Jump to content

Chemical analysis results


Recommended Posts

May I just put in my five cents regarding George's speculations on :

 

1. how much it will likely cost to test a sword?

Like a DNA-Analysis it probably starts at a high price and gets cheaper as the technological methods improve.

 

2. where these tests can be done?

Shinsa might be a good place to have an additional analysis or at least organizations as the NBTHK (maybe at first only for Juyo papers)

 

3. will there be a publication/table we can obtain which will explain what a "good" result is for us to check our test results against? (one for koto - shinto - shinshinto - gendaito - gunto - shinsakuto?). Will there be one for each smith/region...etc?

NMB might be the right place to establish such a data base. Might be a way to sponsor the forum maybe as a section for premium members.

 

4. do you think it will be necessary to insist on one of these test sheets being supplied by dealers everywhere before collectors buy?

As necessary as a NBTHK/NTHK paper.

 

5. how long do you think it will be before forged certificates appear?

Probably as soon as these results are generally accepted. But the good thing is you might easily verify them by another analysis.

 

6. how much longer do you think it will be before it is unnecessary to rely on such institutions as the Japanese Token Societies.

I do not think the results will render such organizations unnecessary at all. The kind of steel is surely not the only attribute the blades have.

 

7. do you think textbooks on Nihonto will now lose their relevence (and value)?

As the knowledge on each school and swordsmith will be still necessary to evaluate the individual blade, books will not loose their relevance and value. Only ignorant minds would focus on the steel alone.

 

8. once this system is in place, do you think there will be any need for forums such as this (won't we know all from the test result?)?

Nr. 6 and 7 applies to this as well. Such a system might even improve the importance of such a forum.

 

9. where will all the "reject" swords go?

If they are still beautiful, I will take them gladly.

 

10. will they be worth anything?

As much as people are willing to spend on them. I still do not get, why people are paying that much money for guntos but they are definitly buying these swords.

 

Just thoughts of a newbie. Please feel free to correct me.

 

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, a few questions:

 

I understand this only reads a few molecules into the surface. Seems one would want a cleaned nakago to ensure you are not scanning patina and detritus left by previous owners. But we all know its verboten to clean one. I assume the ji is being cleaned w/denatured alcohol or similar to remove wax/oil before its tested.

 

Any pl;ans to shoot some of that super-duper wootz/true Damascus to figure out why its not able to made today ala koto steel?

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day to all,

 

Curtis, you got it, like DNA , it is the little differences that will be indicators. For example, when we find high levels of Molybdenum and Vanadium in a steel it is NOT tamehagne. Just like some DNA indictors will tell us if you have an asian ancestor.

 

John, this is a direct cut and paste from Hitachi

The Association of Japanese Sword Forgers was established in 1933, and in response to requests for the manufacturing of the tama-hagane that is the primary material used in Japanese swords Yasugi Steelworks erected the Yasukuni tatara at Torigami (upstream on the Hi'i River). Production of tama-hagane would continue at the Yasukuni tatara until the end of the war in 1945.
Sorry mate :dunno:

 

Robert T (Takahashi), you nailed the answers to George's questions perfectly 10 out of 10

 

If you want to get the best from this information and learn a little about the steels, read through the entire section on Tatara on the Hitachi website. This is a great resource.

 

http://www.hitachi-metals.co.jp/e/tatara/nnp01.htm

 

Although my research dosen't agree with everything, I most certainly support 99% of this material. In a nutshell it relates to changes and advances in Tatara technology over time. Basically this is what it says. The development of the Tatara can be broken down to 3 distinct periods.

 

1) Pre Tatara; The archeological evidence shows that the Tatara of the type we know, that specifically smelts steel from sand iron only appeared in the mid Muromachi period. Before that time iron in the form of "wrought iron" and "cast iron" was produced in a more primitive fashion. I'm sure this statement will fire up a few comments so here is a quote from Hitachi

The famous Chigusa and Dewa types of steel appeared at the start of the 16th century. These steels are believed to have been made through a process consciously intended to create steel in mass quantities, without pig iron or wrought iron. This is thought to mark the start of the kera-oshi manufacturing method, and to form the background that made trade with the Ming possible.

2) Early Tatara. The first Tatara were not capable of achieving high temperatures due to the use of the box bellows to supply air (oxygen) to the smelt ). Tamehagane from this type of tatara is highest in metalic inclusions and impurities.

