Buying a prop-ox torch setup

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:12:47 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens
wrote:

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.

Your "exception" actually nicely illustrates my point. In applying a brazing
alloy to coat something or build up worn parts, you are applying a lower melting
alloy, melting it onto a higher melting alloy. The alloy you're using is
specifically chosen in order to flow at below the melting point of the item
being treated.

But part of this is simply linguistic confusion. The industry, not so concerned
with debating niceties of definition, simply takes the obvious and simple route.
Since they're doing this with the same techniques and materials, (torch, brazing
alloys), it's easy to call it also brazing. And as I pointed out, this is
done with a distinctly different alloy, with the bonding taking place because
that distinctly different alloy melts at lower than the melting point.

However, this particular example isn't really a good one. We also say that
fusing is the simple melting together of two materials. They don't have to be
the same materials, such as enamel on metal, where the metal does not melt but
the enamel does. Your example, above, thus fits what you're calling fusing,
doesn't it. The difference is that the brazing alloy is what's being bonded,
not being used to bond something else. Same thing with solder inlay, as you
also pointed out.

So then. are these examples soldering/brazing? Or fusing?
I'd suggest both, since conventional use of the terms to describe the operations
calles them soldering or brazing, while our little debate would tend to call it
fusing.

All that gets confusing, and as with so many things, it's almost always possible
to find examples of something that negate an argument, and we can get blue in
the face trying to sort it out if we feel it really needs sorting out or matters
a whit. Which is doesn't really.

Use which ever word you're confortable with.

But back to the original question, of applying gold grains to sterling silver,
although it looks like some distince alloy is flowing at the surface to create
the bond, I suggest that this is not the case. Rather, the silver surface
itself is slowly starting to melt in a controlled manner, allowing the gold
grains to bond. And that, by any definition, is not brazing or soldering.

Why not avoid the issue altogether and simply call it what everyone else does.

Granulation.

:-)

Peter

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:04:10 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:

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.

I was not suggesting that. I was suggesting that brazing might better fit
because 'fusing' is so imprecise and vague. With brazing, you at least
know that you are working with metals, which is more precise. Of course,
if I do not prove my point that what was happening is like everyday
brazing in some very important ways, this makes no difference. But I
think I did.

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.

My above comment still applies here.

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.

I would agree with all of that.

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.

Well, again, if I join two pieces of steel melting bronze between, it is
brazing. But also if I coat the steel with bronze by melting the bronze
onto it, it is a brazing operation, too.

Now, If I had two big chunks of high caret gold and joined them with
a lower melting silver, that would be silver brazing or silver soldering.

By analogy, if I had a big chunk of gold and coated it with silver by
melting only the silver, it would also be silver brazing or silver
soldering.

Perhaps one of the confusions is that the gold granules on the ring are so
small, and the hunk of silver that is melted onto them is so big. But in
fact this does not make a real difference, because the process and
resulting joint are essentially the same -- only the size of the pieces
have changed.

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.

My above comment still applies.


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.

I think you are right here. There are some joints, however, like the one
in the ring under discussion, where the nature of the bond would, IMO,
show up quite clearly in cross-section under a scanning electron
microscope as being silver (the brazing 'filler' in this case) attached to
and interpenetrating gold that has not melted. But, yes, the method of
application should also be considered.

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.

Yes, these often were fused by one process or anoher. And sometimes in
ancient jewelry the granules are soldered on. I am right now looking at
a photomicrograph in Ogden's "Ancient Jewelry" that shows a distinctly
lighter alloy between darker granules; Ogden describes this as soldered.
Interestingly, Ogden also classifies welded joints as soldered, which I
find bizar "In the various processes which can be loosely
grouped under the term 'soldering', molten metal is introduced into the
joint area and then cools and solidifies, firmly bonding the components
together. One way of doing this is by so-called 'fusion welding'." [p.51]

There seem to be various reasons for the semantic drift wreaking havoc on
our sore and bleeding typing fingers. Close kinship of words, imprecise
use even by experts, same and similar processes used both in industry and
in individual craft, contagion of meaning, and who knows what else.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:15:44 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:

But part of this is simply linguistic confusion. The industry, not so concerned
with debating niceties of definition, simply takes the obvious and simple route.

