I have been bandying various names around without giving much information about where they are from. So I shall provide some more information here, and ISBN numbers.
To start with, we have Theophilus, “On divers arts”
This was a manuscript, made up of 3 books, from the 12th century AD. The evidence available suggests they were written by Roger of Helmarshausen, a Benedictine monk working around 1100 onwards in Germany.
The edition I have is the Dover edition, ISBN – 0-486-23784-2, paperback, translated by John G Hawthorne and Cyril Stanley Smith in 1963.
The book is made up of thee books, on the subjects of painting, glass and metalwork. Each book is laid out clearly, starting with the materials necessary to get started, for example, the chapter on glass starts with building the furnace necessary, and near the end has instructions on making lead cames to hold the window together.
The instructions can be fairly readily understood, certainly they are not really inferior to some of the experimental instructions I came across in my chemistry degree.
Then there is “De Re Metallica” by Georgius Agricola. This is the first real treatise employing what we would nowadays think of as the sensible techniques of observation and personal experience, covering areas of mining work, metal working, and mineralogy. This is again a Dover edition, ISBN 0-486-60006-8, translated by Herbert Clark Hoover and Lou Henry Hoover. Yes, it was translated by a former president of the USA. Were that all current and former presidents were as useful and widely interested.
The importance of the book, first printed in 1556, was such that it remained the only authoritative work in the area of mining, according to the blurb on the back. That is some reccomendation.
Next is “De Pirotechnia” of Vannoccio Biringuccio. This was published in 1540, earlier than Agricola, but although it covers some of the same ground, it is less based upon observation, and also has less detail, thus its importance was less. On the other hand the blurb on the back describes it as the first clear, comprehensive work on metallurgy. But for some reason you hear less about Biringuccio, despite it being quite a handy wee book, and for what I am doing, is actually more useful.
My edition is another Dover one, ISBN 0-486-26134-4, translated by Cyril Stanley Smith and Matha Teach Gnudi, who translated it from Italian, Biringuccio being Siennese.
Finally, we have “Il libro dell’Arte” by Cennino d’Andrea Cennini, translated by Daniel V. Thompson, jr. Another Dover book, ISBN 0-486-20054-X. This book is about painting, as written by Cennini in 15th century Florence (According to the back cover. A more modern information source cites it as written in 1390). As such it is not much related to what I am doing, but will likely be useful as a short reference work and to give a better idea of what people were doing with materials in the later medieval period, not to mention it being another book which gives proper, useful instructions that a modern artist should be capable of understanding.
The first 3 are the main books I am relying on for first hand evidence of medieval technology. It is a shame that we do not have much from the 14th and 15th centuries.
The four books are also treasure troves of information in the form of footnotes on many pages, put in by the translators. These help clarify odd bits in the text, and will sometimes wander off at a historical tangent, and discuss all the techniques for manufacture of vitriol, for example. Without them my understanding would be much less.
There are various alchemical texts know from all through the medieval period, however they are by their nature not very informative, and translations are difficult to come by. I would need to find back copies of the journal “Ambix”, published by The Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry. Their url is:
There are various alchemical texts know from all through the medieval period, however they are by their nature not very informative, and translations are difficult to come by. I would need to find back copies of the journal “Ambix”, published byThe Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry
They have been on the go for decades, and built up a good lot of knowledge.
My main source on Alchemy just now has been “The Alchemists” by F Sherwood Taylor. Published in 1952, ISBN 586 08224 7, its author was Director of the Science Museum and honorary editor of Ambix, the journal of the aforementioned Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry. See how important the society is?
I also have a similar book by A J Holmyard, but can’t find it just now.
Another important (to me anyway) organization is The Historical Metallurgy Society, which can be found here:
http://hist-met.org/
I joined the society last year, and in its journal, volume 40 part one for 2006, found a translation of an 11th century text, written by a Greek, called “On the Noble and Illustrious Art of the Goldsmith”. Its an interesting article, since it also covers some ways of making metal objects look like gold, as well as alloying of gold with various metals.
Plus, an even bigger bonus is that the article comes with a list of texts that mention goldsmithing and things to do with metals. The list goes from the circa 1370BC Amarna tablets, via Theophrastus in 305BC, Zosimos, some Arabs, Theophilus, Geber, Biringuccio and up to some anonymous 18th century texts.
I have also purchased a number of back issues of their journals, which have been really informative on the subject of metal working through the ages.
Finally, on alchemy, there are many websites around. Most look really dodgy, full of strange pseudo religious philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or new age wishful thinkin. This one at least has a wider coverage and doesn’t seem to sit in judgement on it all:
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/physical.html
It contains many articles, some translations, much of the history of Alchemy etc. There is so much there that I do not know my way around it yet.
To sum up- there is a fair bit of information out there, it is just hard to find. Everyone on the internet has heard of X, and knows of Y, but for reasons of accuracy and knowledge I need to have the original sources. Internet sources are not always to be trusted. But getting hold of proper academic works and historical texts is hard, but nowadays a lot easier than in the early days of re-enacting. But now I have enough information to get on with things, and I will do so this very weekend.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Manufacture of clay moulds for casting
I have been itching to start casting bronze or brass. However I could not decide what to make. Fortunately I am getting quite a large collection of pictures of medieval objects, and I settled upon thimbles to start off with. Small and fiddly, but then I would not have to melt too much metal. I could also experiment with the best mixture of clay and other ingredients. This is where it gets tricky.
Making moulds out of clay for objects is annoyingly poorly described. No doubt each master had his own specific recipes; these would probably vary by geography given the availability of local ingredients. Biringuccio, in his “Pirotechnia”, from 1540, is quite specific about all this. He says:
“There are many kinds and varieties of earth that are used for the loam compositions for making the moulds for casting bronze, brass, or other metals. Since this is a very necessary thing, you must try to have the best kind and one that resists the fire well. It must be disposed to receive the metals well, must make a neat casting, and must not shrink or break with cracks on drying or baking. Aside from actual trial, I believe that there is little that can help you, since the clay in itself has no colour or visible sign that I know of to show how satisfactory it is.”
Or in other words, whether it is red, or yellow, or brown, it is not clear as to exactly what kind of clay you should use, but the final product will be obviously good or bad. Difficulties of knowing exactly what to use are compounded by the fact that there is a translators note at the bottom of the page:
“Terra this word was used for earthy materials in general as well as specifically for clay such as used in moulding. We have used either earth or clay as seemed best fitted to the context.”