3) Mid period Tatara. At the end of the Muromachi, tatara operations centred in the one area of Japan. the Chukugo mountains in Shimane (where it still is) . The technology of the foot belows and a new method of cleaning the sand iron before the smelt improved the finished quality of the tamehagane. Now the steel is considerably cleaner with lower levels of impurities. By the beginning of the Edo period the tamehagane from Chukugo was distributed in Osaka through the steel merchants set up there ( and to some extent regulated by the Tokugawa ).

NOTE: At the same time we see the advent of Nambantetsu, imported by the Dutch and also shipped to Osaka for distribution. So came the advent of the "Castle town" sword schools who basically went shopping for their raw materials all in one place. ( as with many sword related facts, there are always the exceptions) The mid period Tatara produced tamehagane until roughly the end of what we know as the Shinto period.

4) Modern Tatara, the adoption of balance bellows to the Tatara changed the finished tamehagane again. Now the Tatara can achieve much higher temperatures which means all the metalic tramp material can be removed leaving behind iron, carbon and silicon. A super clean tamehagane, and the worlds cleanest silicon steel. This is still the current method of tamehagane production.

 

There is more to it, but basically I am looking for indicators for the "type of tamehagane" relating to the Era and also I am looking to classify Nambantetsu ( I beleive there was more than one type). Changes in the readings on different parts of the sword also give clear indicators to construction, which again can indicate Era of manufacture.

 

Gentlemen. the Shinsa is not dead, far from it. In fact this tool in combination with the Shinsa process will enhance and compliment each other and give us a much clearer result. It will take some time to collect data, even years, but i intend to make it a personal project and I'm looking for all the support I can get.

 

The other results will be up soon.

 

regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day to all,

 

Here are the rest of the results. I have studied them and can see many trends and possible indicators already. At this stage I would like to invite those with some metallurgical experience and knowledge to study the results carefully and contact me by PM.

 

All the blades in this trial were signed and highly papered. I can not and will not give out any information as to the owners of trial blade samples. In the future my intention is to accumulate data on more similarly signed and highly papered blades. I will allow owners to withdraw blades from the data before publishing if they are unhappy with the results.

 

Here they are

 

 

cheers,

post-114-14196815701878_thumb.jpg

post-114-14196815704066_thumb.jpg

post-114-14196815706913_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Harry,

 

The need for a clean surface is obvious to get a good read. But this device is designed to test coating thicknesses as well, yes it only reads on the molecular level but can penetrate up to .5mm deep. We had it set for a penetration reading. It can read under the surface corrosion of a nakago although it wouldn't get a good read on a heavily corroded item. Even though it can penetrate that deep, one swipe of uchiko would remove more material than this machine does.

 

I'm not planning any research into Damascus , but I have been researching Wootz and other Asian steels

 

cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again,

Thanks for your analysis on my "10 queries" Robert ...quite reasonable responses.

If I am understanding your position, it is that the scientific testing of swords will have no effect on the world of Nihonto collecting...everything will just go on as before. You believe that positively identifying those swords which are not what they "appear to be" and/or "are not what they are appraised to be" will have no effect on this appreciation and collecting of swords. Well, I think it will...it may not be a bad thing, but it will have an effect, it all depends on how the fraternity reacts. I do dread people rushing hither and yon waving "test results" and comparing columns of figures rather than gazing intently at a blade.

 

I predict that from the time the testing is proven to be accurate, the view will appear that the test is more important than any appraisal...more important than any "perceived history of any sword"...all determined by their metallurgical content and the anomalies which determine how they are constructed. This leads to the question of what if they "fail" these tests? What is the assessment of a Masamune or a Doji-giri, or any other previously assessed and accepted blade that turns out to be made from iron which "shouldn't be there" or is constructed in a way that "just isn't right"? What would this result mean for the sword? Is it an unknown variation or "wrong"? I am amazed that you think nothing will change.

 

I do have a couple of queries on your responses if I may...

 

Appropo the above, you said the steel alone is not the only attribute of a blade...can you expand on what a blade that "is no longer of the steel it is supposed to be" now is?

 

You would gladly accept the blades that fail the steel and construction test "if they are still beautiful"...what are you collecting in this case?

