[TheForge] Re: Cast iron pans
Mike Sweany
[email protected]
Thu Mar 28 16:31:00 2002
Bruce, I didn't know anybody was getting freaked over the use of chemicals. I mentioned the teflon as a joke. And a reference to Iron in my Fathers system as plus. However. You know that when you add chemicals to something unkown such as brake cleaner to Chinese protective coatings . You or any other chemist will not be able to tell me what the result is without analysis.
Dad has multiple myloma, ( Blood cance) which affects farmers probably caused by the "safe" chemicals they deal with.
I have a friend that lost 90% of one lung from the use of solvents to clean aluminum gas tanks. Another friend cannot live in their new house because something is making them ill, headaches, nausea etc.
I worked on a repair of a PCB burner, built because we had to get rid of all that PCB all over the country. another "safe" chemical at the time it was introduced, DDT etc etc.
Why introduce something into your system if it is not necessary? I seem to remember several drug recalls of chemicals that had been touted as revoulutionary.
MY .02
[email protected] wrote: Send TheForge mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TheForge digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: RE: Cast Iron Pan (Phlip)
2. Re: RE: Cast Iron Pan (Jeff Harding)
3. Re: Cast Iron Pan (Mike Spencer)
4. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (John Newman)
5. RE: Cast Iron Pan ([email protected])
6. Re: Fwd: Cast Iron Cookware (Lynn Emrich)
7. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (Grant Neil Sarver)
8. Re: sticking to it (Shannell)
9. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (Grant Neil Sarver)
10. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (John Newman)
11. Re: 4140 vs 4340 ([email protected])
12. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (Grant Neil Sarver)
13. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (John Newman)
14. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (Dave Brown)
15. Re: 4140 vs 4340 (Grant Neil Sarver)
16. Guesstamating (Larry)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:58:35 -0500
From: Phlip
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] RE: Cast Iron Pan
Reply-To: [email protected]
Doug Ayen wrote:
> Here's a question for you all: the cast iron pans I got from my grandfather
> have a very smooth cooking surface, modern ones usually have either the
> original as-cast rough surface or a machined surface with plenty of ridges.
> For the new pans, would it make sense at all to polish up the surface a
> bit, or should they be left rough? My grandpappy's stuff seems to work
> a lot better in terms of non-stickiness, given an approximately equal
> amount of seasoning, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
Well, unless you're getting some very cheap CI, the smoothness of your GF's pan
IS the seasoning- most cast iron pans start out with a roughish surface, and
only loving use helps develop that smooth patina. That's why I egg test used CI
before I consider trying to clean it up- I want to avoid using anything that
will threaten that patina, if at all possible. I'd suggest frying up a bunch of
bacon and sausage, or other fatty unlikely-to-stick foods in it for a while,
then wiping it out after every usage, after the initial seasoning. You should
notice that it gets a bit smoother with every use, until it's pretty well as
smooth as your GFs pan.
Phlip
--__--__--
Message: 2
From: "Jeff Harding"
To:
Subject: Re: [TheForge] RE: Cast Iron Pan
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:24:57 -0500
Reply-To: [email protected]
I've heard of the "old timers" using a red brick to rub new cast iron
cookware, suppose that was to "polish" it?
Jeff ><>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ayen"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] RE: Cast Iron Pan
> Bob Ehrenberger sang:
> >
> > For mechanical cleaning I use a cup brush on the angle grinder.
> >
>
> Here's a question for you all: the cast iron pans I got from my
grandfather
> have a very smooth cooking surface, modern ones usually have either
the
> original as-cast rough surface or a machined surface with plenty of
ridges.
> For the new pans, would it make sense at all to polish up the
surface a
> bit, or should they be left rough? My grandpappy's stuff seems to
work
> a lot better in terms of non-stickiness, given an approximately
equal
> amount of seasoning, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
>
> (ob blacksmithing)If a polish is recommended, to what grit/polish
level
> do you recomend?
>
> --doug
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login: [email protected]
> password: anvil
> ___________
>
>
>
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:39:45 -0400
From: [email protected] (Mike Spencer)
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TheForge] Re: Cast Iron Pan
Reply-To: [email protected]
> I've heard of the "old timers" using a red brick to rub new cast
> iron cookware, suppose that was to "polish" it?
Probably, but only if it was a really *old* red brick, older than any
"old timers" now living, one of those crumbly ones from before 1880 or
maybe better, before 1800. And a good quality one, as well. I've
seen some with pebbles fired in that would gouge a nice, polished
cookpot.
All my cast cookware is pretty old and all have nice, smooth cooking
surfaces except the (so-called?) Dutch ovens -- about 10 quart pots
with slightly conical sides, bail and cast iron cover. I think the
smooth ones were made smooth by the manufacturer but I can't offer any
concrete evidence.