Or in other words, is Biringuccio talking about earth with much organic material in it, or just for clay? How much sand is in it? Further on he talks about using wool cloth clippings, wool cardings, and sand, iron scale, crushed brick, horse or donkey dung and a variety of other materials. All of these would add some strength to the clay, assuming we are talking about pure clay here. This pure clay would have to be smooth and lacking in lumps and bits of stone, in order to avoid voids and weak spots in the mould. This is easy for me to get nowadays, but much harder for people in the past. Also Biringuccio says it should not be unctuous or lean, characteristics that are somewhat unclear in the context of a book. Perhaps with samples in front of me they would make perfect sense. Also, he appears not to like the use of pure clay, saying “In conclusions, with the exception of pure clay (which is too viscous and tenacious), any other earth, if free from pebbles, could easily serve you by tempering it with others, or if it should have pebbles, by separating them out.”
Biringuccio was greatly enamoured of wool clippings for helping the clay stay good and strong. They would act like a composite, giving greater strength through having these small fibres running through the clay. But there is nothing about how long they would be. I suspect they would be a few mm, but it is not clear. So I shall have to experiment.
I cut up some wool I gathered from fences and ended up with fibres 2 or 3mm long. Together with fine grained sand from the local sandpit, and and buff clay, with a bit of charcoal and some of the strange ashes you get from charcoal briquettes. (Charcoal briquettes are rubbish for my purposes, since they do not burn fast enough.) I have no idea if anything is special about buff clay, but it seems to work, and some googling suggests it is good for modelling etc.
Clay is sticky stuff when wet. I had trouble getting it to stop sticking to my fingers, next time I shall use much dryer clay. Again, from the old books it is not clear how wet it should be. I managed to make two kinds of mould for thimbles. The first, is made of two parts. The aim was to have a top, with a lump sticking down from it to fill in the hollow in the bottom part. This kind of worked, but I forgot to put in the pouring holes so shall have to drill them out. The second kind was made of a hollow, with a lump placed into the middle of it. The aim was to mimic medieval thimbles. The earlier kind, that the second mould is made for, had a hole in the top. Now, I have yet to find any mention of why this is, but the easiest way I can think of making a thimble with a hole in the top is by making a mould like I have done. Since the centre of the thimble has to be there to ensure it is a ring of metal, it seemed easiest to have a piece of clay running through that point.
Earlier thimble with hole in top (14th C or so):
Eraly medieval thimble
Later medieval thimble, more like today’s (15th century):
Later medieval thimble
My moulds:
The first mould
The second mould:
There is a thimble beside it for comparison.
Now, I dried these moulds in a warm but not hot oven for an hour or two, then ramped up the temperature to over 100C for an hour. They were then fired to something towards 600C in this set up:
I was experimenting with chimneys, so built it high. The gaps at the side had some clay on them, to seal it off a bit better to ensure that it worked as chimney. Maybe I made it close in too much at the top, but it didn’t work quite as well as last time. Part of the problem was that I was using wood that wasn’t quite dry enough, and was quite green. So it didn’t take off too well. But the thermocouple registered just over 800C in the embers when it was going properly. For the chimney effect to work properly I need a good lot of heat at the bottom, to heat air and provide combustion gases, thus pulling more air in at the bottom. You end up with lots of air getting to the fire for no other reason than the fire itself. From the description of a similar set up in Theophilus, mine was not good enough, it should be able to reach a temperature of over 900, which is what is needed for making brass.
They came out fine, looking like this:
No cracking apparent. I shall still put them in the furnace at over 1000 when I’m melting the copper, just to make sure that they are properly fired.
After I’d made my clay moulds, I found a comment in the journal of the Historical metallurgy society, 30/2, 1996, page 112, saying that the mould material they had found on an archeological dig was clay tempered by organic matter. Yes, great, but what kind of organic matter? I shall probably have to try leaves, potting compost, and plain old earth.
It is likely that there are some people out there doing this using nearly authentic techniques, but half the fun of this is working it out for myself, and at the end I shall have a much better idea of what makes things work well when doing historical metallurgy.
Update on my Spanish Green experiment- after 2 days, the copper in the vinegar solution has not turned green, but the copper above it has done so. This suggests that the main reason it will turn green is reaction with acetic acid vapour. Copper acetate being the result. So for larger scale production, it shall be necessary to merely heat vinegar gently, with copper suspended above it. Why didn’t they use this method then?
Making moulds out of clay for objects is annoyingly poorly described. No doubt each master had his own specific recipes; these would probably vary by geography given the availability of local ingredients. Biringuccio, in his “Pirotechnia”, from 1540, is quite specific about all this. He says:
“There are many kinds and varieties of earth that are used for the loam compositions for making the moulds for casting bronze, brass, or other metals. Since this is a very necessary thing, you must try to have the best kind and one that resists the fire well. It must be disposed to receive the metals well, must make a neat casting, and must not shrink or break with cracks on drying or baking. Aside from actual trial, I believe that there is little that can help you, since the clay in itself has no colour or visible sign that I know of to show how satisfactory it is.”
Or in other words, whether it is red, or yellow, or brown, it is not clear as to exactly what kind of clay you should use, but the final product will be obviously good or bad. Difficulties of knowing exactly what to use are compounded by the fact that there is a translators note at the bottom of the page:
“Terra this word was used for earthy materials in general as well as specifically for clay such as used in moulding. We have used either earth or clay as seemed best fitted to the context.”
Or in other words, is Biringuccio talking about earth with much organic material in it, or just for clay? How much sand is in it? Further on he talks about using wool cloth clippings, wool cardings, and sand, iron scale, crushed brick, horse or donkey dung and a variety of other materials. All of these would add some strength to the clay, assuming we are talking about pure clay here. This pure clay would have to be smooth and lacking in lumps and bits of stone, in order to avoid voids and weak spots in the mould. This is easy for me to get nowadays, but much harder for people in the past. Also Biringuccio says it should not be unctuous or lean, characteristics that are somewhat unclear in the context of a book. Perhaps with samples in front of me they would make perfect sense. Also, he appears not to like the use of pure clay, saying “In conclusions, with the exception of pure clay (which is too viscous and tenacious), any other earth, if free from pebbles, could easily serve you by tempering it with others, or if it should have pebbles, by separating them out.”
Biringuccio was greatly enamoured of wool clippings for helping the clay stay good and strong. They would act like a composite, giving greater strength through having these small fibres running through the clay. But there is nothing about how long they would be. I suspect they would be a few mm, but it is not clear. So I shall have to experiment.
I cut up some wool I gathered from fences and ended up with fibres 2 or 3mm long. Together with fine grained sand from the local sandpit, and and buff clay, with a bit of charcoal and some of the strange ashes you get from charcoal briquettes. (Charcoal briquettes are rubbish for my purposes, since they do not burn fast enough.) I have no idea if anything is special about buff clay, but it seems to work, and some googling suggests it is good for modelling etc.
