Discussion on Cliff Stamp forum
Just found this "discussion". All the same story again and again - "experts" repeating their mantras trying to make my test results to varnish... Well this is continues for 5 years when I start testing knives and show the real value of all this "knife community" - people who keep talking and talking and do no actual work. I keep hearing - "You should be wrong because it does not match my theory. Because my favorite knife I like soooooo very much, my precious, are not on the top as I like it to be.......". I am tired really. I repeat all my arguments for this five years hundreds of times same again and again. I am not going to answer this no more.
If you do not like my tests - well do you own! If you are lazy - do not bother me I am not going to do additional testing on your terms for you. This is hard work - do your part if you are interesting, do not be upset if I ask you to do same, because this is what you asking me to do.
So far - five years and nobody among all those "experts" move a finger to do anything! This is just pathetic. Because only what is happening - is desperate and silly attempts to talk away my results which shows shat commonly accepted ideas which this "experts" teach everybody around has no any connection to real life.
I am doing this just for myself - to save money, as I waste over thousand bucks on one well known super steel impressed by reviews and words from this "experts". Turns out all of this things I bought are just crowbars made in a form of very sexy knives - good for smashing concrete blocks but not cutting.
After this extreme disappointment I have my testing to verify if one or other steel is good, so I only may waste money once on sample and will not buy more if results are not what I like to see - I can accept this waste. I am saving a lot now, because knife industry keep throwing on the market high priced "super steels" with poor performance, but I can check is it real deal or another hype.
So I do not really care what some big mouth "expert" says about my testing. If I found someone else doing tests - I will have a look, because if it is real testing I really like to compare results. However, so far I saw mostly testing shows which just tell "experts" what they like to hear. Some Russians doing real works (like Ruslan Kiyasov's soft cutting tests), but so far volume is bit little, however I keep watching what they are doing.
I am not saying that my tests are ideal, as well as my ranking. I am saying that from the very beginning - here the quota:
This is just more readable then raw results.
But still Cliff Stamp blaming me somehow - I guess he is so much "expert", he do not need to bother reading what I wrote there...
Again this is hard work, I found procedure which gave me good estimates I trust with amount of work I am willing to do and for price I am willing to pay - anyone who want better results, more tests - go ahead! Do this hard work, if you can, I am not going to do this for you. I can help and tell how to do good testing - but you have to contribute. No pain no gain.
More from that discussion:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing claim that my results are just Random noise
What testing of yours are you talking about? Are you serious. is it some kind of joke?
I would not do all this if you had any back then, but you have nothing. On YouTube comment
you sad you are going to do something - where is it? Show me I am thrilled to see.
Until you prove that you are one who not only talks a lot, but do some testing - I do not care
what you think. You can call it random noise - but what do you have yourself? A lot of talk
which sounds scientific?
As I pointed out already - you in your "review" miss important comment I made about my
ranking. This indicates - you did not really read what you reviewed. In addition to absence
of any testing experience (not just playing scientist but real one), I do not see why you are
positioning yourself as a reviewer. I know why you do this, but you are not credible reviewer
for me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing clame that I ignore comments
This is all BS, if you are part of so called "community" you should perfectly remember few hundred posts thread on BF where I address all questions many times. I have variables tightly controlled in testing and explained that a lot - not going to do this again. Little example - I cut rope the way it does not hit wooden base - which according to my experiments does make results random (unlike other "testers")...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing demand to defend my methods and data to any ideas of my testing anyone may has
I do not have to do anything! I do not care. I defend my data, methods and everything probably hundered times already. If you can not understand that - I gave up, I am not going to do this over hundred times, what the point? I doubt it will do any help.
Show me test results which are different then mine - that will be valid reason to discuss and revise my methods. If someone pull from somewhere another idea why my tests are all wrong - I am not going to pay attention to that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing statement that someone do not like me and wishing me being banned
Whatever, but how do you expect me pay any attention to anything you are saying? You just admitted that you do not care about testing steel performance - anything of this nature, but just looking for revenge for whatever reason. This is personal vendetta, not discussion of testing methods.
