Age of weld

Hi all.
I would like opinions on the join shown in this picture
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Incitatus/IMG_4037.jpg
t seems to me that this weld is fairly recent, that is post 19th century and definitively not a hammer weld. Does that seem like a reasonable position?
Thank you for your thoughts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No that is an unreasonable position.
Upon what basis do you draw such conclusions?
The object is covered in paint and rust.
A larger picture and far more information would be needed to make such a conclusion.
Why does it matter what the age is and the type of weld? What is your supposition of where a weld is located on this object?

Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To cut to the chase you don't know, right? Good. My reasons for asking are none of your business, frankly; a more mature attitude might be more conducive to chat. If upon reading what I wrote you were confused, asking politely for clarification (as I asked my original question) would have been the appropriate behavior rather than feigning ignorance and blustering. Please don't "help" any more. Thanks. I don't have the time or inclination to to play shrink to someone on an internet ego trip.
The object is painted with a lacquer of some sort, not a thick paint so the contour of the join is distinct. The join itself is irregular and not consistent with filing or some shaping operation, the two pieces are joined as you can see them, at about a right angle. It does not appear to be hammer welded and then shaped is the bottom line (nor forged and shaped).
Perhaps someone might add something productive.
Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I probably replied a bit precipitously for which I apologise. Let me try again ...

Why? What do you see that makes it unreasonable?

Well, I am looking at the piece and the join looks "neat" and modern. Welding is a late 19th century invention (Yes, I know about hammer welding) and joins such as this would seem to me to be of relatively modern origin. If anyone has examples of nice neat, square joins from the 15th century I would be very interested to know of them. Aside from that, there are stylistic considerations that suggest a late date that are beyond the way the pieces are joined. The join is simply a piece of the puzzle. I probably replied a bit precipitously for which I apologise. Let me try again ...

No, a laquer, there is zero rust on the join.

Larger pictures are easy. What sort of information? If I laid the whole thing out it might influence what I hear back. That join was either done recently or not. My question is "does it have the appearence of a modern weld". That's it. I can't grind it, sample it or monkey with it in any way. I could x- ray it, I suppose. Would that be definitive?

It matters deeply to me.
What is your

Good question. If you don't see a weld in the first place that is critical data. Do you?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To be honest i agree with your intial response, i don't see that the reason why you want know is relevant, but any one with a bit of inteeligence could make some pretty good guess as to the reason anyway imo.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you are asking if this is a fusion weld rather than a forge weld.
Get a magnifier or preferably a stereomicroscope on a boom stand and take a careful look at the joint ant the adjacent surfaces. You need to light both near vertically and at a low angle. If you see weld spatter droplets, then it is likely a modern fusion weld.
See the pictures of flux core weld spatter at: http://www.mig-welding.co.uk/gasless-mig.htm The lacquer may make this difficult to see.
Pittsburgh Pete
DISCLAIMER
We do not believe what we write, and neither should you. Information furnished to you is for topical (external) use only. This information may not be worth any more than either a groundhog turd, or what you paid for it (nothing). The author may not even have been either sane or sober when he wrote it down. Do not worry, be happy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is not enough detail to see much to determine the method of manufacturing. If we are told what the object is, then we may have some insight as to the method of manufacture.
>

No matter what is the method of joining the two pieces (if they are indeed joined, as they could be cast) if we know more about the object then we may be able to determine more about the possibility of welding. Often welds are "celaned up". Just as one poster pointed out, the existence of weld spattern may indicate a more modern joining method. Lack of weld spattern is NOT conclusive that the weld is old (if the object is welded) because weld spatter can be removed or utilizing certain paints weld spatter can prevented from adhering to adjacent material.

I did not write that the "weld joint" had rust on it, but that the object had rust on it. In the photo you provided the area near the vertical right angle where the two surfaces come together looks like it has a darker shade of black color that runs parallel to the fillet. It also looks like some of the paint or lacquer is chipped away and the gray undersuface is exposed. But, a closer look with a microscope would be needed to properly examine the surface.

It does not look like a joint at all, recently or not. Hammer welding today is usually done with sheet metal. Since the object is not pieces of sheet joined that eliminates that. In older times hammer welding was done at the forge, using wrought iron. If the entire object were shown then it might be easier to determine is it's a sword or some other object that might have been made of wrought iron. Besides, hammer welding can also mean the object was oxy-acetylene welded and a hammer applied to the metal to stretch it.
I disagree that it is as simple as the joint was done recently or not. This is too vague. You don't state anything about the object, how you obtained it, etc. Perhaps a person made the object recently and wants to make it appear like a "pre-20th century" antique. In order to convince someone that the object was old it might have been made to look like something made a long time ago. Because the technology of a manufacturing method existed long ago does not make the method obsolete. What I mean is, objects can be cast or forged today the same way they were made 100, 200, 500, 1000 or more years ago. So the "look" alone from a photo could be deceiving.