Clay is sticky stuff when wet. I had trouble getting it to stop sticking to my fingers, next time I shall use much dryer clay. Again, from the old books it is not clear how wet it should be. I managed to make two kinds of mould for thimbles. The first, is made of two parts. The aim was to have a top, with a lump sticking down from it to fill in the hollow in the bottom part. This kind of worked, but I forgot to put in the pouring holes so shall have to drill them out. The second kind was made of a hollow, with a lump placed into the middle of it. The aim was to mimic medieval thimbles. The earlier kind, that the second mould is made for, had a hole in the top. Now, I have yet to find any mention of why this is, but the easiest way I can think of making a thimble with a hole in the top is by making a mould like I have done. Since the centre of the thimble has to be there to ensure it is a ring of metal, it seemed easiest to have a piece of clay running through that point.
Earlier thimble with hole in top (14th C or so):
Eraly medieval thimble
Later medieval thimble, more like today’s (15th century):
Later medieval thimble
My moulds:
The first mould
The second mould:
There is a thimble beside it for comparison.
Now, I dried these moulds in a warm but not hot oven for an hour or two, then ramped up the temperature to over 100C for an hour. They were then fired to something towards 600C in this set up:
I was experimenting with chimneys, so built it high. The gaps at the side had some clay on them, to seal it off a bit better to ensure that it worked as chimney. Maybe I made it close in too much at the top, but it didn’t work quite as well as last time. Part of the problem was that I was using wood that wasn’t quite dry enough, and was quite green. So it didn’t take off too well. But the thermocouple registered just over 800C in the embers when it was going properly. For the chimney effect to work properly I need a good lot of heat at the bottom, to heat air and provide combustion gases, thus pulling more air in at the bottom. You end up with lots of air getting to the fire for no other reason than the fire itself. From the description of a similar set up in Theophilus, mine was not good enough, it should be able to reach a temperature of over 900, which is what is needed for making brass.
They came out fine, looking like this:
No cracking apparent. I shall still put them in the furnace at over 1000 when I’m melting the copper, just to make sure that they are properly fired.
After I’d made my clay moulds, I found a comment in the journal of the Historical metallurgy society, 30/2, 1996, page 112, saying that the mould material they had found on an archeological dig was clay tempered by organic matter. Yes, great, but what kind of organic matter? I shall probably have to try leaves, potting compost, and plain old earth.
It is likely that there are some people out there doing this using nearly authentic techniques, but half the fun of this is working it out for myself, and at the end I shall have a much better idea of what makes things work well when doing historical metallurgy.
Update on my Spanish Green experiment- after 2 days, the copper in the vinegar solution has not turned green, but the copper above it has done so. This suggests that the main reason it will turn green is reaction with acetic acid vapour. Copper acetate being the result. So for larger scale production, it shall be necessary to merely heat vinegar gently, with copper suspended above it. Why didn’t they use this method then?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Intelligent Design Creationism
[Warming- rant involving swear words and unpleasantness. This is my blog and I am allowed to let off steam here.]
The latest Creationist attack in the UK is a group called “Truth in Science”. Personally I call them “Truthiness in science”. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness )
They would make Goebbels or Karl Rove proud, in their carefully plotted campaign against Evolution. They have sent out a bunch of DVDs and lesson plans to every secondary school in the country, suggesting that they be used to show the alternatives to “Darwinism”. Now, the alternative to Darwinism is Evolutionary Biology, but they don’t want you to know that.* Instead, in the lesson plans on their website, they push several Intelligent Designs arguments, such as irreducible complexity. The really ironic thing is that Truth in science are actually Young Earth Creationists!
The cheek is amazing- instead of honestly saying “We’re Creationists, we think God takes precedence over science”, they are actually now saying “Here’s some scientific reasons why evolution is wrong”, but not mentioning God at all.
Needless to say, “Truth in Science” also bring in the peppered moth as a problem with Evolution. In fact every so called argument on their website is either a mischaracterization or involves question begging. Their website argues about teaching alternatives to Evolution, yet they persistently do not state what such alternative is on their website! Just go and read it. Nowhere do they say “Our Christian God did it”. I am sure that most true Christians would be horrified by the way that this group hides their antecedents and aims. I too am horrified, agnostic though I am. I hate it when people are mendacious and try and cover things up.
They even say:
Yes, a significant minority of qualified scientists do not believe that Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of the diversity of life we see around us. For example, over 600 scientists with PhDs have signed a public statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
(From: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/109/54/)
They bring up the very old public statement. Project Steve was started by “darwinists” who only wanted people with Biology qualifications called Steve or Steven etc to sign up to it. They have more people signed up to it than the Creationists have!
It is however typical of their reliance upon appeals to authority. All their press releases make much out of the fact that some of their supporters are university professors. Oddly enough none of these professors have published scientific papers showing that “Darwinism” is wrong, nevertheless they insist on claiming so.
Another sign of their antecedents and desire to cover their tracks is this essay:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/
by Paul Garner, on the evolution of the horse. If you google on his name and “horse”, you find this essay:
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs146.html
They are functionally identical. The first one, on the TiS website has merely had some of the pictures and more complex stuff removed, and more importantly, had all reference to a flood elided.
Yes, the Creationists are trying to show that they are not creationists, by re-modelling an essay. A fuller explanation can be found here:
http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwiki-1.9.5/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=14
It is classic lying by omission. The essay even ends by saying that actually the sequence of horse fossils is neutral as to whether evolution or creationism is correct. Which is a lie. In science, you have to look at the big picture. In this case, everything from the age of the earth through to molecular genetics shows that the horse sequence of fossils is a really good example of evolution in action.
Now, part of the public relations problem that those of us who support real science face, is that a weak form of intelligent design is the default position for many people. After all, who set the universe in motion? Obviously [insert deity of choice] did, since it must have started somehow. Sure, I have no problem with this position in general. But claiming that there is scientific evidence to support it is utterly wrong. We have yet to scientifically prove the existence of [insert deity of choice]. Remember that it is also impossible to prove the non-existence of [insert deity of choice] because we do not know everything about the universe- it’s the infamous you can’t prove a negative problem.
-----
This of course does not stop TiS. They spew propaganda all over the place. Take this post for example (my comments are in bold):
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63/
As reported yesterday in the Sunday Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.
The group was led by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.
Look at our big names! Never mind that Flew has converted to some form of deism, although he is very coy about what kind. Nor that Nevin is also religiously motivated, as can be found out by anyone with internet access.
"We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative," the letter said. Empirical science has to recognise "severe limitations concerning origins" and Darwinism is not necessarily "the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe".
What limitations on empirical science, you fuckwits? It’s the only kind of science there is. The reader will note that at no time do they actually say what this non empirical science actually involves. This is typical creationist fertiliser. But they are right about one thing. Darwinism is not the best scientific model to fit the data. The actual best fit comes from modern evolutionary biology.
They concluded: "We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education."