- Mike
---
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/
--__--__--
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:28:09 -0500
From: John Newman
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
Does this mean that power hammer dies made from 4140 or 4340 quenched in oil
do not need to be tempered?
John Newman
Grant Neil Sarver wrote:
> 4140 and 4340 both have advantages. 4340 will harden deeper and in
> larger cross-sections. When you get past around 1 1/2 inch thick 4140
> won't get nearly as hard. "The Book" says that a 1" round 4140 quenched
> in oil from 1550 F. will be about 55 Rockwell on the surface and around
> 50 Rc in the center. A 2" round 49 surface and 38 center and a 4" round
> 36 surface and 34 center. 4340 on the otherhand, in 4" section will give
> 53 surface and 47 center.
>
> I prefer working with 4140 but use 4340 when I have to. 4140 is easier
> to forge, easier to heat treat and gives wonderful results if the
> thickness is under 1 1/2 to 2". 4340 is harder to forge, has heavy, ugly
> scale (the nickel content causes this) that is a real bitch to remove,
> more difficult to heat treat, but when I need a heavy sections I have to
> use it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login: [email protected]
> password: anvil
> ___________
--__--__--
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:30:50 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TheForge] RE: Cast Iron Pan
Reply-To: [email protected]
A number of years ago I bought a box of Cast Iron fry pans and skillets at a garage sale. They were old as in 1930-40's they were left over stock from the sellers parents store. Most had the original packaging paper in them. I have never seen fry pans of the quality in the store. The insides are finely polished, even the outides are smooth although sand cast it must of been very fine sand. These were never used when I bought them. A couple did have a couple small spots of rust. One forgets that when America made their own domestic products that they were of real high quality, remember when quality was more important that price.
Doug Ayen wrote:
>
>Here's a question for you all: the cast iron pans I got from my grandfather
>have a very smooth cooking surface, modern ones usually have either the
>original as-cast rough surface or a machined surface with plenty of ridges.
>For the new pans, would it make sense at all to polish up the surface a
>bit, or should they be left rough? My grandpappy's stuff seems to work
>a lot better in terms of non-stickiness, given an approximately equal
>amount of seasoning, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
>
>(ob blacksmithing)If a polish is recommended, to what grit/polish level
>do you recomend?
>
>--doug
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
>theforge mail list group photo site is
>http://www.photoaccess.com
>Login: [email protected]
>password: anvil
>___________
>
>
>
--
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:36:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Lynn Emrich
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Fwd: Cast Iron Cookware
To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
OK, Roy. What's the mix?
2nd cheapest person, Lynn
--- Roy Wilson wrote:
> Oven cleaner IS caustic soda (lye), but bottled so
> you pay
> $500/oz instead of $5/lb for a can of Red Devil.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
http://movies.yahoo.com/
--__--__--
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:36:30 -0800
From: "Grant Neil Sarver"
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
NOTHING in what I said was meant to indicate that tempering after quenching was
not needed.
grant
John Newman wrote:
> Does this mean that power hammer dies made from 4140 or 4340 quenched in oil
> do not need to be tempered?
>
> John Newman
>
--__--__--
Message: 8
From: "Shannell"
To:
Subject: Re: [TheForge] sticking to it
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:07:19 +1030
Reply-To: [email protected]
I use hard drive magnets and a flexi shaft off of my dial guage with a
magnetic base to hold a lot of stuff while welding, also if youve got an
auto helmet ,hands are greats for holding stuff :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Wilson"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] sticking to it
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:13:45 -0600, Dave Brown wrote:
>
> >>ok I remember a post of gluing two pieces together to hold them so you
> >>could weld them anyone remember this ? if so what glue?
> >>Dan Scheid
> >>Flying horse forge
> >
> >Dan - If I remember correctly it was just krazy glue or other super glue
> >type of stuff. This is NOT for forge welding but I think I remember
> >someone said that it would hold for tacking something together for arc
> >welding then will burn out in the forge if you plan on finishing the
> >welding in the forge. Not too sure about this last part - memory failing
....
>
> Memory worked fine on that one. Krazy glue for very smooth
> surfaces, the arc or flame will burn it out just fine. JB Weld or
> other putty epoxies for tacking parts together that have rough
> surfaces. Got to keep it out of the way of the arc, or it'll mess
> up your weld line.
>
> But much handier than clamps for some stuff.
>
>
>
> Roy Wilson
> General Operations Director
> Zanzibar Internet Land Line Administrator
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login: [email protected]
> password: anvil
> ___________
>
>
>
--__--__--
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:02:44 -0800
From: Grant Neil Sarver
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
By "hammer die" I was assuming like the top and bottom dies that are fixed in
the hammer. At a given hardness, I think 4340 is much tougher. "When
overstressed" ALL materials fail rapidly! It's even part of the definition of
overstressed I think (if not, it should be!).
