Wikipedia

Talk:List of preserved historic blast furnaces

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Brianschmult in topic Items to be added
Learn more about this page

Items to be added

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

United Kingdom

edit

United States

edit

how's about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catoctin_Furnace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.248.248 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Distinction between "historic" and industrial"?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I don't have a problem with adding old pre-industrial age sites per se, but I think that a distinction of some sort should be in order. All the ones in the list thus far are modern age industrial mass-production sites. Splitting the newly-added pre-20th century English ones into a second table (but keeping it as a separate section in this article) would be my suggestion, I could then add more historic sites from Germany.

My main question is where we make the distinction. A 17-hundred-something blast furnace is certainly notably different from a 19-hundred-something industrial site, but where would we draw the line? The one from Poland (which I couldn't find out much about) would be my main problem here.--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edit: I think what I would view as a "modern" blast furnace would be anything that reaches a certain minimum height (which one?) and features metal gas tubes and cowper stoves. Anything without these (and potentially additional) elements is "historic".--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking that a split was needed, but would suggest that we would do better by providing a heading for each country. The British ones that I was adding are not in cities, I was thus placing them alphabetically by county.
I do not think there is any point at which you can draw a valid boundary, since there has been gradual evolution since the 15th century. The modern blast furnace is certainly very different in appearance and size from its predecessors, but there is no difference in funstion, only in sophistication.
In the UK it would be more usual to split into the home countries and then alphabetically, either by name or by county. There have been several hundred sites with blast furnaces in UK, but I was intending to limit what I added to those with substantial standing remains, which may well be 30+ in UK and at least as many in the rest of Europe. There is an article listing surviving furnaces both in Britain and other areas somewhere in Historical Metallurgy, but I have not tried to locate it yet. I would caution against placing too much detail in the descriptive column. If there is a substantial amount worth saying, it will be better to create an article on the furnace, or to add it to an article on the place where it is (as I have done with Bonawe. There may be a case for changing the column headings slightly between countries to suit national arrangements, something that will be practicable if my suggestion of splitting my country is taken up.
I think we should see how the article develops as we both add new sites. In time to come, we will be able to stand back and make as assessmetn of it. I started mainly with some charcoal-fired furnaces, because those are the ones that I know best, but there is a lot more to do. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I found other views of the Polish site which make it look more like a typical, albeit very old, "industrial" blast furnace complete with cowper stoves and cast house. [1] [2] [3] As far as I can tell, all the sites I added are industrial era mass-production blast furnaces, which sets them apart from historic, five-man business installations. Once again, I'd vote for at least splitting "historic" and "industrial" into two seperate categories.--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Once again, I must sat that there is no distinction between the furnaces of the late 16th century and those such as Redcar (currently in the news as about to be mothballed), except a gradual growth in size. One might draw a line at the point where hot-blast was introduced, but there were furnaces with hot-blast through some tuyeres and cold through others. If necessary, the article can be split by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see that you have made the split, but you need to provide a robust definition of where the boundary between the two groups lies. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Metal frames, Cowper stoves, multiple furnaces side by side at the time of operation, external elevators for filling raw materials into the furnace, accessibility of site by trains with special transportation wagons, just to name a few.--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes these are indeed features of late 19th and 20th century furnace, but multiple furnaces go back to the cold-blast coke furances of the industrial revolution (such as Madeley Wood and Ketley in the 1750s). Blaenavon was built in 1789 and had 10 furnaces in 1870. The book that I have consulted does notr make clear whether the new works built in the 1840s had hot blast. This is not the period that I research, so that I am less familiar with the subject. Cowper stove is a red link, though they are mentioned in Regenerative heat exchanger (which is tagged as needing improvement and seems to have picked up some relatively unrelated material) and Air preheater (which similarly lacks focus). I still say that there is a problem as to where to draw the line between new and old. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'd say the distinction is made easier by reality, because even if, as you say, the transition was gradual, there's been a considerable gap in terms of preservation. Unfortunately (not in terms of distinction), some of the oldest existing industrial blast furnaces (dating back to around 1910!), which were located at two sites in Belgium, have been demolished a few years ago. That's somewhat tragic for historic reasons, but makes the distinction easier. I have another possible criteria which may explain where I'm coming from: What I put in the first group is basically "everything is located in one building", whereas the second group is "multiple semi-separate structures which serve individual functions". So the difference is not just the furnace's vertical size, but there's also a lot more necessary installations spread out across a horizontal plane. As I said - the transition may have been gradual, but as far as I'm aware, a huge intermediate phase simply hasn't been preserved at all, making the distinction easier.--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Minor correction - the Forges de Clabecq are still standing, but they are intended for demolition in the near future. The blast furnaces at Usines Gustave Boël appear to have been demolished, however.--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am still not sure where the line is supposed to be drawn objectively. On items you have recently referred to, I thought that what we listed here was intended to be (1) still existing (2) preserved (or intended to be) (3) with some kind of public access. For this reason I have been limiting what I have added, so as not to clutter the article up with many hundreds for former furnaces in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Image

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Can one of these images be used for the Uckange site? They're published under a Creative Commons license. [4] [5]--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Or this one... simply CC-BY: [6]--Farrokh Bulsara (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Status of Bethlehem Steel

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm confused. This claims that only one blast furnace remains as of 2009. However, this photo series from 2010, this photo series from 2010 and this photo series from 2011 still show several furnaces side by side.--217.187.42.135 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lines!

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Does anybody know how to stop the grid lines disappearing when a box is empty? It makes the article look tatty, and it doesn't happen in other articles such as this one; List of bacon dishes. Obscurasky (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Using a space helps, I think.--217.187.15.102 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, I tried that. If you type a dash (or any character) the lines appear but then you can see the character you've written. Obscurasky (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
What browser are you using? I see the outlines in the sections you added. (I'm using Opera.)--217.187.15.102 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm using AOL, which uses Interet Explorer under the hood. I see lines around the sections I created, except the right-hand column, which I've left blank. Likewise, I see all the lines on Blists Hill and Coalbrookdale, except those around where the photo should be Obscurasky (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

beide Links zu Quellen zu Neunkirchen funktionieren nicht.

" The server could not resolve your request for uri: http://www.gimtec-service.de/intous/eisenindustrie/altes-huttenareal-neunkirchen "

http://www.lebendige-stadt.de/en/projekte/projekt_neunkirchen.htm "The page cannot be found ... error 404" --Helium4 (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of preserved historic blast furnaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of preserved historic blast furnaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oregon Iron Company Furnace

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should the Oregon Iron Company Furnace be added? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Explanation of 26 August 2019 Edits to Hopewell Furnace

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All:

This is the explanation for the changes I made to the Hopewell Furnace entry:

I changed the photo. The old one was long on grass and fence but short on structures; the replacement shows the furnace group buildings, which are more relevant.

The official website caption is changed from NPS to the furnace name.

The link with caption "National Historic Site" was changed to that name, instead of "National Historical Park", which is a different type of entity. They are currently separate sections of the same article, and both names end up at the same place, but this will stay at the correct place if the two components are ever separated.

Expanded the description of the furnace and removed the "then with anthracite", which is not correct. The main furnace was charcoal for the entire c. 1771-1883 operating life. There was an additional anthracite furnace that operated for a few years, but this was a failure and was dismantled.

The operating start year was changed from 1771 to "c. 1771." All root conclusions of research are for a start "about" 1771 or "probably" 1771, but there is no evidence for precisely 1771. The range is 1769 (likely land purchase) to 1772 (oldest known cast product).

Added the most important "public attractions".

Brianschmult (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_preserved_historic_blast_furnaces&oldid=1205279939"