An honest approach would involve the teacher leading an hour long lesson on the differences between pseudoscience and real science, with creationism firmly in the former camp.
The other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.
John Walton is a 7th day adventist from my old university. Steve Fuller is some kind of make believe philosopher who thinks that the reigning paradigm should always be challenged, and therefore non science like ID should be supported. He appears to be the only one here without a religious agenda.
Professor Norman Nevin has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities. In his distinguished career he has held the posts: Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service, President of the UK Clinical Genetics Society, member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and of the subsequent Human Genetics Commission, member of the European Concerted Action for Congenital Abnormalities, Chairman of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). In 2003 he received an OBE for his services to gene therapy.
Look at our qualifications, now, do you believe everything we say? Obviously someone who has had such a productive professional life can’t be wrong?
On 11 December, Professor Nevin received a response from the Department for Education and Skills' Public Communications Unit on behalf of both the Prime Minster and the Education Secretary. The support for Truth in Science had been "noted by the Department" but the "vast majority" of enquiries that the DfES received had "expressed concern" about the Truth in Science resource pack.
Yes. Most of the replies would have said “Fuck off and die, Creationist scum”, except that MP’s don’t really like reading that kind of letter, so they were toned down.
"Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory" the Department claimed "and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum."
Spot on!
However, intelligent design could discussed in science classes in response to pupil's questions: "During a science lesson on evolution it is possible that pupils may ask about creationism and intelligent design. In this situation, the Department would expect teachers to answer pupil's questions about this and other beliefs in a balanced way."
Yes. Here’s a scientific balance. On this side, I’ll put 3kg of lead. On the other side I’ll put this nitrogen molecule. Guess which is evolutionary biology?
----
TiS are operating with a sophisticated but non-mainstream propaganda machine. This limits their activities somewhat. Since they are so religiously based, it is very hard for them to break out of the fundamentalist churches they thrive in.
A sign of this is the effort that senior TiS people are having to put in on the propaganda front. For example, Richard Buggs, one of their “scientific” (scare quotes deliberate) advisors, had an article in the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1985698,00.html
It is simple creationist boilerplate. Astounding in its mendacity and sleight of mind. For example, he says:
“If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.”
Rubbish! If Darwin had known about the nested hierarchies, the way we can trace mutations through species, the “molecular clocks”, the basic similarities between all species on the planet, he would have heaved a huge sigh of relief, since it would have filled in many of the gaps and uncertainties in his theory. After all, Bugg’s supposed argument is simply a restatement of the idea that since a birds wings operate so well to help it fly, it must have been designed by a deity. It is a simple argument from incredulosity, and indicates the limited mindsets of the intellectual pygmies that are Creationists.
We have multiple possible pathways for the evolution of bits of the immune system, and many more ideas about the evolution of a host of other cellular functions. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html)
The more astute amongst you will recognize that Buggs spends a fair bit of time in his article trying to say that since “Darwinism” can’t explain everything, there must be another answer that is correct. Yet he never comes out with it. What kind of Christian refuses to give the real reason for his opposition to something?
I am pleased to note that the article got the same kind of reception that HG Well’s Martians would if they invaded us today. I was in there, commenting like mad, it was fun.
One last LIE from Richard Buggs Guardian article:
“In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence.”
No other word will do, except the word lie. Firstly, logical inferences are not science, they have to be tested. The ID pushers have not tested any of their inferences. Dembski has signally failed to produce any calculations using his probability maths. Behe is unable to offer anything except an ability to ignore the evidence, as shown at the Dover trial in the USA, where an attempt to get ID into schools failed the Lemon test, and ID was also branded religiously inspired to boot.
More on the Dover trial:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/waterloo_in_dov.html
The outcome of this trial was that intelligent design was legally found to be religiously inspired, and not based in science. TiS have no mention of this trial on their website at all. Can anyone else say lying bastards?
One of the bigwigs in TiS is Professor Andy McIntosh, of Leeds university. He is fond of making statements such as (taken from the TiS website:
The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines.
And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub-part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified.
Stop and think about this for a minute. What exactly has free energy (G, Gibbs free energy) got to do with machinery? You will note that he does not provide any supportive references for his claim. Moreover, the second section is laughable. New structures are often formed when bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, or when they learn to digest nylon. Or in the case of sickle cell anemia, when a gene or two mutate, with the end result of making your red blood cells sickle shaped.
He appeared on the radio twice, talking about his amazing insight into evolutionary biology that he hadn’t actually bothered to try and publish anywhere. The link below takes you to an attempt by him to clarify his position:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/01/the_thermodynamics_of_andy_mci.html
This is what he said, my comments in SHOUTY:
Thermodynamics as I have explained before, does lie at the heart of the debate. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory unless the machinery is available to do so
BUT THEY ARE MADE USING SMALLER MACHINES TO MAKE BITS OF THE LARGER ONE, ARE THEY NOT? BESIDES, WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE A PAIR OF MATING 777’S?
Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines if there is no machinery available to do this.
THEY’RE CALLED CELLS, YOU MORON.
Spontaneously forming such will not happen, even with natural selective forces at work
AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW? BESIDES, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT CELLS AS THEY ARE TODAY SPRANG SPONTANEOUSLY INTO BEING.
All natural selection will do is select from what is there already.
INDEED.
It will not create a new machine which was not there before (either as a sub-machine or coded in embryonic form).
NO, YOU MICROCEPHALIC PINHEAD. MUTATION IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THERE, NOT NATURAL SELECTION. HERE YOU CAN SEE HIS IGNORANCE OF BIOLOGY.
An open thermodynamic system is not the answer either since simply adding energy to existing machinery will not change what is there already to a new machine.
BUT WHAT IF THE MACHINERY IN QUESTION CAN BE REFORMED, LIKE OUR DNA IS? LOOK AT MUTATIONS- THEY CAUSE CHANGES IN THE MACHINE THAT FORMS OUR PROTEINS ETC ETC. IN FACT, I SUGGEST THAT MUTATIONS MAY WELL BE THERMODYNAMICALLY FAVOURED, SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ATOMIC LEVEL, WHERE THINGS CAN CHANGE WITHOUT ANY DEFINITE INPUT.
To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."
MORE QUOTING, NO EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THIS SIMPLY HAPPENED THING? DO THEY THINK THAT THEY DROPPED OUT OF THE SKY ONE DAY? NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THEY CAN EVOLVE ANYWAY.
My position is to side with experimental science and not with 'just so' attempts to get round the clear evidence of design in nature. At the very least these matters should be critically considered in science teaching today.
WHAT EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, YOU MORON? CREATIONISTS, NAY, CRETINISTS LIKE YOURSELF HAVE NOT DONE ANY. WHERE ARE THE DETAILED THERMODYNAMIC CALCULATIONS SHOWING THAT YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT FREE NERGY LEVELS IN CELLS ETC ARE CORRECT? A MAN OF YOUR EDUCATION CAN SURELY PERFORM SUCH CALCULATIONS, AND DAZZLE US ALL WITH YOUR GRASP OF SCIENCE!