No. Again a short answer but X-ray would tell you nothing. Yes it would be a non destructive test but I don't know of any non destructive test which would be definitive for the question of age, and even a destructive test may not be definitive of age.

True, it may matter to you but personally I have no interest in it and probably no one else on this list would care either. The reason for asking about the age is strictly to help determine how precisely you need to determine the age. But, if you state the reason why it matters someone may be able to advise you on where to go to get your question answered. You question could be something involving a technical problem, it could be a legal issue, it could be a sentimental reason why you need to know the age, etc. The reason for the question is to help determine an answer for you. I don't care about the object except to help you answer whatever your question is.

Again, the photo is nice but not enough information to determine anything.

If you ask a question on a particular newsgroup you should expect to have some dialogue about the question. We aren't there in person to handle the object or to observe it. But some people in this newsgroup have a lot of experience in metallurgy, failure analysis and manufacturing. It is the nature to ask some questions to clarify.
In your original post, you wrote "it seems to me that this weld is fairly recent, that is post 19th century and definitively not a hammer weld. Does that seem like a reasonable position?".
This looked like a yes or no question to support a position you had already concluded based on your own examination.
If I had written "yes" then what would be the significance of that? Does this mean you take that answer and tell another "I posted this picture to a metallurgy newsgroup and the persons there agreed this object is a recently welded item?
Therefore I answered "no", not because I oppose your position, but because I need more information to either support or oppose your position.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

An xray would show if it was a casting, or if it was welded, it may show slag entrapment in the weld area or lack of fusion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How would an X-ray show it was a casting?
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If it were welded it would mean that two pieces of metal were butted together in this case causing a fillet weld. If Xray were to be done it may show the joint line of the two pieces. Even Ultrasonic testing may indicate a joint line in the two pieces. Whereas a casting would be mostly solid throughout. IMHO Regards

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This could be a casting. An Xray could give you data as to its process of manufacture.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can see nothing in the photo to eliminate the possiblity of the item being a casting or a forging. The part is, as was stated by an earlier respondant, painted and rusty. There is no clear view of the joint surface, no obvious signs of a fused surface, the profile seems rather square for an early fusion weld. Modern hammer welds can be almost invisible, why should this not be the case in old parts?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I need to see the bro for his B-Day so this will be quick, I'll write more this pm sometime.
Here are 4 photos of the join
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Incitatus/IMG_4057.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Incitatus/IMG_4056.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Incitatus/IMG_4055.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Incitatus/IMG_4054.jpg
This object has been offered to me and is represented as a hand gun of ca. 1425. My problems with it are stylistic: the form looks suspiciously to me like a 18th.-19th. c. Boller or noisemaker. In a nutshell, the swell at the "breech" end is wrong, the existance and positioning of a powder pan is wrong. Further the pitting on the tang is inconsistant with the pitting overall. Also the pitting within two mounting hols on the tang is virtually non-existant. All and all I feel that this is a clinker, as we say. The weld thing is one more issue.
Here is a comparison of a ca. 1800 noisemaker with the gun in question. Hmmmmmm ... See that pan thing? It is at right angles to the barrel so the priming powder stays put since the shooting position is verticle. I have no knowledge of such a thing on an authentic barrel of ca. 1450, or even later actually.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Incitatus/IMG_4031.jpg
See the bottom? It swells so that the barrel is stable.
I have to upload pictures to illustrate some more of these points and I will do so later.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Is the 'weld' iron or is it two iron items that have been seated with a pouring of bronze. Kinda like lead in a pipe joint. Bronze was well known and used, Perhaps as a joint locking metal.
Is there black paint coving up the information ? Martin
Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Endowment Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com /
incitatus wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Unfortunately, Martin, without destroying the finish on the piece I cannot directly inspect the join.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nay my man - tis a small scratch under a microscope. Otherwise determine the mass but that requires very precise values.
Martin H. Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Endowment Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal. NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com /
incitatus wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A final question, sorta.
Can anyone point me toward a company that could x-ray this thing? Someplace in the north east would be nice.
Thanks.
ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:06:13 -0700, incitatus

Look for a non-destructive testing company or lab--they should be able to do what you want (for a fee).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.