Talk:Fire striker

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Comment[edit]

Hold the striker loosely, and strike it against the rock

I'm reading this page while learning the old art of flint and steel firelighting. Is this correct or should it have read "hold the striker tightly"?

Just a question... Swat253 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important whether you hold the striker loosely or tightly. Either way works. Kortoso (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that flint is not necessary (which is true), and then mentions "petrified wood" as an alternative.

Silicate petrified wood *IS* flint.

A reasonably intelligent fifth grader knows this stuff.

March 18, 2012: Note: the external link: http://bushcraft.se/film/index.html.en does not work or is not related to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsadowski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint#Origin

The exact mode of formation of flint is not yet clear but it is thought that it occurs as a result of chemical changes in compressed sedimentary rock formations, during the process of diagenesis. One hypothesis is that a gelatinous material fills cavities in the sediment, such as holes bored by crustaceans or molluscs and that this becomes silicified.

Kortoso (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of firesteels?[edit]

The ancient P and D shaped firesteels in the photos? Why those similar shapes, and how do they function? Seemingly they are not mere iron powder or scraping sources (as implied).
--69.110.90.147 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Unorganized, confusing , needs rewrite.[edit]

The opening sentence reads: "A fire striker is a piece of high-carbon steel used for striking a spark, usually kept in a tinderbox together with flint and tinder."

But the remainder of the article then walks willy nilly and unannounced between the "piece of high-carbon steel," and the flint (usually modern ferrocerium,) as the main topic. In fact the thrust seems to be on the ferrorod, not the striker, (which suggests needing a new topic heading).

All modern flint lighters use ferrorod, that's what "flint" means today in this context. I'm not even sure the as-defined term "fire striker" is in common usage. Typically that means the combo flint (ferro rod) and steel, or just the ferrorod, with the high-carbon steel striker (scraper) implied. Googling "fire striker" quickly confirms this, in fact googgle converts most hits to ferrorod "fire starters"...except for two makers using it as a brand name.

Note that the "high-carbon steel" has swapped functions, ——depending on whether it's used with hard old mineral flint, or with our modern high-performance soft-ferrorod systems. With mineral flint, steel is the burning fuel, —with ferrorod, it's just the striker/scraper.

The term "fire striker" is both confusing, and not widely used.
--69.110.90.147 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Agree with most of what you say. The page should probably be titled "firesteel" with "fire striker" redirected to it.

However, I think the article should focus on the historic use of the term (in the context of "flint and steel") and simply note that in modern usage "firesteel" is sometimes used to refer to ferrocessium rods and the like, with a hyperlink to the appropriate page. As you indirectly acknowledge the modern ferro rod is functionally similar to but technologically dissimilar from traditional firesteel. Lexington50 (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would make a lot more sense if there were separate sections for "Traditional flint and steel firemaking" and "Modern ferrocerium devices". Kortoso (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To create confusion[edit]

What mean this sentence: "To create confusion, ferrocerium rods, described below ..." ? Zomby5178 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Percussion firemaking"[edit]

I submit that the title of this article be changed to "Percussion firemaking" because the firesteel or firestriker is incidental to the technique (which can actually be used with iron pyrite as well).

Then we can set up sections for both archaic flint-and-steel and ferrocerium firemaking.

I made a category for Percussion Firemaking, since this and other categories were classed under Friction Firemaking.

I am going to take out the mentions of Ferrocerium, since there is a separate article for that. Kortoso (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, maybe this should be called "Flint and Steel Firemaking" since many people now refer to Ferrocerium sticks as firesteels. Ideas? Kortoso (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Tinderboxes in the home provides some supporting documentation:

http://www.oldandinteresting.com/tinderbox.aspx

And this may be a copy therof:

http://www.colonialsense.com/Antiques/Other_Antiques/Early_Lighting/The_Common_Tinder-Box.php

-Kortoso (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alloyed steel?[edit]

From personal experience, I've never been able to strike decent sparks from anything but simple carbon steel. Is there a citation source that indicates that steel will work is alloyed with anything but carbon? Kortoso (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No response on this in almost two years. I'll take it out. Kortoso (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to hold the firesteel[edit]

There is an image, part of which (and it's the relevant part) is already in Wikimedia Commons at

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fr_Haguenau_Retable_de_l%27Eglise_Saint_Georges_-_d%C3%A9tail_Sainte_Famille.jpg

The painting, no copy of which can I find without the bottom cut off as it is above, is in a church named "St. Georges" in Haguenau, in Alsace, in France.

If you zoom in you can see how Joseph, Husband (or Fiancé) of Mary, is holding the firesteel, wearing it like brass knuckles with fingers through the curled ends. This painting is the only one I've ever seen from Medieval or Renaissance times that confirms a conjecture I had since childhood, that the shape of a firesteel with its bouts at the ends was for the purpose of wearing it like brass knuckles. The flint you would be rapping might have a fine edge on it (or so I conjecture) because the finer the edge the greater the shower of sparks. But an edge that fine could cut your fingers unless you donned the firesteel like a brass knuckles and curled your fingers out of harm's way. The firesteel would never let the flint blade touch your flesh. The material to be lit by the sparks is held in the same hand as the flint itself so that the sparks need not travel far, the material can be blown upon, and once it has a durable glow it can be moved to light additional material. This is a better demonstration than that in the photograph of 1918 Dalarna, Sweden.2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]