I don’t think we’ll see anything from Mcintosh about his scientific basis for his belief. Suffice to say, he is a laughing stock.
Ultimately, the most laughable thing about it is that the Creationists come across as arch materialists, with their insistence on machinery in cells.
Other entertainment can be had here:
http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/
http://www.exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, on the BBC blog here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/
I have run into such a monumentally stupid poster that even I have trouble believing it. They insist on conflating methodological naturalism, which is what science does, considering only things which are material, that can be sensed etc, with philosophical naturalism, which says that there are only natural things in the universe, that there are no supernatural entities. So he claims that science is atheistic, because it says nothing about god, indeed can only work when you disregard supernatural entities.
Well, duh.
Science only looks at material things. It has nothing to say about gods.
So, if you are concerned about TiS and their stupidity, please write to your MP expressing your concern.
* Evolutionary science has undergone at least 2 revisions since Darwin’s time. These have integrated what we now know of genetics and other influences upon evolution into the science of Evolutionary Biology. More information here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
It is worth reminding people that Creationists will quote mine sentences from scientific sources that appear to damage Evolutionary theory, whilst ignoring that the source as a whole actually backs evolution. It is quote common for scientists to say something like “This blows a huge hole in the current way of thinking about this.” (They are human after all and like hyperbola just like the rest of us, not to mention puffing themselves up) The Creationists then quote this sentence, whilst ignoring that the next sentence says “Fortunately, my work shows that if you integrate this, this and that, because of X, then actually its no problem at all and it all fits nicely within Evolution”.
The latest Creationist attack in the UK is a group called “Truth in Science”. Personally I call them “Truthiness in science”. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness )
They would make Goebbels or Karl Rove proud, in their carefully plotted campaign against Evolution. They have sent out a bunch of DVDs and lesson plans to every secondary school in the country, suggesting that they be used to show the alternatives to “Darwinism”. Now, the alternative to Darwinism is Evolutionary Biology, but they don’t want you to know that.* Instead, in the lesson plans on their website, they push several Intelligent Designs arguments, such as irreducible complexity. The really ironic thing is that Truth in science are actually Young Earth Creationists!
The cheek is amazing- instead of honestly saying “We’re Creationists, we think God takes precedence over science”, they are actually now saying “Here’s some scientific reasons why evolution is wrong”, but not mentioning God at all.
Needless to say, “Truth in Science” also bring in the peppered moth as a problem with Evolution. In fact every so called argument on their website is either a mischaracterization or involves question begging. Their website argues about teaching alternatives to Evolution, yet they persistently do not state what such alternative is on their website! Just go and read it. Nowhere do they say “Our Christian God did it”. I am sure that most true Christians would be horrified by the way that this group hides their antecedents and aims. I too am horrified, agnostic though I am. I hate it when people are mendacious and try and cover things up.
They even say:
Yes, a significant minority of qualified scientists do not believe that Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of the diversity of life we see around us. For example, over 600 scientists with PhDs have signed a public statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
(From: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/109/54/)
They bring up the very old public statement. Project Steve was started by “darwinists” who only wanted people with Biology qualifications called Steve or Steven etc to sign up to it. They have more people signed up to it than the Creationists have!
It is however typical of their reliance upon appeals to authority. All their press releases make much out of the fact that some of their supporters are university professors. Oddly enough none of these professors have published scientific papers showing that “Darwinism” is wrong, nevertheless they insist on claiming so.
Another sign of their antecedents and desire to cover their tracks is this essay:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/
by Paul Garner, on the evolution of the horse. If you google on his name and “horse”, you find this essay:
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs146.html
They are functionally identical. The first one, on the TiS website has merely had some of the pictures and more complex stuff removed, and more importantly, had all reference to a flood elided.
Yes, the Creationists are trying to show that they are not creationists, by re-modelling an essay. A fuller explanation can be found here:
http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwiki-1.9.5/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=14
It is classic lying by omission. The essay even ends by saying that actually the sequence of horse fossils is neutral as to whether evolution or creationism is correct. Which is a lie. In science, you have to look at the big picture. In this case, everything from the age of the earth through to molecular genetics shows that the horse sequence of fossils is a really good example of evolution in action.
Now, part of the public relations problem that those of us who support real science face, is that a weak form of intelligent design is the default position for many people. After all, who set the universe in motion? Obviously [insert deity of choice] did, since it must have started somehow. Sure, I have no problem with this position in general. But claiming that there is scientific evidence to support it is utterly wrong. We have yet to scientifically prove the existence of [insert deity of choice]. Remember that it is also impossible to prove the non-existence of [insert deity of choice] because we do not know everything about the universe- it’s the infamous you can’t prove a negative problem.
-----
This of course does not stop TiS. They spew propaganda all over the place. Take this post for example (my comments are in bold):
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63/
As reported yesterday in the Sunday Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.
The group was led by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.
Look at our big names! Never mind that Flew has converted to some form of deism, although he is very coy about what kind. Nor that Nevin is also religiously motivated, as can be found out by anyone with internet access.
"We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative," the letter said. Empirical science has to recognise "severe limitations concerning origins" and Darwinism is not necessarily "the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe".
What limitations on empirical science, you fuckwits? It’s the only kind of science there is. The reader will note that at no time do they actually say what this non empirical science actually involves. This is typical creationist fertiliser. But they are right about one thing. Darwinism is not the best scientific model to fit the data. The actual best fit comes from modern evolutionary biology.
They concluded: "We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education."
An honest approach would involve the teacher leading an hour long lesson on the differences between pseudoscience and real science, with creationism firmly in the former camp.
The other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.
John Walton is a 7th day adventist from my old university. Steve Fuller is some kind of make believe philosopher who thinks that the reigning paradigm should always be challenged, and therefore non science like ID should be supported. He appears to be the only one here without a religious agenda.
Professor Norman Nevin has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities. In his distinguished career he has held the posts: Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service, President of the UK Clinical Genetics Society, member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and of the subsequent Human Genetics Commission, member of the European Concerted Action for Congenital Abnormalities, Chairman of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). In 2003 he received an OBE for his services to gene therapy.
Look at our qualifications, now, do you believe everything we say? Obviously someone who has had such a productive professional life can’t be wrong?
On 11 December, Professor Nevin received a response from the Department for Education and Skills' Public Communications Unit on behalf of both the Prime Minster and the Education Secretary. The support for Truth in Science had been "noted by the Department" but the "vast majority" of enquiries that the DfES received had "expressed concern" about the Truth in Science resource pack.
