That's a quote that surely appeals to many here.
Fun fact, a common older winding alloy for acoustic guitars was called 80/20 Bronze despite actually being copper/zinc alloy and therefore Brass!
Leading to stainless steel, a first step was the discovery of the method to produce aluminum cheaply, by electrolysis. With cheap aluminum available, a method for producing chromium was discovered, by reducing chromium compounds with metallic aluminum.
With metallic chromium easily available, after a century from its discovery, during which making metallic chromium had been impossible in great quantities, it has become possible to investigate the properties of the chromium alloys with the other available metals.
Soon, it has been discovered that chromium can produce interesting alloys with cobalt ("stellite") and with nickel, and that these alloys are the first metals that can rival the platinum-group metals in chemical resistance.
It has been suggested that these chromium alloys could be used for stainless cutlery, but the high prices of cobalt and nickel have prevented the use of such alloys, except for special applications where the cost was unimportant.
More than a decade later, the next logical step has been the discovery that the expensive cobalt and nickel can be substituted with cheap iron, without diminishing much the chemical resistance of the alloys.
It should also be noted that while Brearley has invented the ferritic stainless steel, which has only small amounts of any other elements besides iron and chromium, almost simultaneously a different kind of stainless steel has been invented in Germany, austenitic stainless steel, which also has significant amounts of nickel, besides iron and chromium, with enough nickel to change the crystal structure of the steel.
Austenitic stainless steels have various advantages, especially that they are much more suitable to cheap processing by plastic deformation, so nowadays they are much more widely used than the kind of stainless steel invented by Brearley.
Are you sure about that? Chromium is produced (as ferrochrome, a FeCr alloy) by carbothermic reduction of chromite. This is done in an arc furnace, so electrical energy is needed, but no aluminum. Pure chromium (without the iron) is not needed for production of stainless steel.
Brearley steel debuted in 1915. The question is not how it is produced in 2025 but how it was produced in 1915.
Wikipedia partly agrees with GP:
“Also in the late 1890s, German chemist Hans Goldschmidt developed an aluminothermic (thermite) process for producing carbon-free chromium.[29] Between 1904 and 1911, several researchers, particularly Leon Guillet of France, prepared alloys that would later be considered stainless steel.[29][30]”
Though it points out a host of household names that knew of iron chrome alloys, including Faraday and Bunsen. Chrome steel existed for 75 years before Brearley came along but seems to have been used for things like canons, which are a lot more dear than cutlery. I wonder how they got their chrome 50 years before Goldschmidt.
> “Time was,” he lamented later, “when a man made steel, decided what it was good for and told the customer how to make the best of it. Then, with time’s quickening step, he just made the steel; he engaged another man, who knew nothing about steelmaking, to analyse it, and say what it was good for. Then he engaged a second man, who knew all about hardening and tempering steel; then a third man who could neither make steel, nor analyse it, nor harden and temper it—but this last tested it, put his OK mark on it and passed it into service.”
In a way it warms my heart that obfuscation in such a manner, perhaps even enshittification, is not a new experience for those watching a trade modernise. Several things come to mind: npm and python library dependency hell and LLM as a catalyst of skill atrophy in experts simultaneously with the enablement of a whole new middle layer of proprietors.
Also the article led me to think more about the idea of simultaneous invention - I used to believe it to be redundant and wasted work. But this still can lead to different outcomes even with identical formulations or methods. Getting an invention into use in the world is perhaps as great a feat as the invention itself. I now believe any worthwhile invention deserves more than one champion.
In today's hyperconnected world it is easy to discover that someone else has beaten you to the full flourishing of idea into invention, but I find that doing the novel work oneself with one's own mind and hands still provides the unique learning opportunity which can allow one to invent yet again, albeit now with a widened skill and knowledge horizon.
This is rather silly, since steel today is far superior to the steel of his day. The complexity he bemoans is part of that process of improvement.
I am talking about enshittification of digital applications and services compared to the earlier years of the information age.
Volunteer oil well firefighters from a host of first world and some developing countries showed up and started trying to work together.
The intense heat makes for slow going, and can melt not just people but also equipment. It turned out every country had solved a different part of the problem. The Russians used thermal mass - they attached the hose to the barrel of a tank and let the armor soak up heat for a while. Someone else had better heat shielding. The Americans (?) had perfected detonation to extinguish rather than ignite a fire. And someone had better protective gear.
All of these techniques could be combined. Heat shielding on a tank means the machines you can get the equipment closer to the fire for longer, and the suits and explosives put the fire out faster so the capping crew can get in there.
In the end they were doing several wells per day and multiple sites per week, instead of a few wells per week. Parallel invention doesn’t always end up at the exact same outcome.
I think a great illustrator of this today are SLaM methods that almost always seem to combine a low-drift high-noise technique with one that is high-drift and low-noise.
Eg. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03054...
perihelions•4h ago
If anyone was hooked by this tangent, this was[0] "Todhunter’s[1] Algebra" [2] (1858? 1870? 1871? 1889?) you can peruse for free at [2].
[0] https://www.readingsheffield.co.uk/harry-brearleys-reading-j...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Todhunter
[2] https://archive.org/details/algebraforuseofc00todhuoft
readthenotes1•9m ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Stout
The Timothy Hutton shows available on YouTube are a good introduction if you can get over the poor transcription to youtube.