Unfortunately there are quite a few people like you who just irritated with results I got, because they does not match their believe and because of thate, same way as you just did - generate tons of conserns, complains, cospiracy theories etc... First I did address all of that, but then I realize people are just annoyed and there is no point to answer that. They will come up with something else.
So I decided I will pay no attention to all that noise, caused by irritation, but rather look at test results when someone will do real testing and at that point will review my procedures etc... Why should I waste my time reasoning someone who is in vendetta mode?
And no need to pretend that it is abot review - like Stamp scientific review is - "All your data is just a random noise!". This is not review, on my opinion, this is clearly statement - "I do not like you and your results!".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I studied what Cliff has quite while ago. Again if he had what I need - I would not do any of my own testing.
But he does not have much really. As well he is attempting to downplay what I did in his very first post. He did not call
me to came here - I found it myself. He did not comment it in my blog ( [nozh2002.blogspot.com] ). He just start this
negative comments behind my back, for whatever reason.
His major point is - ranking I provided is informal. Well - this is what I sad right away on my page - what is his point to tell this again? I am pretty sure he did not even look at that. If so - what is value of his "review". Is he looking for truth here?
What about other guy - he just want to see me banned, he do not care about "truth". So how can it turns out well?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing Cliff repeating that my results are random and he has arguments for that
First of all my results are not random noise and this is absolutely clear, you attempts to add some scientific flaivour around, but you just pissed of with my results - random noise is just scientific (as you think) way to express that.
For example when CATRA results for CPM S30V became available - it shows same what I was saying for few years already, while all the experts supports industry story about it "holding edge as good as CPM S60V and being tough as A2". Same with CPM S35VN - Sal did not provide his results but admitted that CPM S35VN does not do any better then CPM S30V etc. So this is not random noise. As well you are not reading my explanation on raiting even it is clearly on my result page - what do you expect me to think about your "supported arguments"? I sad you before - have not less education then you do and this "science" language does not charm me at all.
You pull some ideas and because of that call it random? I have comparison with CATRA (fow what was leaked to general public) and I have some unexpected results provel later (SGPS failure for example) etc. But you dare to call it random noise because of some ideas of yours. Does not impress me really.
And all what you question is not new to me I heart that already among many other things and already answered that many times - I am not going to do that again. Basic idea are on the page - details are in BF discussions. If you are looking for truth - you should be able to find that out. I am not going to repeat that again.
Jim started his testing shows on my watch - initially I was very excited about someone who starts doing real things and supported him, but he ignores my biggest concern about having wooden base when he cuts. As I poinetd out before this make results random - I noticed that first, then experiments on purpose and I am absolutely positive his as well as Wilson results are not really came from controlled environment - wooden base level all rope cuts to nothing and there is no control over this impact. It is very easy to avoid that with pretty simple device, however neather Ankerson no Wilson did not ever attempted to try this out and see the difference. What kind of conclusion I made out of it? Well I do not trust those testing at all.
I am not sure why it is such a mentall block for everybody. It is easy to verify practically and easy to avoid, but somehow it is just impossible to accept for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing questions on why blade geometry does not matter
I cut rope by about inch of the blade - so it does not matter how long it is.
I measure sharpness by cotton thread which thinner then any edge I ever see, so it does not metter how thick edge - contact area with the rope always same and depends on thread thickness. I think edge angle may make a difference, but it is always about 30 degree.
Same - type of grind does not matter.
I do not measure force needed to cut rope - I just cut same amount and with thread measure sharpness.
In result I can see how steel with given HT performs after cutting certain amount of rope - what work did it take to cut this rope out of scope.
It is harder to cut with thick edge because contact area with rope wider then if it is with thin edge, this is why Ankerson's see different results with thin and thick edge (however it is still too random due to constant hitting on wooden base he does).