Yes. Most of the replies would have said “Fuck off and die, Creationist scum”, except that MP’s don’t really like reading that kind of letter, so they were toned down.
"Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory" the Department claimed "and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum."
Spot on!
However, intelligent design could discussed in science classes in response to pupil's questions: "During a science lesson on evolution it is possible that pupils may ask about creationism and intelligent design. In this situation, the Department would expect teachers to answer pupil's questions about this and other beliefs in a balanced way."
Yes. Here’s a scientific balance. On this side, I’ll put 3kg of lead. On the other side I’ll put this nitrogen molecule. Guess which is evolutionary biology?
----
TiS are operating with a sophisticated but non-mainstream propaganda machine. This limits their activities somewhat. Since they are so religiously based, it is very hard for them to break out of the fundamentalist churches they thrive in.
A sign of this is the effort that senior TiS people are having to put in on the propaganda front. For example, Richard Buggs, one of their “scientific” (scare quotes deliberate) advisors, had an article in the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1985698,00.html
It is simple creationist boilerplate. Astounding in its mendacity and sleight of mind. For example, he says:
“If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.”
Rubbish! If Darwin had known about the nested hierarchies, the way we can trace mutations through species, the “molecular clocks”, the basic similarities between all species on the planet, he would have heaved a huge sigh of relief, since it would have filled in many of the gaps and uncertainties in his theory. After all, Bugg’s supposed argument is simply a restatement of the idea that since a birds wings operate so well to help it fly, it must have been designed by a deity. It is a simple argument from incredulosity, and indicates the limited mindsets of the intellectual pygmies that are Creationists.
We have multiple possible pathways for the evolution of bits of the immune system, and many more ideas about the evolution of a host of other cellular functions. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html)
The more astute amongst you will recognize that Buggs spends a fair bit of time in his article trying to say that since “Darwinism” can’t explain everything, there must be another answer that is correct. Yet he never comes out with it. What kind of Christian refuses to give the real reason for his opposition to something?
I am pleased to note that the article got the same kind of reception that HG Well’s Martians would if they invaded us today. I was in there, commenting like mad, it was fun.
One last LIE from Richard Buggs Guardian article:
“In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence.”
No other word will do, except the word lie. Firstly, logical inferences are not science, they have to be tested. The ID pushers have not tested any of their inferences. Dembski has signally failed to produce any calculations using his probability maths. Behe is unable to offer anything except an ability to ignore the evidence, as shown at the Dover trial in the USA, where an attempt to get ID into schools failed the Lemon test, and ID was also branded religiously inspired to boot.
More on the Dover trial:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/waterloo_in_dov.html
The outcome of this trial was that intelligent design was legally found to be religiously inspired, and not based in science. TiS have no mention of this trial on their website at all. Can anyone else say lying bastards?
One of the bigwigs in TiS is Professor Andy McIntosh, of Leeds university. He is fond of making statements such as (taken from the TiS website:
The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines.
And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub-part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified.
Stop and think about this for a minute. What exactly has free energy (G, Gibbs free energy) got to do with machinery? You will note that he does not provide any supportive references for his claim. Moreover, the second section is laughable. New structures are often formed when bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, or when they learn to digest nylon. Or in the case of sickle cell anemia, when a gene or two mutate, with the end result of making your red blood cells sickle shaped.
He appeared on the radio twice, talking about his amazing insight into evolutionary biology that he hadn’t actually bothered to try and publish anywhere. The link below takes you to an attempt by him to clarify his position:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/01/the_thermodynamics_of_andy_mci.html
This is what he said, my comments in SHOUTY:
Thermodynamics as I have explained before, does lie at the heart of the debate. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory unless the machinery is available to do so
BUT THEY ARE MADE USING SMALLER MACHINES TO MAKE BITS OF THE LARGER ONE, ARE THEY NOT? BESIDES, WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE A PAIR OF MATING 777’S?
Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines if there is no machinery available to do this.
THEY’RE CALLED CELLS, YOU MORON.
Spontaneously forming such will not happen, even with natural selective forces at work
AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW? BESIDES, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT CELLS AS THEY ARE TODAY SPRANG SPONTANEOUSLY INTO BEING.
All natural selection will do is select from what is there already.
INDEED.
It will not create a new machine which was not there before (either as a sub-machine or coded in embryonic form).
NO, YOU MICROCEPHALIC PINHEAD. MUTATION IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THERE, NOT NATURAL SELECTION. HERE YOU CAN SEE HIS IGNORANCE OF BIOLOGY.
An open thermodynamic system is not the answer either since simply adding energy to existing machinery will not change what is there already to a new machine.
BUT WHAT IF THE MACHINERY IN QUESTION CAN BE REFORMED, LIKE OUR DNA IS? LOOK AT MUTATIONS- THEY CAUSE CHANGES IN THE MACHINE THAT FORMS OUR PROTEINS ETC ETC. IN FACT, I SUGGEST THAT MUTATIONS MAY WELL BE THERMODYNAMICALLY FAVOURED, SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ATOMIC LEVEL, WHERE THINGS CAN CHANGE WITHOUT ANY DEFINITE INPUT.
To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."
MORE QUOTING, NO EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THIS SIMPLY HAPPENED THING? DO THEY THINK THAT THEY DROPPED OUT OF THE SKY ONE DAY? NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THEY CAN EVOLVE ANYWAY.
My position is to side with experimental science and not with 'just so' attempts to get round the clear evidence of design in nature. At the very least these matters should be critically considered in science teaching today.
WHAT EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, YOU MORON? CREATIONISTS, NAY, CRETINISTS LIKE YOURSELF HAVE NOT DONE ANY. WHERE ARE THE DETAILED THERMODYNAMIC CALCULATIONS SHOWING THAT YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT FREE NERGY LEVELS IN CELLS ETC ARE CORRECT? A MAN OF YOUR EDUCATION CAN SURELY PERFORM SUCH CALCULATIONS, AND DAZZLE US ALL WITH YOUR GRASP OF SCIENCE!
I don’t think we’ll see anything from Mcintosh about his scientific basis for his belief. Suffice to say, he is a laughing stock.
Ultimately, the most laughable thing about it is that the Creationists come across as arch materialists, with their insistence on machinery in cells.
Other entertainment can be had here:
http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/
http://www.exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/
Meanwhile, on the BBC blog here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/
I have run into such a monumentally stupid poster that even I have trouble believing it. They insist on conflating methodological naturalism, which is what science does, considering only things which are material, that can be sensed etc, with philosophical naturalism, which says that there are only natural things in the universe, that there are no supernatural entities. So he claims that science is atheistic, because it says nothing about god, indeed can only work when you disregard supernatural entities.
Well, duh.
Science only looks at material things. It has nothing to say about gods.
