Re: "steel" vs "iron" [was:Re: Competing unions [was: Re: Native English]]

In message <1142710982.701333.57710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Blue Hornet <hornet.blue@xxxxxxxxx> writes

Paul Wolff wrote:
>
By 'soft iron' I meant nearly pure iron, saving one word, as I thought
at the time. Cast iron is quite carbon-rich, a reason for its
potentially having less iron than steel does. Wrought iron doesn't have
any particular composition range by definition, but is likely to have
one in practice. Soft iron has very little carbon and very little of
anything else. Its magnetic properties are consequently similar to
those of elementary iron. They don't bear on the discussion of iron
versus steel nomenclature.

I've snipped quite a bit of the following, for space reasons, and out of consideration for 99% of the audience who probably don't want to read it again; but acknowledgements for the brief revision course.

Cast iron doesn't refer only to how much carbon is included in the
alloy, but also to how the metal was formed and processed, which
affects its molecular grain structure to give it the properties it has
for holding a shape and retaining its hardness. The amount of carbon
involved in the alloy is tiny; we're talking less than 0.5% or so. The
molten compound is poured into molds that create the shapes desired.

Cast iron generally has much more carbon than this, typically 2 to 4 percent. Blast furnace iron product is treated for steelmaking primarily by burning off the excess carbon and removing other non-metals with oxygen.

Wrought iron is something I don't know much about (composition and
primary production), but the iron shapes are heated in forges and then
pounded and twisted into shapes for (mostly) ornamental and light
structural uses.

And it is relatively corrosion resistant, owing to the impurities pounded into it during its wreaking.

Conclusion: 'corrugated iron' is a vulgar usage hallowed by time and sturdy disregard for the cares of metallurgists.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
.

Relevant Pages