The illustrative picture on that article is absolutely useless without a scale of some sort. The feature look small, like maybe on the order of a weld bead but it might be on the order of mill scale but under massive magnification and I have no way to tell.
Wootz steel
21–30 of 47 posts
Re: Wootz steel
#22Re: Wootz steel
#23The illustrative picture on that article is absolutely useless without a scale of some sort. The feature look small, like maybe on the order of a weld bead but it might be on the order of mill scale but under massive magnification and I have no way to tell.
I think that is the fullered flat of a sword blade, so a couple inches or more across. The pattern exhibits at scales you'd need magnification to see all the way up to bands a mm across. I have a blade that was created using one of the reproduction processes. I have heard some say it is simply a very specific type of alloy banding.
Re: Wootz steel
#24Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle has about 35 enjoyable pages on this process, if anyone's interested.
Stephenson's books are funny. They're totally gripping while I'm reading them, but afterwards I'm never sure if I liked them or not. I plowed through Quicksilver when it came out and loved it. Some time later I picked up The Confusion and was very excited to get on with the story, until I read the first couple of pages and realized I'd forgotten most of the plot and relationships and would have to reread the first...…
Edit: On the other hand I've read Anathem so many times that my hardback copy fell apart!
Re: Wootz steel
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I'd really call that a computer any more than I'd call an old watch a computer.
The line is pretty blurry. This (relatively) modern device [0] is a computer although it's probably less complex than some of the ancient ones. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumaresq
Re: Wootz steel
#26India prior to the Brits, should be a case study in how to integrate places like the Rust Belt in US, Afghanistan into global trade. Each village was an autonomous unit of production that traded directly with nearby villages, silk road and through merchant ships with the world. ( In some cases they had their own local currency ! ) A single village could be directly linked to markets in Europe and China, or form part…
> Places like the Rust belt can't directly trade with Kenya, they have to go through hordes of middle men.
"The Rust Belt" can pretty easily trade with Kenya, thanks to the Saint Lawrence Seaway. I'm sitting in my office in the "rust belt," looking out at a shipping channel that accommodates ships from Europe pretty routinely.
If we're using "middlemen," e.g. relying on rail to bring Kenyan products across Africa to one of its western ports, or relying on rail to bring those products from an Eastern US port, it's because that is inherently more economical. There aren't "hordes" of middlemen involved.
Re: Wootz steel
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
"They" had analogue computers [1] and steam turbines [2] two millenia ago. Power hammers a few centuries ago seem pretty mild by comparison. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
The Aeolipile is notoriously inefficient though.
Re: Wootz steel
#28India prior to the Brits, should be a case study in how to integrate places like the Rust Belt in US, Afghanistan into global trade. Each village was an autonomous unit of production that traded directly with nearby villages, silk road and through merchant ships with the world. ( In some cases they had their own local currency ! ) A single village could be directly linked to markets in Europe and China, or form part…
That said, though I strongly suspect that we're very close to each other w/r/t sociopolitical views, I don't think your overall assertion here makes sense. As others have said, someone in the Rust Belt can in fact trade directly with someone in Kenya today.
> It is kinda ironic that we went from a more libertarian trade system to a more restrictive one, as technology helped the state exert more control.
I don't think technology has had much to do with this, certainly not until the last handful of decades. My intuition is that tech didn't start having a huge impact on the scale of governments until mechanization in the early 20th Century, and didn't really take off until the advent of databases for managing entire populations' worth of data in the 1930s. Even now, with the seemingly exponential increase in surveillance power driven by advances in tech, I'm not so sure that a century from now that technology will be seen as a force driving the growth of state power. In fact, I believe the opposite will be true.
Look me up on social media somewhere. I almost always use my real name as a username, and it's very nearly unique. I'd love to have a longer-term conversation about how technology has increased the relative power of the individual - from prehistory (when a faction's military power was measured directly in how many fighters it could field) to today (when a single individual can occupy a populated region's police and military forces nearly indefinitely).
Re: Wootz steel
#29It seems like a link to a random Wikipedia page should be accompanied by an explanatory comment...
This happens a lot here. I don’t mind it.
If I'm not knowledgeable about the topic, I read the article. If I feel like I am knowledgeable about it, I jump straight to the comments. There I either learn something, or share knowledge.
It's one of my favorite types of HN posts :)
Re: Wootz steel
#30It seems like a link to a random Wikipedia page should be accompanied by an explanatory comment...
But that battle was lost long ago and HN's format and conventions go against it.