I like my hammer dies to be around 50 Rc. and I can't get that from 4140.
grant
Dick Nietfeld wrote:
> When used as a hammer die, 4340 fails rapidly when over stressed. 4140
> gives a little warning and is the preferred material of the 2.
>
> Dick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Brown"
> To: "TheForge"
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:48 PM
> Subject: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
>
> > In a recent thread 4340 was mentioned as good die material. Does anyone
> > have an opinion about 4140 for this same application? Why? I can get
> this
> > easier than I can get 4340.
> >
> > Dave Brown
> > Heritage Smithing
> > Green Bay, WI
> > ABANA, UMBA, GoM, MODA, ARG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> > theforge mail list group photo site is
> > http://www.photoaccess.com
> > Login: [email protected]
> > password: anvil
> > ___________
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login: [email protected]
> password: anvil
> ___________
--__--__--
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:47:55 -0500
From: John Newman
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
How hot would you temper those dies Grant? You mentioned "the book " what book
would you recommend for heat treating information?
John Newman
Grant Neil Sarver wrote:
> NOTHING in what I said was meant to indicate that tempering after quenching was
> not needed.
>
> grant
>
--__--__--
Message: 11
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:00:16 EST
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
4140 is a good choice, but 4340 is the toughest alloy you will find commonly
available. The fracture toughness of 4340 is incredible. Only the new
superalloys made by Cartech like "Aermet 100" and some of the high cobalt
grades are a match for 4340, and cost about 10 to 15 times the price. It
does have to be heat treated properly to obtain optimum properties.
Michael
Mike Schermerhorn
Art & Metal Co.
Your PURE IRON supplier
--__--__--
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:02:43 -0800
From: Grant Neil Sarver
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
John Newman wrote:
> How hot would you temper those dies Grant? 400F is generally considered a minimum.
> Necessary for safety to relieve stresses.
> You mentioned "the book " what book would you recommend for heat treating
> information? My "ready reference" is "Modern Steels and their properties" published
> by Betleham Steel.
>
--__--__--
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:14:25 -0500
From: John Newman
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
Thank you.
Grant Neil Sarver wrote:
> John Newman wrote:
>
> > How hot would you temper those dies Grant? 400F is generally considered a minimum.
> > Necessary for safety to relieve stresses.
>
> > You mentioned "the book " what book would you recommend for heat treating
> > information? My "ready reference" is "Modern Steels and their properties" published
> > by Betleham Steel.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login: [email protected]
> password: anvil
> ___________
--__--__--
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:17:30 -0600
To: [email protected]
From: Dave Brown
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
At 20:47 03/27/02 -0500, you wrote:
>How hot would you temper those dies Grant? You mentioned "the book " what
>book
>would you recommend for heat treating information?
>
>John Newman
John,
I know I'm not Grant and your question was directed to him. But ... you
can get the basic heat treating information from the Principal Metals site:
http://www.principalmetals.com/properties/result.asp?Family=Alloy+Steels&MetalName=4340
The Principal Metals site (http://www.principalmetals.com/) has a lot of
good basic information about various alloys of steel and other metals.
It's worth bookmarking in your browser.
Dave
--__--__--
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:10:02 -0800
From: "Grant Neil Sarver"
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TheForge] 4140 vs 4340
Reply-To: [email protected]
Nice reference! Thanks!
Grant
Dave Brown wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I know I'm not Grant and your question was directed to him. But ... you
> can get the basic heat treating information from the Principal Metals site:
>
> http://www.principalmetals.com/properties/result.asp?Family=Alloy+Steels&MetalName=4340
>
> The Principal Metals site (http://www.principalmetals.com/) has a lot of
> good basic information about various alloys of steel and other metals.
>
> It's worth bookmarking in your browser.
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> theforge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoaccess.com
> Login: [email protected]
> password: anvil
> ___________
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--__--__--
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:46:16 -0600
From: Larry
Organization: Dragons Watch Forge & Foundry
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TheForge] Guesstamating
Reply-To: [email protected]
Is there a rule of thumb to use when drawing steel as to how much to start with? For
instance, say I wish at draw out a taper on a piece of 1 inch round bar to 1/2 inch and wish
the taper to be 6 inches long. How much stock should I start with? This is assuming I wish
to make more than one, or have two ends of the same stock tapered equally.
Larry
--__--__--
_______________________________________________http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
theforge mail list group photo site is
http://www.photoaccess.com
End of TheForge Digest
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards�
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---