Well, definitions can be prescriptive or descriptive. How a term is
actually used is very important.

Since they're doing this with the same techniques and materials, (torch, brazing
alloys), it's easy to call it also brazing. And as I pointed out, this is
done with a distinctly different alloy, with the bonding taking place because
that distinctly different alloy melts at lower than the melting point.

I believe high caret gold and sterling would meet this test.

However, this particular example isn't really a good one. We also say that
fusing is the simple melting together of two materials. They don't have to be
the same materials, such as enamel on metal, where the metal does not melt but
the enamel does. Your example, above, thus fits what you're calling fusing,
doesn't it. The difference is that the brazing alloy is what's being bonded,
not being used to bond something else. Same thing with solder inlay, as you
also pointed out.

Non-prescriptive usage of the terms seems to conflict with this.

So then. are these examples soldering/brazing? Or fusing?
I'd suggest both, since conventional use of the terms to describe the operations
calles them soldering or brazing, while our little debate would tend to call it
fusing.

I would agree that fusing could be applied in the case under
consideration. I just think that brazing is more precise.


All that gets confusing, and as with so many things, it's almost always possible
to find examples of something that negate an argument, and we can get blue in
the face trying to sort it out if we feel it really needs sorting out or matters
a whit. Which is doesn't really.

Use which ever word you're confortable with.

But back to the original question, of applying gold grains to sterling silver,
although it looks like some distince alloy is flowing at the surface to create
the bond, I suggest that this is not the case. Rather, the silver surface
itself is slowly starting to melt in a controlled manner, allowing the gold
grains to bond. And that, by any definition, is not brazing or soldering.

Well, if we silver-braze high caret gold with hard solder, it is
silver-brazing or hard soldering. Sterling is only a bit higher in
melting point, and still way below the high caret gold used here.
The operation and resulting joint are very close to a hard soldered piece.


Why not avoid the issue altogether and simply call it what everyone else does.

Granulation.

:-)

Peter

Yeah. Think I'll go watch Craig Ferguson. He makes high fun of people
who use usenet.

"mbstevens" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:15:44 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:

But part of this is simply linguistic confusion. The industry, not so
concerned
with debating niceties of definition, simply takes the obvious and simple
route.

Well, definitions can be prescriptive or descriptive. How a term is
actually used is very important.


I quite agree. For your edification then, I include the following.

This: - ^ - is a caret. This: - 1/24 - is a Karat. This; -
200milligrams - is a Carat.

--

Don Thompson

Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe

It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since they're doing this with the same techniques and materials, (torch,
brazing
alloys), it's easy to call it also brazing. And as I pointed out, this
is
done with a distinctly different alloy, with the bonding taking place
because
that distinctly different alloy melts at lower than the melting point.

I believe high caret gold and sterling would meet this test.

However, this particular example isn't really a good one. We also say
that
fusing is the simple melting together of two materials. They don't have
to be
the same materials, such as enamel on metal, where the metal does not
melt but
the enamel does. Your example, above, thus fits what you're calling
fusing,
doesn't it. The difference is that the brazing alloy is what's being
bonded,
not being used to bond something else. Same thing with solder inlay, as
you
also pointed out.

Non-prescriptive usage of the terms seems to conflict with this.

So then. are these examples soldering/brazing? Or fusing?
I'd suggest both, since conventional use of the terms to describe the
operations
calles them soldering or brazing, while our little debate would tend to
call it
fusing.

I would agree that fusing could be applied in the case under
consideration. I just think that brazing is more precise.


All that gets confusing, and as with so many things, it's almost always
possible
to find examples of something that negate an argument, and we can get
blue in
the face trying to sort it out if we feel it really needs sorting out or
matters
a whit. Which is doesn't really.

Use which ever word you're confortable with.

But back to the original question, of applying gold grains to sterling
silver,
although it looks like some distince alloy is flowing at the surface to
create
the bond, I suggest that this is not the case. Rather, the silver
surface
itself is slowly starting to melt in a controlled manner, allowing the
gold
grains to bond. And that, by any definition, is not brazing or
soldering.