 

appropo the last query, you said you could not understand why people paid good money for gunto ...how does this statement sit with the collecting of metallurgically and constructionally failed blades (like a gunto presumeably), and your accepting of failed blades because they are still beautiful?

Does this mean that you would collect gunto if they are beautiful?

 

In closing, I suppose that the scientific testing of historical artefacts is inevitable, in my view it is fraught with incalculable effects on the study we love. While it is imperative in some to seek the cold technical truth in art, in others it is imperative to seek the intangible intent and meaning in art.

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day George,

 

Firstly, I must say your questions are most intelligent and well thought out. I can tell you even from the initial results, Kantei and Shinsa will never be replaced. You can see that the results from the Bungo blade and the Eisho Sukesada were almost identical. Unless smiths are known to do something peculiar or strange the chemical analysis will never be able to determine a smith with certainty. Many Shinshinto schools, Shinto schools and Koto schools used the same source material.

 

I must say that the readings from the nakagos gave the best results. As the nakago was a "less worked" material, the trace elements remained in higher percentages. The readings from the blades however were a little disappointing. We noticed that as we read the Gendai and Shinshinto with tamehagane, we saw on the screen no trace elements at all. The Shinto and particularly the Koto blade tamehagane however were showing all sorts of trace elements as the readings were progressing on the screen. This was the moleculles being sorted right before our eyes. Unfortunately the readings were so low that they were at the limit of the detection ability of the equipment. When the machine gave a final reading , it disregarded the trace elements that were borderline. When we tested the Oei Bizen blade metal the trace elements were stronger. The operator is confident that in the very near future this technology will improve its detection capability to a level that will make our job easier.

 

George, they tested the Spear of Destiny, a priceless relic that was supposed to have pieced the side of Christ. Unfortunately it was 400 years too young. It's still a priceless relic anyway. This technology is not going to go away, ultimately we will all have to accept that science is here to stay. The collectors of the future will be much better of because to it. As far as testing Kokuho and Meito goes, I'll leave that to the Japanese to do. Personally I think that type of sword should be left alone and not put on trial to speak, the history and the provenance alone outweighs the importance of any test results.

 

cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TAMA = ball 玉

HA = blade/edge 刃

GANE/KANE = metal 金

 

The word "Tama-Hagane" 玉鋼 was artificially constructed only in the Meiji Period.

 

Until then there were regional expressions which included 刃金 Hagane, Tetsu, Kane, etc.

 

元々は「てつ、かね、刃金(はがね)」など地方によって様々な呼ばれ方をしていたが、明治になって「玉鋼」と言う造語が生まれ、以降名称が統一された。

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8E%89%E9%8B%BC

 

In the interests of word origins and standardization of spelling. :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Adrian

 

Apologies if I missed a reference to it but where there are no results, as indicted by an asterix, I'm assuming the element in that location below detection level? I ask because it makes a difference in terms of getting an idea of average values.

 

It might also be prudent to try and eliminate any contaminants that may be present in the steel surface as a result of the application of nugui. After all, nugui is applied to effect a very visible change in the steel's appearance so one would assume that there is a material change on the metal's surface.

 

Also; Chromium, Titanium and Aluminium oxides, are common polishing powders and can be used very effectively to polish a burnished surface.

 

It might be of interest to compare similar a series of analysis' from blades that are in the process of being polished, ie; before the final finished processes are carried out.

 

thanks and kind regards,

 

Ford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Ford and all,

 

Yes, asterix means too low to detect. You make some good points. I had thought about the effect of nugui as well. This research is only just beginning, I will definately be making some trial calibration samples. I intend to have both polished and unpolished surfaces and also have the trial samples certified by the full lab test version of the XRF spectrometer. That will give us a better comparison for calibration although the supplier also has certified calibration samples (not of swords but of elements ).

 

The XRF scanner was set for maximum penetration i.e 0.5mm below the surface. I'm not quite sure how that works but i'll take the technicians word for it for now.

 

If you look at this page from Hitachi you will see that the sand iron is very high in Titanium and Aluminium with some trace Chromium

http://www.hitachi-metals.co.jp/e/tatara/nnp020603.htm

 

Titanium and Aluminium is what I've been looking for in metalics. Interestingly Chromium is comming up across the board even in the nakagos. It seems to be hard to get out of the tamehagane and even the Bessemer steel.

