Making Seamless Tubing Using Argentium Silver.

I am well pleased with the beauty and enduring shine of Argentium silver, but some items of bullion are not yet available in the UK.

So with some trepidation, I set out to make 3.0mm tubing, using strip 0.4mm thick and 15.0mm wide.

It turned out to be surprisingly easy, first to swage it in a swage block and then form it around a steel rod until the edges met using a fibre jawed vice. Nylon jawed pliers might have done the same.

Next the end of the tube was sharpened and flattened, so as to begin the drawing down process. The edges quickly came close together and were fluxed and fused with a long sharp flame using my Proxxon mini torch.

The torch did struggle to fuse more than about 35.0mm in length, so I made several pieces. A Smith’s Little Torch might have been better.

The tube was then further drawn to the required size for setting 0.3mm CZs. Final external diameter, 3.6mm. Not a seam in sight.
Dennis.

Well that's really doing it old school, very satisfying I would expect

Yes Bob, but also easier than I expected, except for getting the heat right.

This takes me back. I know how to do this but once I found you could actually buy the stuff I never did it again. We were taught to solder a copper wire into the tube to give you a better grip for pulling through the drawplate. I don't know if it makes a difference as I haven't done it any other way.

The wire saves wasting silver though and is even more useful with gold.

Another of those you know there was a reason but after 40 years you can't remember what it was!

I am a fan of your work Dennis, but, is the term ‘seamless’ technically correct? Right now I am experimenting with making seamless rings and they are named so because they have no solder joint at all. Naturally my eyes lit up when I saw your thread title but now I am left a little confused as to what ‘seamless’ actually means.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handmadeblanks

I am a fan of your work Dennis, but, is the term ‘seamless’ technically correct? Right now I am experimenting with making seamless rings and they are named so because they have no solder joint at all. Naturally my eyes lit up when I saw your thread title but now I am left a little confused as to what ‘seamless’ actually means.:confused:

---

Thank you but I guess that if two metal edges are connected by fusion without intervening solder, then they can be fairly described as joined seamlessly.
No doubt technology such as x-rays might still detect an imperfect union, but at microscopic level nothing is what it seems. No pun intended. Dennis.