So, if you are concerned about TiS and their stupidity, please write to your MP expressing your concern.
* Evolutionary science has undergone at least 2 revisions since Darwin’s time. These have integrated what we now know of genetics and other influences upon evolution into the science of Evolutionary Biology. More information here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
It is worth reminding people that Creationists will quote mine sentences from scientific sources that appear to damage Evolutionary theory, whilst ignoring that the source as a whole actually backs evolution. It is quote common for scientists to say something like “This blows a huge hole in the current way of thinking about this.” (They are human after all and like hyperbola just like the rest of us, not to mention puffing themselves up) The Creationists then quote this sentence, whilst ignoring that the next sentence says “Fortunately, my work shows that if you integrate this, this and that, because of X, then actually its no problem at all and it all fits nicely within Evolution”.
too much software to learn
Now I have this blog, in order to more personalise interactions within a large section of the blogosphere, I find that I shall have to learn even more software gubbins. I know they try and make it easy for us, but now I have to figure out how to ensure that the full width of pictures loads. The posts I have made below have about half the width of each photo missing, which obviously is no use.
This is on top of 2 different browsers, multiple e-mail systems, MS word, excel, not to mention the stuff I need to use to burn CD's, my antivirus software, various kinds of entertainment software, and so on.
It was so much simpler 11.5 years ago when I first met the internet and e-mail. ONe program for each, and one word processing program and that was about it.
This is on top of 2 different browsers, multiple e-mail systems, MS word, excel, not to mention the stuff I need to use to burn CD's, my antivirus software, various kinds of entertainment software, and so on.
It was so much simpler 11.5 years ago when I first met the internet and e-mail. ONe program for each, and one word processing program and that was about it.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Melted copper and disaster
Today I managed to melt some copper and break my bellows.
On Friday night I had set up my furnace, with rather a large furnace volume. On Saturday morning I lit the charcoal, and realized that it was not going to work, since the bellows were too far from the charcoal and the overall volume was too large, the charcoal would spread out too easily. So I pushed one end in and swapped the bellows round to the other end. Doing this meant the hot zone was barely 10 inches a side. I keep forgetting how small is better in this situation. Furnace performance depends upon the fuel supply, and how much air you can get into it, so if the internal volume is very large, you cannot get enough air in to keep the charcoal burning fast enough to produce the heat needed. A bit of wind will get you above 5 or 600 degrees, but in order to get to high temps you have to get bellows blowing straight into the heart of the fire.
This is what the set up was like:
My bellows are tied onto the wooden collapsible stool I have.
This is the raw material:
Copper wire and bits off the end of pipes, placed in a small crucible. I was hoping on getting a puddle of copper in the bottom of the crucible, which required a temperature above 1083C, the melting point of copper.
So, after some puffing with the bellows, I managed to get the temperature around 1100, and held it at that, or as high 1140 or so, for several minutes at a time, pausing only to add more charcoal. This was small bit of charcoal, maybe a cm or 2 long.
This is what it looked like at that stage:
The green bit of wire to the left of the picture is the thermocouple probe- several feet of plastic coated wire attached to a stainless steel sheath encasing the thermocouple wires. The problem is, that to maintain that temperature, and a high of 1180C (Any more and the thermocouple would have been damaged) I had to work the bellows almost constantly, and also throw on small lumps of charcoal at frequent intervals. I could follow the temperature changes as the smaller bits of charcoal were consumed. At one point I was holding around 1140 with only slow puffing of the bellows, for several minutes, but then the temperature began to fall, and I think it would have been due to the higher surface area small stuff having been consumed, leaving only the larger bits that would burn away more slowly.
So this went on for half an hour or so. All I could see of the crucible with the copper in it was the top of a bit of pipe, which had clearly not melted. Which was annoying, so I kept pumping the bellows, trying to maintain a high enough temperature.
Then I smelt something burning, which was odd. I knew the copper pipe out of the bellows was getting hot, I had already dowsed it with water several times. But this was a fishy smell….
Then the bellows went a bit funny, and I knew something was wrong. It turned out that this hole:
Had been burnt in them. It looked like I had managed to suck a small bit of charcoal back into the valve bit of the bellows. Now, several times during my puffing I had heard sounds like hot air was being drawn back into the bellows through the copper tube. It seems that maybe I was not drawing the bellows in the right way, although it is not clear how.
So, this is the melted copper:
Not much, is it? The lower bits got hot enough to melt when they were touching the crucible, but the temperature never got hot enough for long enough that the upper bits melted into them. However today’s experiments show that it is possible to get high enough temperatures to melt copper, which is therefore high enough to make various copper alloys. It’s the glass making that will be tricky.
I need to get the bellows fixed and get a second pair. In the meantime I can play with pewter casting, since pewter will melt over a good charcoal or wood fire, the modern Britannia metal variety melts around 210C.
On Friday night I had set up my furnace, with rather a large furnace volume. On Saturday morning I lit the charcoal, and realized that it was not going to work, since the bellows were too far from the charcoal and the overall volume was too large, the charcoal would spread out too easily. So I pushed one end in and swapped the bellows round to the other end. Doing this meant the hot zone was barely 10 inches a side. I keep forgetting how small is better in this situation. Furnace performance depends upon the fuel supply, and how much air you can get into it, so if the internal volume is very large, you cannot get enough air in to keep the charcoal burning fast enough to produce the heat needed. A bit of wind will get you above 5 or 600 degrees, but in order to get to high temps you have to get bellows blowing straight into the heart of the fire.
This is what the set up was like:
My bellows are tied onto the wooden collapsible stool I have.
This is the raw material:
Copper wire and bits off the end of pipes, placed in a small crucible. I was hoping on getting a puddle of copper in the bottom of the crucible, which required a temperature above 1083C, the melting point of copper.
So, after some puffing with the bellows, I managed to get the temperature around 1100, and held it at that, or as high 1140 or so, for several minutes at a time, pausing only to add more charcoal. This was small bit of charcoal, maybe a cm or 2 long.
This is what it looked like at that stage:
The green bit of wire to the left of the picture is the thermocouple probe- several feet of plastic coated wire attached to a stainless steel sheath encasing the thermocouple wires. The problem is, that to maintain that temperature, and a high of 1180C (Any more and the thermocouple would have been damaged) I had to work the bellows almost constantly, and also throw on small lumps of charcoal at frequent intervals. I could follow the temperature changes as the smaller bits of charcoal were consumed. At one point I was holding around 1140 with only slow puffing of the bellows, for several minutes, but then the temperature began to fall, and I think it would have been due to the higher surface area small stuff having been consumed, leaving only the larger bits that would burn away more slowly.
So this went on for half an hour or so. All I could see of the crucible with the copper in it was the top of a bit of pipe, which had clearly not melted. Which was annoying, so I kept pumping the bellows, trying to maintain a high enough temperature.