 

Now compare the Titanium columns. In the blade metal tests (not the nakagos) it is all over the Shinto blades and the Bizen and Bungo blades from Koto but it virtually disappears in Shinshinto, Gendai ( the tamehagane samples that is) and interestingly the Koto Mino blade. My assumption is that it indicates a similar source material, maybe Chukugo mountains sand iron tamehagane for example. Maybe in Shinshinto the higher tatara temperatures were able to remove the Titanium. As for the Mino blade, the sand iron may be from a different source low in Titanium. It is way too early to call it an indicator, but would like to see what more sampling produces.

 

Now compare the Aluminium colums, it only shows up in nakagos. It may be that at the temperatures required to make steel rather than iron, Aluminium can be removed in the slag. Very scare in Koto, Shinshinto (except the bessemer steel Tosa blade) but heavy in the Shinto, except it disappears in the Sukehiro and the Bungo blade. In fact the Sukehiro and the Bungo blade are very very similar. Now the Mino and the Shinto blades are also very similar, except the Mino blade is the only one showing Phosphorus.

 

There are definately avenues to investigate in further trials. I will study these figures some more over the weekend and then do some comparison charts listing the similar readings together. Very interesting indeed.

 

 

cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Adrian

 

yes, I was aware of that bit of data on the Hitachi site (I thought Chris suggested that site was too old to take as a relaible source though ;) ) but the reason I mentioned the negui was to eliminate it as a possible contamination of the underlying material. Hence the need for samples from blades prior to finish polishing.

 

I think it would also be helpful to see what the tamahagane analysis looks like after the iron sand has been processed in the tatara. This would give an indication of the sort of change the raw material undergoes at this early stage. I'm sure there are some published analysis' of tamahagane around. If memory serves there are some in past issues of the NBTHK journals. I'll see what I can uncover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear George,

thanks for your queries on my response. Although Adrian already made a good point, I will try to answer your queries as well.

 

Appropo the above, you said the steel alone is not the only attribute of a blade...can you expand on what a blade that "is no longer of the steel it is supposed to be" now is?

I was just saying that although an analysis of the steel might show an unexpected result, the swordsmith might have used nanbantetsu or just tried to experiment. Even nowadays some of the modern swordsmiths vary in the composition of steel used to achieve better results. In my opinion a sword with such an unexpected result would be somehow similar to sword with an unexpected signature or school.

 

You would gladly accept the blades that fail the steel and construction test "if they are still beautiful"...what are you collecting in this case?

Well, I believe there are a lot more aspects besides the steel that would be worth collecting, e.g. historical significance, shape of blade, artful horimono, hamon, etc. It is similar to collecting blades with a proven gimei signature or mumei blades.

 

appropo the last query, you said you could not understand why people paid good money for gunto ...how does this statement sit with the collecting of metallurgically and constructionally failed blades (like a gunto presumeably), and your accepting of failed blades because they are still beautiful? Does this mean that you would collect gunto if they are beautiful?

I just cannot understand why people are paying that much money for a machine made standard blade (Gunto). I accept that they have a historical background (as all militaria have), but I doubt they are true art and worth the money they are sold (just my humble opinion). Gendaito on the other hand can definitely be beautiful and I would certainly buy a skillfully made gendaito. Although it is often cheaper to go for older swords.

 

Therefore I can say that such an analysis (even on a valid database) would not render a skillful attribution based on other facts useless. And I am not even speaking of the pleasure to take part in kantei. I hope I could describe my thoughts well enough.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Ford and all,

 

Yes, quite correct, we will need analysis of tamhagane kera. I am sure the Wako Museum holds samples of kera and iron slag recovered from different archeological sites. I am planning a trip there for research. I will also need lots of broken blades from different eras to make calibration reference samples. I have a source who can also provide C14 dated verified sword blades from Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, China and Mongolia. He is involved in similar research with asian swords, armour, smelt and blacksmith sites etc. I feel this data will be necessary once we start looking at older blades. I will also need data from English steel, Wootz other forms of Nambantetsu. The list goes on.

 

TRIAL CONCLUSIONS

 

Primary goals are.