I do repeat this just for you because it seems that you are looking for answers, howeer all this was sad hundred times already - if you check my page and BF discussions you may find that and many other information there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering post that CPM S30V never was clamed to be as good as CPM S90V and as tough as A2
Here it is - I guess you did not study this area as well as I did:
[www.bladeforums.com]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPM S30V:
The newest stainless steel from Crucible, purpose-designed as a
cutlery steel. This steel gives A-2-class toughness and almost-S90V
class wear resistance, at reasonable hardness (~59-60 Rc).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And leaked CATRA results:
[www.bladeforums.com]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel - Total cards cut
10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468
I have CPM S60V - it is not brittle at all. It is 6 times more wear resistant and so coast more to produce. Brittleness is jus part of this cover up story to make everybody believe that this new CPM S30V is just dream of knife enthusiast. I have many CPM S60V and never had any problem with brittleness.
It may not replace CPM S60V - it is just all models which were made out of CPM S60V before from about 2003
start having CPM S30V (with same price tag).
CPM S30V is just pathetic PM steel which has no value but only 10 years old hype and CPM S35VN same loser steel as CPM S30V. 420HC by Buck is as good and priced few times less, being tough and stainless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering another post that CPM S60V can not be 6 times more wear resistant then CPM S30V
I see - it is very old and so we may say it was never was sad...
ABout wear resistance - Acording to Crucible data sheets it was 6 time more wear resistant, but you know better - just by looking at composition I guess.
Lets have a look too:
CPM S60V
C=2.15
Cr=17
Mn=0.4
Mo=0.4
Si=0.4
V=5.5
CPM S30V
C=1.45
Cr=14
Mo=2
V=4
N=0.2
So ... nothing to suggest higher wear resistance... Really?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering to one who sad he is not going to explain why my methods are random and not repeatable, because he is writing book about testing...
Well, OK. I can understand that.
But then before you will be able to provide some proves for you clames and actually discuss what you are saying,
may be you should not throw that at me?
What happen - you say I am wrong.
When I ask you why.
You sad - I am not telling you I am writing book.
Well ... why then you even started this?
Do not you think it is not quite right?
Because until you publish your book this is just baseless clames.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing same "book" "argument"
Well, I am sorry, but until you explain all this it is just silly excuse, no more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing this time saying that it was already explained...
No you did not explain anything.
Can you decide what is your story - you are not explaining anything because of book or you explained it already. This does not play well together.
I do remember you saying you tests are repitable and all other clames like that without any details, I have good memory, you probably noticed already, but not explanation ever were given.
And you keep avoiding wood base question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing answer that once one spend his time and money on testing he is not going to explain anything
Well, nobody sponsoring me. Nobody doing tests for me as well.
It is hard work and I know that.
However, this still left all your clames about how your testing superior over mine baseles - you are not giving any explanations to you clame. Reasons why you are doing that does not matter. It may be valid, but your clames are baseles. For now it is just marketing for your coming book (if it will ever came).
And you keep avoiding wood base consern, like you afraid to even think about that.
You are repeatable in terms of repeating this "my tests are repeatable" and mine are "not repeatable" and "all over the place" - but nothing more. Just keep saying that. This is bottom line. I do not think this is right. I think this looks pretty silly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing moving discussion to dead folder and post that I did not provide arguments against my data being "random noise"
Well I already provide several cases when my data was supported by other testing. This demonstrates that your statement that it is "random noise" has nothing to do with reality.
Once you have your own testing done and I feel that you are not one of this pissed off experts - I am goint to pay attention to you, otherwise - as I sad already - I am not going to answer someone who just pissed off and thows at me one idea after another just to talk away my results, because this never ends.
Sorry, but I consider your "random noise" nothing but just angry bashing hard work I am doing for 5 years. Once you prove that you are not protecting you image and reputation, but really looking to steel performance, Once you show your effort and do some real testing - I will listen, but not before.
If you are in deed interested about your qustions - you may find answers on BF discussions link to which I already provided.
However, I see no indication that you are after what you clame you are. You was not aware about my comment on my ranking - so you did not read original page with results. If you did not read it - then you are not looking for answers. As well, how do you explain starting this thread without letting me know about it? I found it accidentely. This does not look that this arguments you presented are for me, but for others just to make my testing look bad. No you just badmouth my tests hoping I never answer.
So do not give me this BS.
And yes - I am not simple making statement - I did 5 years testing. Tested 49 different knives cutting 200 x 49 times manila etc...
