Can fire be produced by striking flint on flint? It seems to produce the dullest of sparks, anyone managed it?
Flint on flint
- Thread starter bushcraftbob
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
In theory? Maybe.
The specific version of flint you use needs to have enough iron and carbon content in it to burn with a "spark" hot enough to be caught with good materials and then coaxed into a fire. But here are lots of "ifs" there.
One of the writers for Wilderness Way magazine (I think that's the correct one) did an article on this testing of various "rocks" to see about starting a fire using just those "rocks". He tested lots of variations and combinations of rocks with quite a wide range of mineral content. He did get his sparks eventually. But not from just any rocks picked up lying about.
So the flint you use needs to have enough of the right mineral content to act as the "fuel" for the energy created by striking them together. And then that "fuel" must burn hot enough and long enough for you to catch it in some other material - so you can then coax it into a fire.
The old flint and stone method of fire starting from "caveman" times was flint and iron pyrite. The flint was struck down along a groove made in the chunk of iron pyrite. The iron pyrite provided the "fuel" in the form of iron and carbon mixed into it. But those sparks end up being small, hard to get, and cooler. So catching them to start a fire takes a lot more time and effort. The Iceman found in the Alps years ago had a fire kit containing a flint knife with one edge "wore" back a bunch, a chunk of iron pyrite, and some fungus for catching those sparks.
Just a few humble thoughts to ponder.
Mikey - that grumpy ol' german blacksmith out in the Hinterlands
The specific version of flint you use needs to have enough iron and carbon content in it to burn with a "spark" hot enough to be caught with good materials and then coaxed into a fire. But here are lots of "ifs" there.
One of the writers for Wilderness Way magazine (I think that's the correct one) did an article on this testing of various "rocks" to see about starting a fire using just those "rocks". He tested lots of variations and combinations of rocks with quite a wide range of mineral content. He did get his sparks eventually. But not from just any rocks picked up lying about.
So the flint you use needs to have enough of the right mineral content to act as the "fuel" for the energy created by striking them together. And then that "fuel" must burn hot enough and long enough for you to catch it in some other material - so you can then coax it into a fire.
The old flint and stone method of fire starting from "caveman" times was flint and iron pyrite. The flint was struck down along a groove made in the chunk of iron pyrite. The iron pyrite provided the "fuel" in the form of iron and carbon mixed into it. But those sparks end up being small, hard to get, and cooler. So catching them to start a fire takes a lot more time and effort. The Iceman found in the Alps years ago had a fire kit containing a flint knife with one edge "wore" back a bunch, a chunk of iron pyrite, and some fungus for catching those sparks.
Just a few humble thoughts to ponder.
Mikey - that grumpy ol' german blacksmith out in the Hinterlands
Oh, one thing I remembered was that isnt with flint and steel the steel is the bit that actually produces the sparks?
Just tried hitting a couple of bits of flint together and it produced some very dull red sparks. I very much doubt they'll light anything.