1) Establish the feasibility and accuracy of this technology for our purpose. Answer: The Hand Held XRF Spectrometer (HHXRF)is a feasible tool to use in the chemical analysis of Japanese swords. Although its current accuracy would need to be improved to some degree to get the desired results from small amounts of trace elements. After talking to the technical support team, the opinion is that the HHXRF programming can be adjusted to take into account very small traces. I will organise a new trial on my own collection once we have established that this is viable.

2) Establish the presence of variables i.e chemical compounds and specifically trace metals in the finished Japanese swords. Answer: These variables and trace elements are definitely there in the finished sword blades

 

 

Secondary goals, Added bonus would be

1) Discovering "possible" indicators that may be present to determine tamahagane or western steel or other as the source material. Answer: This trial definately proved that indicators can be read to determine the presence of Bessemer produced steel and Nambantetsu.

2) Discovering "possible" indicators that will with more data determine school characteristics. Answer: This trial proved that with more data some school characteristics will became evident, although many schools will have similar characteristics which may make it impossible to evaluate for example a Bizen blade from a Bungo blade of the same era.

 

SUMMARY

 

With advances in this technology, the assemby of valid data and reference sampling I feel the HHXRF will become a valuable tool to assist in the assessment of Japanese swords. I do not feel that it will become a replacement for Shinsa but a tool that can be used to assist determinations. I also feel it has great value in detecting some problems associated with sword collecting such as welded in nakagos and Shinshinto swords made to look like O-suriage Koto. It may well be of great assistance in determining Nambantetsu and sword construction. In the end a good Shinsa team could give us the same answers anyway. This device may find its greatest role is determining information about swords in the "unpolished state" outside of the Shinsa room. Every day collectors are making that big choice "Will I or won't I spend thousands of dollars having this rusty sword polished and sent to Shinsa?" I can also see this device being valuable for providing a chemical fingerprint to assist in the registration of mumei blades and may one day be in use for Airport Customs determinations for example.

 

I will be organising in the near future a more extensive trial if we can tweak this machine to give us better readings on trace elements on the blade metals. In the meantime I will be asking for donations of sword pieces, broken sword blades etc. from my fellow Australian collectors and will also be researching more background information. Eventually all my findings , including data charts will be published online and in print.

 

thank you all for your time and fine comments

 

regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great work all the best in your future research - keep track of everything you find as I am sure that several professional journals would be interested in your work. Think of the thousands of different metal collectable and art objects that have been copied/forged as in forgeries and how you could test them.. even coins :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good day Adrian,

I complement you on your initiative and look forward to more of this research. :clap:

I do however have some notions of my own concerning the conclusions made.

 

Firstly; I disagree with placing a point on the tamahagane timeline from the appearance of the kera-oshi method.The tatara has evolved from a cylindrical stack of various heights into a rectangular shape with a proportional height;what we now call the kera-oshi tatara.Semantics aside; iron sand (a mixture of iron oxides) must be reduced to iron and then carburized to obtain steel. The smelting operations carried out in ancient times gave a variety of products ranging from wrought iron-steel-cast (pig) iron and was dependent on many factors.Most notably the atmosphere within the stack (variable within the stack column), the temperature and the tuyere placement.

The "bloom" or the lump of metal left in the bottom was usually a mixture of the three. Even the kera-oshi method produced a mixture but was designed and run to produce more "tamahagane" and less wrought and cast.

 

Secondly; perhaps a better indicator of modern steel would be the manganese content.This element was easily picked up within the slag and carried off as waste. Addition of Mn was a modern convention to strengthen the steel and was present in very low concentration in the bloom or kera.

 

Here is an excerpt from a book titled "Mining in Japan Past and Present" from 1909.

 

“The iron produced there (Chugoku region,sic) is usually classified into the varieties of 1. pig iron, 2.“Kera,” 3.steel and, 4.wrought iron. An analysis of “Kera” was made by the Geological Survey of Japan with the following results: carbon 3.94; iron 95.18; phosphorous 0.35; manganese 0.05; silicon 0.11.”

 

Looking forward to more discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Alan,

 

Firstly; I disagree with placing a point on the tamahagane timeline from the appearance of the kera-oshi method.The tatara has evolved from a cylindrical stack of various heights into a rectangular shape with a proportional height;what we now call the kera-oshi tatara.Semantics aside; iron sand (a mixture of iron oxides) must be reduced to iron and then carburized to obtain steel. The smelting operations carried out in ancient times gave a variety of products ranging from wrought iron-steel-cast (pig) iron and was dependent on many factors.Most notably the atmosphere within the stack (variable within the stack column), the temperature and the tuyere placement. The "bloom" or the lump of metal left in the bottom was usually a mixture of the three. Even the kera-oshi method produced a mixture but was designed and run to produce more "tamahagane" and less wrought and cast.