Well, if we silver-braze high caret gold with hard solder, it is
silver-brazing or hard soldering. Sterling is only a bit higher in
melting point, and still way below the high caret gold used here.
The operation and resulting joint are very close to a hard soldered piece.


Why not avoid the issue altogether and simply call it what everyone else
does.

Granulation.

:-)

Peter

Yeah. Think I'll go watch Craig Ferguson. He makes high fun of people
who use usenet.

"mbstevens" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:15:44 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:


Well, if we silver-braze high caret gold with hard solder, it is
silver-brazing or hard soldering. Sterling is only a bit higher in
melting point, and still way below the high caret gold used here.
The operation and resulting joint are very close to a hard soldered piece.


When "soldering" Gold, even when "Brazing" Gold, one does not ordinarily
use "Silver Solder". One uses Gold Solder in the appropriate formulation for
the Karat Gold one is "Soldering".

--

Don Thompson

Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once,
and that makes me an expert. "

There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.
~Goethe

It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom;
it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.
~Mark Twain

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Apr 25, 11:08 pm, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:43:40 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:00:49 +0000, Abrasha wrote:

There you go again! This is NOT brazing!

http://tinyurl.com/cuqzf
...metallic bond is the main way brazing holds metals together.
Welding simply mixes the metals making them one chunk of metal.

Yes, though the difference between this and brazing is that the two
objects/surfaces/etc being bonded are both melted. Whether they actually mix
much depends on the type of welding. If both are the same type, and both
surfaces melt, they will solidify as one, recrystalize as one, without needing
to actually mix. If only one surface melts, as with your gold on silver
granulation (according to your analysis), then this is not brazing, because
you've not introduced a seperate filler alloy. Rather, the molten surface
diffuses into the non molten one, producing a bond. 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. 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. This is
then the same thing, metalurgically, as what happens with classic granulation by
means the the added copper. A eutectic alloy forms at the interface, giving the
bond. In normal single alloy granulation, the amount of that eutectic alloy
that can form is limited by the amount of copper and the temperature to which
it's raised. With gold on silver, though, because it's likely that the mix of
the gold alloy, with additional silver, makes a lower melting alloy, then the
potential supply of eutectic alloys is rather larger. how much forms will be
limited by the temperature, and by the melting point of the resulting mix. Now,
I don't know for sure that this will be what happens. It depends on whether the
addition of silver to the gold alloy would raise or lower the melting point of
the gold or silver. If either one is lowered, then what forms at the interface
is this new alloy, and then, the proper term, just as with classic granulation,
might be eutectic soldering, the term Littledale used, if I recall, to describe
his method of granulation using copper or other metallic salts to do the same
thing.

In jewelry use, brazing is a term seldom used. More commonly used in other
industries, where "soldering" refers to what jewelers call "soft solder", such
as lead soldering, the term brazing in industry generally applies to the same
sort of operation as we jewelers call soldering (hard soldering), and generally
implies the addition of a distinct brazing alloy, not the in situ formation of
one from parent metals.. In classic granulation, brazing/soldering might be an
appropriate term since additional external metal, ie copper from plating or from
reduced copper salts, is added to the joint resulting in a distinct third alloy
that forms the joint before dissipating into the parent metal. But in the
method described in this case, no external filler or solder or other metal is
added. The whole is simply heated until fusion takes place. Since it happens
with one or both surfaces at least slightly melted, "fusing" is likely the best
term. If it were done without heating to melting temps, (as in making mokume
billets), then it would be diffusion bonding. 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.

But in the end, might I suggest that there's way too much argument going on
about the definition of the words. While words are important, much more
fundamental and important is to understand the process going on. After that,
the words are just tools to communicate, and in this case, even the words used
are not consistant between the jewelry industry and the rest of the world.

So can we just not get so worked up over which word? It's not the important
part of the content, nor worth getting angry about.

Peter

Call it "diffusion welding" perhaps? (or diffusion bonding, if the
term "welding" makes your ears smart) Similar processes are used in
industry to join both like and dissimilar materials without additional
filler material, often with pressure added, as well as heat. Probably
a pretty good description of what is happening on a molecular level,
as well.

