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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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 |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
"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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
"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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
granulation
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 |
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 |