Then I smelt something burning, which was odd. I knew the copper pipe out of the bellows was getting hot, I had already dowsed it with water several times. But this was a fishy smell….
Then the bellows went a bit funny, and I knew something was wrong. It turned out that this hole:
Had been burnt in them. It looked like I had managed to suck a small bit of charcoal back into the valve bit of the bellows. Now, several times during my puffing I had heard sounds like hot air was being drawn back into the bellows through the copper tube. It seems that maybe I was not drawing the bellows in the right way, although it is not clear how.
So, this is the melted copper:
Not much, is it? The lower bits got hot enough to melt when they were touching the crucible, but the temperature never got hot enough for long enough that the upper bits melted into them. However today’s experiments show that it is possible to get high enough temperatures to melt copper, which is therefore high enough to make various copper alloys. It’s the glass making that will be tricky.
I need to get the bellows fixed and get a second pair. In the meantime I can play with pewter casting, since pewter will melt over a good charcoal or wood fire, the modern Britannia metal variety melts around 210C.
Burning things!
Today I burnt stuff. I have never really gotten rid of some interest in burning things, I was sticking bits of wood in the fire as a child, but rest assured, I do not engage in wanton destruction. (Although it would be so easy. I’m sometimes amazed at how uncommon it is for people to actually destroy things, but that’s another post)
The aim today was twofold- to burn beech wood and bracken, in order to get two kinds of ashes for the production of sal alkali, or in other words alkaline salts, usually of potassium. Beech wood is recommended by Biringuccio and others, and bracken is known to contain large amounts of potassium salts, and is recommended in other books.
Raw materials, bracken and wood:
So, the first thing I did was build my furnace. I shall explain it and its genesis in a later post. Here is the inside of it:
On the right hand side is the lower section, on the left the higher section. I forgot to re-orientate the photo before posting it, so it is on its side rather than being vertical. It should be clear that there is a gap between some firebricks between the lower and upper sections. The lower section is open at the sides, and contained the beech wood. The upper section was open at the bottom and the top. This is essentially an attempt at a reverberatory furnace, where the heat and combustible material from the lower chamber rises up into the upper chamber, and heats whatever is in there.
This can sort of be seen here:
Here you can see flames from the wood rising up through the upper chamber. You have to use wood for this, as far as I understand it, so that you get lots of nice volatiles distilling off and burning as they rise.
The basic work was easy, the thing that took a long time was putting the furnace together, and covering gaps with clay, that took nearly an hour. Actually burning all the wood took only 45 minutes. I simply stuffed the upper compartment with bracken, and the lower one with fine twigs and newspaper, and lit the newspaper. After that the natural chimney effect took over, and the fire got going ok, although a little slowly. I just had to feed more bracken in the top as the previous stuff burnt.
I checked the temp half way through using my thermocouple. The temp in the wood fire was 680 to over 700 when the wind blew, but only a bit over 300 in the bracken compartment.
Results and discussion
The end results were a small amount of beech ash, and a small amount of bracken ash, with some unburnt stems. The problem was that I had not dried the bracken properly, and so the root stems, which were thick and wet did not catch light very easily. The wood used was a smidgen damp, which did not help, but burnt well enough, the problem was the lack of draft. Doing it in my tiny drying area, in the shade of a fence, on a not very windy day, was not helpful. I had to use the bellows to really get it going. The problem is that a reverbertory furnace works by wind, and if there is no wind, it wont work well. Also the wood used should be totally dry, and not too thick, I think that anything more than a cm in diameter is not much use, since it will not burn fast enough. Remember, burnt wood is an insulator, that is why they use it on fire doors. I also didn’t have enough wood at all, I could easily have kept feeding it for ages, with enough wood available.
But now I have some ashes to play with. See my next post for what I shall do with them.
The aim today was twofold- to burn beech wood and bracken, in order to get two kinds of ashes for the production of sal alkali, or in other words alkaline salts, usually of potassium. Beech wood is recommended by Biringuccio and others, and bracken is known to contain large amounts of potassium salts, and is recommended in other books.
Raw materials, bracken and wood:
So, the first thing I did was build my furnace. I shall explain it and its genesis in a later post. Here is the inside of it:
On the right hand side is the lower section, on the left the higher section. I forgot to re-orientate the photo before posting it, so it is on its side rather than being vertical. It should be clear that there is a gap between some firebricks between the lower and upper sections. The lower section is open at the sides, and contained the beech wood. The upper section was open at the bottom and the top. This is essentially an attempt at a reverberatory furnace, where the heat and combustible material from the lower chamber rises up into the upper chamber, and heats whatever is in there.
This can sort of be seen here:
Here you can see flames from the wood rising up through the upper chamber. You have to use wood for this, as far as I understand it, so that you get lots of nice volatiles distilling off and burning as they rise.
The basic work was easy, the thing that took a long time was putting the furnace together, and covering gaps with clay, that took nearly an hour. Actually burning all the wood took only 45 minutes. I simply stuffed the upper compartment with bracken, and the lower one with fine twigs and newspaper, and lit the newspaper. After that the natural chimney effect took over, and the fire got going ok, although a little slowly. I just had to feed more bracken in the top as the previous stuff burnt.
I checked the temp half way through using my thermocouple. The temp in the wood fire was 680 to over 700 when the wind blew, but only a bit over 300 in the bracken compartment.
Results and discussion
The end results were a small amount of beech ash, and a small amount of bracken ash, with some unburnt stems. The problem was that I had not dried the bracken properly, and so the root stems, which were thick and wet did not catch light very easily. The wood used was a smidgen damp, which did not help, but burnt well enough, the problem was the lack of draft. Doing it in my tiny drying area, in the shade of a fence, on a not very windy day, was not helpful. I had to use the bellows to really get it going. The problem is that a reverbertory furnace works by wind, and if there is no wind, it wont work well. Also the wood used should be totally dry, and not too thick, I think that anything more than a cm in diameter is not much use, since it will not burn fast enough. Remember, burnt wood is an insulator, that is why they use it on fire doors. I also didn’t have enough wood at all, I could easily have kept feeding it for ages, with enough wood available.
But now I have some ashes to play with. See my next post for what I shall do with them.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
First Post
This is my new blog. I already have a Livejournal, but am interested in a bit wider coverage for what I am doing, and also because it gives me more presence in the blogs I post on.
I shall be covering my experiments on alchemy and medieval chemistry and technology, as well as the occaisional rant on politics or creationism or some other stupidity.
Are you bored yet?
Come back in a few days when I have some old posts up, they are more interesting.
I shall be covering my experiments on alchemy and medieval chemistry and technology, as well as the occaisional rant on politics or creationism or some other stupidity.
Are you bored yet?
Come back in a few days when I have some old posts up, they are more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)