Talk:Steelmaking

I would suggest that this article is unnecessary, as there is a much better description of steelamking processes in the article on steel. Peterkingiron 23:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I say we keep it, as it's got a category named after it, and it's a bit more specific. Focus on improving the article to explain the process more than the steps described on steel. Oubliette 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago there was a problem with a lot of parallel (and sometimes contradictory) articles on aspects of ferrous metallurgy. This is highly undesirable. It this article is to survive it should be as a general article referring to others daling with more specific topics. Alternatively the section dealing with steelmaking in steel should be moved here, with a {{main}} template to indicate that this is where one should look. Peterkingiron 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would add something about runout tables------

Not a stub

I have removed a "stub" tag from this page. It is not a stub and should not be regarded as such. Rather it is a parent article, providing a brief overview and links to detailed articles on each steelmaking process respectively. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that it doesn't need to be listed as a stub, but I do think there is room for expansion. I think the article should have a section called "Processes" with subsections having a short summary and a {{main}} link to that article. Wizard191 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. You will (I am sure) be able to do this well. I was trying to discourage excessive expansion, following a recent edit. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the section, however I know that the BOS and EAF are not the only two processes still used. The other processes should be added to those sections as well. Wizard191 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it with "stub" and on reflection and observation of the other articles, I (mostly) agree that this should be an overview article with pointers at all the specialized processes. However I think it would be useful to put the first, oh, say, 1000 years of steelmaking history in here and only turn into an overview when getting into more modern processes (arbitrarily, Bessemer process and later). It might also be useful to discuss the fundamental chemistry and thermodynamics of reducing ores to metal. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Which first 1000 years? ONe of the difficulties is that we still know comparatively little about some of the early processes. The production of steel in bloomeries probably depends on how the process is managed, but there is a lot still to be worked out. The discovery that some Saxon steel from Hamtune (Southampton) could be properly classified as crucible steel warranted a Letter to Nature a few years ago. You may be right that more needs to be added about pre-17th century processes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Electric arc steelmaking (i.e. in the electric arc furnace, EAF) is not the same as secondary steelmaking. Secondary steelmaking covers a range of processes between the BOS or EAF and casting, including alloying, refining, degassing, desulphurization, dephoshphorization, stirring (for temperature and compositional homogeniety prior to casting, etc. Even steel that is remelted via the EAF route almost always undergoes further secondary steelmaking operations. See steeluniversity for example process flow diagram. Amgreen (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AMgreen on the point above. Secondary steelmaking is all about refining steel. Production of steel via EAF or BOF is an earlier step. The Wiki page as shown at present is wrong in identifying primary steelmaking as the BOS process and secondary steelmaking as the EAF process. This is simply not correct. AndrzejMarek 15:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amkotas (talk • contribs)

Phosphor in steel

I think that this is the right place to involve the problems with phosphor in iron/steel.

The problem is that phosphor makes steel brittle when cold and that it goes with the iron in a blast furnace. In the older iron ovens that did not melt the iron phosphor when with the slag, which was good since many iron ores are fairly to high phosphor (that includes bog- and lake-iron) which makes for bad iron from a blast furnace. (Sulfur is not such big problem since sulfur is burnt up and goes away with the smoke when you roast the ore, copper is worse since there are no good methods to remove it from iron melt.)

The changeover to blast furnace meant that a lot of ores became unusable. The introduction of the Gilchrist-Thomas converter meant that such ores was again usable for acceptable steel. For extremely good steel you need extremely low phosphor content, such as was found in the Tuolluvaara mine (close by Kiruna mine of LKAB, LKAB means Lossavara Kirunavara AB(=Ltd) and did not include the third mine in Kiruna but included the Gelolivara mines (high phosphor like all the other LKAB mines)) and later in the Newman mine. The Tuolluvaara mine (now emptied) was owned by the Swedish special steel companies and they sold NO ore outside their group. When Newman mine opened some Japanese steelworks bought shares in it. That ore was so low in phosphor that there was never any problem with phosphor in the assays in the laboratory. A few years after the opening of the mine Japanese started making good special steels! I can find no reference to the importance of extremely low phosphor in steel and how phosphor was important for steel industry and iron mining!

If nobody else takes up the challenge I will do my best and do quite a lot of complicated editing in order not to clutter up to many articles! Seniorsag (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

History section

The history section gives the impression that medieval Europe had cast iron but not steel, perhaps no malleable form of iron at all. This is what a modern person might expect, but is exactly the opposite of what I have read.

Wrought iron and steel were blacksmith's products. Steel could be made by placing iron low in the coals of the forge where the atmosphere was reducing. It took up carbon from carbon monoxide. Controlling the amount of carbon must have required much skill and luck but little other technology. Cast iron, on the other hand requires a hotter fire and some sort of crucible.

What was lost with the fall of the Western Roman Empire was most of the non-ferrous metals, because of the restriction of trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ransford Ingham (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"but the process of ancient steelmaking was lost in the West after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE" seriously? What a crock. Who made all the steel swords during the Early Migration era then dwarves? Where do you think the Romans picked it up? This is the reason why wikipedia still remains a joke and why I will no longer ever donate a dime to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.89.239 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)