On Apr 25, 11:28 pm, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote:

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.


Peter -- not trying to throw yet another smelly fish into the stewpot,
but....wouldn't that include what happens in Keum-Boo? That's pretty
much GOTTA be diffusion bonding, right? And at much lower temps than
the melting point of either alloy.

So when does it change from diffusion bonding to "XXX-ing" (fill in
your favorite term for the XXX), and, of course, WHY?

Regards,

Bob

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:26:29 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Bob
wrote:

On Apr 25, 11:28 pm, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote:

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.


Peter -- not trying to throw yet another smelly fish into the stewpot,
but....wouldn't that include what happens in Keum-Boo? That's pretty
much GOTTA be diffusion bonding, right? And at much lower temps than
the melting point of either alloy.

So when does it change from diffusion bonding to "XXX-ing" (fill in
your favorite term for the XXX), and, of course, WHY?


the difference between soldering/brazing/fusing and diffusion bonding such as
with Keum-Boo is that with the latter, the metal never melts, while with the
other methods, at least one surface melts enough so that liquid metal alloy is
filling the gaps, penetrating into solid metal, and forming the joint that way.
With diffusion bonding, the temp is high enough to allow sufficient atomic
mobility that bonding can occur in a reasonable amount of time, but none of the
surfaces actually melt.\

Keum Boo is actually a rather interesting and unusual example of diffusion
bonding, due to the ease with which it's done and the relatively low
temperature. This has to do with the fact that gold and silver are completely
soluable in each other, and almost totally interchangeable with each other in
their respectice crystals. So diffusion can happen fairly easily. Additionally,
above a certain temperature, pure gold tends to be remarkably permiable to
oxygen. So what happens with keum boo is that when the gold foil is in contact
with the fine silver surface, not only does diffusion from each surface into the
other happen easily, but any oxides or surface bound oxygen on either surface,
that might interfere with the bonding, gets absorbed into the gold and it
diffuses away from the bond area. Tends to be a one way street, since upon
reaching the outer surface of the gold foil, it encounters reducing atmosphere,
and leaves the gold. The result is a contact area that's easier to get into
intimate atomic level contact with it's mating surface than it really should be
due to the deoxidizing action of the pure gold foil. Combined with the already
considerable ease with which gold and silver diffuse into each other, keum boo
is then seen to bond much more quickly and at lower temps than other diffusion
bonding usually done in jewelry work (like mokume billet production).

The point at which it's no longer diffusion bonding is the point at which molten
metal is flowing into the joint, either because one whole side of the joint is
melting, or because a lower melting alloy has been introduced, such as solder or
brazing alloy.

Peter

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:26:14 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Bob
wrote:

On Apr 25, 11:08 pm, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:43:40 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry mbstevens

wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:00:49 +0000, Abrasha wrote:

There you go again! This is NOT brazing!

http://tinyurl.com/cuqzf
...metallic bond is the main way brazing holds metals together.
Welding simply mixes the metals making them one chunk of metal.

Yes, though the difference between this and brazing is that the two
objects/surfaces/etc being bonded are both melted. Whether they actually mix
much depends on the type of welding. If both are the same type, and both
surfaces melt, they will solidify as one, recrystalize as one, without needing
to actually mix. If only one surface melts, as with your gold on silver
granulation (according to your analysis), then this is not brazing, because
you've not introduced a seperate filler alloy. Rather, the molten surface
diffuses into the non molten one, producing a bond. 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. 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. This is
then the same thing, metalurgically, as what happens with classic granulation by
means the the added copper. A eutectic alloy forms at the interface, giving the
bond. In normal single alloy granulation, the amount of that eutectic alloy
that can form is limited by the amount of copper and the temperature to which
it's raised. With gold on silver, though, because it's likely that the mix of
the gold alloy, with additional silver, makes a lower melting alloy, then the
potential supply of eutectic alloys is rather larger. how much forms will be
limited by the temperature, and by the melting point of the resulting mix. Now,
I don't know for sure that this will be what happens. It depends on whether the
addition of silver to the gold alloy would raise or lower the melting point of
the gold or silver. If either one is lowered, then what forms at the interface
is this new alloy, and then, the proper term, just as with classic granulation,
might be eutectic soldering, the term Littledale used, if I recall, to describe
his method of granulation using copper or other metallic salts to do the same
thing.