 

Its not semantics, the Kera-oshi method changed the process of producing tetsu in Japan. Prior to that the bloom product was not tamehagane as we know it, it contained little directly usable steel, and all the kera was reprocessed before becomming steel usable as sword steel. You could not break up the bloom and pick out steel like is done today, it was too indistinguishable. The Kera-oshi method was the first to produce steel as a intended and direct product of the bloom. Previous to the Kera-oshi method all proto tataras produced basically wrought iron and cast iron ( I prefer to use the term cast iron as pig iron is a modern term derived from a 19th century process where the cast iron was cast into a tree like mold with bulbous apendages resemmbling piglets suckling, and actually it is not the same process).Before Kera-oshi steel was produced by either the co-fusion method or the older method of decarborisation and/or carborisation forging.

 

The cylinder stack smelting method ( I assume the half buried cylinder type) that developed in northern Honshu and spread south is actually a different method than the box method which later developed into the tatara. Some authorities quote that sand iron was used in the cylinder type, but most now agree that this type of smelter was used primarily for processing iron ore (magnetite) not iron sand. The half buried cylinder produced cast iron and wrought iron. With the inovations of the box type and the tatara smelting sand iron, the cylinder type disappeared from use.

 

Now, I know that information about early smelting techniques is muddy. The inforamtion has even changed over the time of my research as new discoveries have been made. You and I would not be the first to disagree on these points. We can not be specific about changes in the sword steel either. What I do know is over time the chemical make up of sword steel changed and evolved, my research is trying to shine some light on these changes.

 

Secondly; perhaps a better indicator of modern steel would be the manganese content.This element was easily picked up within the slag and carried off as waste. Addition of Mn was a modern convention to strengthen the steel and was present in very low concentration in the bloom or kera.

 

 

Agreed on the Maganese for Bessemer steel. But I need to research more on Yasugi crucible steel and changes in the steel produced by Japan after adopting modern methods in the 1880's.

 

Here is an excerpt from a book titled "Mining in Japan Past and Present" from 1909.

 

“The iron produced there (Chugoku region,sic) is usually classified into the varieties of 1. pig iron, 2.“Kera,” 3.steel and, 4.wrought iron. An analysis of “Kera” was made by the Geological Survey of Japan with the following results: carbon 3.94; iron 95.18; phosphorous 0.35; manganese 0.05; silicon 0.11.”

 

Alan, this quote dosn't have much relivance without knowing the context of the information. Those figures show a low silicon cast iron?? Not steel at all. With the Phosphorous and Maganese it could even be a modern pig iron?? Iron was produced in the Chugoku regions for a 1000 years both from iron sand and iron ore, and it is still a steel producing area today. We can quote different authorities on that statement too because I know there is some disagreement about the archeology. But this quote from Hitachi sums it up best.

 

The mysteries of ancient iron manufacturing are enveloped in the same deep fog that envelopes so much of Japan's ancient history

 

Frankly the pre-history of the Tatara is not of as much interest to me as the science and the analysis of the steel. What caused differences in the steel may be a thesis for others to work in the future after we have some solid data from the science.

 

cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Adrian

 

Mea culpa. I took the time to read the background on the instrument on a previous thread. I noted the comment by Veli regarding lower limits of detection required to have meaningful measurements and the range of accuracy for this technology. In my laymans understanding, the instrument can detect differences of 1-2 in 100 (e.g., 1-2%) when the elements of intrest are at levels of parts per million (e.g., 1-2 in 1,000,000).

 

Does this instrument operate with accuracy in the parts per million range? I am just wanting to understand the numbers that the instrument produces.

 

On another note, an obvious function of this kind of test (assuming the test numbers are accurate and precise) would be great as an ID tool for the specific sword. An accurate and sensitive list of the elements found distributed across the blade would be hard for even the same smith using the same materials and tools to replicate if the detections limits were down in the parts per million/billion. Equivalent to DNA profiles for an individual.

 

Interesting work.

