. And in fact, metalurgical analysis of ancient gold and silver work often fails to find any trace of solder or higher percentages of copper, etc, at joints. The reason is not that it wasn't used, but that it's dissipated over time into the parent metals. With good heat contol, the same thing can be done in shorter time too. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
debating pros and cons of harris 19-6 Torch Handle, wt040018 gloor light torch handle, and smith little torch | bizHB | Jewelry | 2 | July 16th 06 05:45 AM |
Help with loom setup please | FtForger | Beads | 2 | June 1st 06 12:04 PM |
Beveling Setup for Sale | Commander Barkfeather | Glass | 2 | September 13th 04 11:25 PM |
Bead Photography Setup - What do you think? | Tinkster | Beads | 16 | August 28th 04 07:17 PM |
'Home' setup for glaze spraying? (UK) | Jake Loddington | Pottery | 1 | March 1st 04 11:43 PM |