In jewelry use, brazing is a term seldom used. More commonly used in other
industries, where "soldering" refers to what jewelers call "soft solder", such
as lead soldering, the term brazing in industry generally applies to the same
sort of operation as we jewelers call soldering (hard soldering), and generally
implies the addition of a distinct brazing alloy, not the in situ formation of
one from parent metals.. In classic granulation, brazing/soldering might be an
appropriate term since additional external metal, ie copper from plating or from
reduced copper salts, is added to the joint resulting in a distinct third alloy
that forms the joint before dissipating into the parent metal. But in the
method described in this case, no external filler or solder or other metal is
added. The whole is simply heated until fusion takes place. Since it happens
with one or both surfaces at least slightly melted, "fusing" is likely the best
term. If it were done without heating to melting temps, (as in making mokume
billets), then it would be diffusion bonding. 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.

But in the end, might I suggest that there's way too much argument going on
about the definition of the words. While words are important, much more
fundamental and important is to understand the process going on. After that,
the words are just tools to communicate, and in this case, even the words used
are not consistant between the jewelry industry and the rest of the world.

So can we just not get so worked up over which word? It's not the important
part of the content, nor worth getting angry about.

Peter

Call it "diffusion welding" perhaps? (or diffusion bonding, if the
term "welding" makes your ears smart) Similar processes are used in
industry to join both like and dissimilar materials without additional
filler material, often with pressure added, as well as heat. Probably
a pretty good description of what is happening on a molecular level,
as well.


In diffusion bonding, no metal actually melts. Atoms from each surface diffuse
into the other surface, creating a bond.

Peter

mbstevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:15:44 +0000, Peter W.. Rowe, wrote:

But part of this is simply linguistic confusion. The industry, not so concerned
with debating niceties of definition, simply takes the obvious and simple route.

Well, definitions can be prescriptive or descriptive. How a term is
actually used is very important.

Since they're doing this with the same techniques and materials, (torch, brazing
alloys), it's easy to call it also brazing. And as I pointed out, this is
done with a distinctly different alloy, with the bonding taking place because
that distinctly different alloy melts at lower than the melting point.

I believe high caret gold and sterling would meet this test.

However, this particular example isn't really a good one. We also say that
fusing is the simple melting together of two materials. They don't have to be
the same materials, such as enamel on metal, where the metal does not melt but
the enamel does. Your example, above, thus fits what you're calling fusing,
doesn't it. The difference is that the brazing alloy is what's being bonded,
not being used to bond something else. Same thing with solder inlay, as you
also pointed out.

Non-prescriptive usage of the terms seems to conflict with this.

So then. are these examples soldering/brazing? Or fusing?
I'd suggest both, since conventional use of the terms to describe the operations
calles them soldering or brazing, while our little debate would tend to call it
fusing.

I would agree that fusing could be applied in the case under
consideration. I just think that brazing is more precise.

All that gets confusing, and as with so many things, it's almost always possible
to find examples of something that negate an argument, and we can get blue in
the face trying to sort it out if we feel it really needs sorting out or matters
a whit. Which is doesn't really.

Use which ever word you're confortable with.

But back to the original question, of applying gold grains to sterling silver,
although it looks like some distince alloy is flowing at the surface to create
the bond, I suggest that this is not the case. Rather, the silver surface
itself is slowly starting to melt in a controlled manner, allowing the gold
grains to bond. And that, by any definition, is not brazing or soldering.

Well, if we silver-braze high caret gold with hard solder, it is
silver-brazing or hard soldering. Sterling is only a bit higher in
melting point, and still way below the high caret gold used here.
The operation and resulting joint are very close to a hard soldered piece.

Why not avoid the issue altogether and simply call it what everyone else does.

Granulation.

:-)

Peter

Yeah. Think I'll go watch Craig Ferguson. He makes high fun of people
who use usenet.




Yo dude,

Please stop beating a dead horse.

And while you're at it, learn the difference between "caret" and "karat".

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com