 

Regards, Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Mel,

 

The HHXRF can be accurate up tp 1/100,000 parts. From the initial readings, the variations I'm looking for are quite a bit larger anyway, so the sensitivity and accuracy will be adequate. I am more concerned about the effect of the surface preparation and fine tuning the calibration. When I have the calibration samples made, which are blade and nakago sections prepared as, corroded, filed clean and with Japanese polish on the same piece, I will have some more answers as to the effect of the surface preparation.

 

I already have some very strong indicators and will be looking for these indicators to occur over a larger sampling to be able to draw conclusions. So far the figures are correlating nicely with historical knowledge and previous analysis by others. I will update everyone in the New Year when I run another trial.

 

So far I can tell you. I tested a sword that was judged by a shinsa team to be a re-temper because it was judged osuriage. The reason given was it must be a re-temper as the hamon started at the machi. The analysis proved catigorically that the sword is in fact close to ubu with just a slight trim of the nakago. I was very pleased to be able to prove that!

 

 

cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tested a sword that was judged by a shinsa team to be a re-temper because it was judged osuriage. The reason given was it must be a re-temper as the hamon started at the machi. The analysis proved catigorically that the sword is in fact close to ubu with just a slight trim of the nakago.

 

Hi Adrian,

 

I'm wondering how a material composition analysis was able to prove where a hamon started, as in this case. I would have thought that the essential composition of the steel was similar in both a hamon and the adjacent non-hardened steel. The difference being one of structure. I'm obviously missing something so I'd be interested to learn how the HHXRF test was able to provide you with such definitive proof to overturn the conclusions of a panel of experienced shinsa judges.

 

regards,

Ford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Ford,

 

All the nakagos in the trial were ubu. Chris is right, the analysis dosen't show you where the hamon starts, in the case of this sword it is obvious anyway. It told me that the nakago was not steel but iron. The comparisons are easy to see, here is a chart with the nakagos highlighted.

 

Notice that although the HHXRF dosen't give carbon figures , it dose give an estimate of the remainder which is the LEC column. Notice also the silicon readings. My opinion is that the more the high silicon iron ( ie tamehagne or watetsu) is folded, the more it loses silicon. More tests on known osuriage blades should bear that out. This sort of discrepancy with ubu nakagos was across the board on every sword we tested. For my next trial, with the trial samples I will prepare a clean nakaogo which will be left corroded on the other side to give a comparison of the effect of the surface rust. Nothing is proven yet, but I know pretty much that the nakago metal is quite different to the blades. I will of course prepare a full paper after all my trials have been concluded.

post-114-14196816151955_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day Ford,

 

Yes well.. they had better be real good ninjas. Anybody who knows me knows what I'm talking about. ;) Most of "them" have bigger things to worry about right now I would say. The science has been well known in Japan for 80 years or so, it is just that the non-destructive testing procedures are finally catching up with the the science. I can see this technology becoming common place for all sorts of collectables and art works. It is already being used to detect fake diamonds and fake gold artifacts. Its unstoppable, and inevitable that it will be utilised for nihonto and kodogu for that matter. With the fakes out there getting better and better, we need to find a new edge. In the end I think it will create a more robust and confident collecting community.

 

cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WARNING: this post is for technology geeks only 8)

 

Non-destructive testing has progressed indeed! The analysis results were significantly more accurate than I expected. I realised that modern portable XRF use an X-ray tube for excitation, instead of the traditional isotope sources that excited also nasty background radiation that made the analysis of low-concentration elements very difficult.

 

But one of the basic questions remain: how large relative differences in concentrations are statistically significant? Did you perform successive analysis on the same spot in order to directly observe the measurement repeatability for different elements? Do you have data on the analysis results variation due to measurement spot selection; i.e. if you take successive measurements from e.g. the shinogi, and move the analysis spot 10 mm after each measurement, how much variation do you observe?

 

If your analysis says the shinogi of blade#1 contains 0.01% Ti, and blade#2 contains 0.06% Ti, you can probably say that they have a different composition. But what if analysis#1 yields 0.03% and analysis #2 yields 0.037%? Are the blades different or similar in this case? I think the answer can be easily derived from a set of test measurements, maybe you have already done that?

 

What I would really like to see are the 95% (2 sigma) confidence intervals for the concentration results...

 

In any case, you have done great work!

 

BR,

 

Veli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...