And what you did? Put my data in nice chart? Well, congratulation!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And The Great Finale!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is pretty unfortunate, but looking back for ten years of my knife hobby I should admit that I has really nothing useful to learn from any knife forum I was participating. The only positive was talking to people who have same passion, but from information point of view - I do not think I got anything good. All what I learned I learned myself. I learn how to sharpen - but initially I was mislead by reading forums. I learn how to test steels - again myself without any help, but rather huge resistance from forum "experts", once real results made clear that whatever everybody agreed on has nothing to do with reality, but just reflection of twisted misconceptions and marketing influences. I learned myself that certain brands are not as good as fanboys cry about - many build business only on fanboys hysteria, while forums were actually propaganda vehicle for that hysteria. I learned myself that for example Tanto presented here in US has nothing to do with Japanese tradition, that one side grind has nothing to do with Japanese blades...
I can continue this list of misleadings coming from many different forums. Problem is that forums is just bunch of people united only by their interest to knives, everything else is different. Different cultural background, different education level, different everything. Some of thew people has commercial agenda, some personal vendetta, in any case this is never intellectual discussion about knives. Mostly rude and arrogant big mouse easy toke over any conversation and trash it any time they like, for whatever reason. As you may see on this example. This make forums useless to learn, useless to discuss anything. It is more or less only to got news may be, not really more then this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question did I make sure no burr on the edge before testing, no dust in the rope and about different heat treatment by different manufacturers
I whittle hair before start testing - this ensure that edge has no burr.
I look at microscope few times not every testing, just to make sure
whittling hair edge does not have burr.
As well way I tested sharpness will show right away if burr is present.
I only recently start doing macro of edge before and during the test.
That also support that hair whittling edge does not have any burr as
weel as pre test sharpness test will catch that.
[nozh2002.blogspot.com]
Steel treatment is part of the test. I am not looking for best possible steel
under best possible heat treatment. It is not very practical. I am only looking
who makes best knives. And yes Benchmade continue to do worse HT among
all other manufacturers. With high assembling quality and good design, their
blades show poor peformance even with good steels. It is better to know then.
I buy rope only for testing, from Home Deport of Lewis. it is in big rolls there
top layers of rope cover bottom layers, but it is not quite dusty there anyway.
Tey have good ventilation ad everything. The dust factor is not an issue.
I keep this rope precut in box in door to prevent it from degrading in wet condition
as well as being affected by humidity. If rope got exposed to more or less high
humidity it will be much softer to cut and that affect test result.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing concern about "human factor" - uneven force applied to cut uneven rope etc...
I do not measure work which need to be done to cut rope as you are doing as well as CATRA. I am not cutting rope on the scales. For me rope cutting is simpel load blade faces during test. And impact on the edge pretty uniforn even there is variation in hand cutting. Especially if it is not one cut but ten or 50 or 100.
When I measure sharpness cutting thin thread on the scales - this is in deed more or less variable. To handle this - simple statistic is an answer. I take 21 measurement on the scale and take median as result, This gives stable sharpness estimate. Speed is critical factor in this case in deed. I use Metronom to make sure I am going from one step on the scale to another in same time all the time. This work pretty well so far without heavy machinery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question to provide case when my results correlates with other testing (which was done at post 6 and 8)
Well I already did that. right in this very discussion. I do not feel I need to repeat this to you, especially if you are not paying attention.
If you stop lecturing me and pay attention you will find this yourself. I suggest you to look at my test result page, at two discussions on BF I provided links to and to my post here where I provided already what you are ascing again.
If you are not willing to listen but rather pretending that you somehow my scientteacher or something - stop it. I have at least not less education then you do and you "scientific" language does not impress me at all, I found it funny BTW.
This part especially - "which is based on the solution to the appropriate differential equations for the underlyin physics of wear and deformation/chipping".
However, you expose your real intention when you label my results as a "random noise". Not mach different then this other guy. Again - see details in my previous post right here. I am not going to repeat it again - you are not paying attention any way.
And I understand you will be only convinced when you will test as much steels as I did and provide results for all same knives I had. Well, I am looking forward to see your results - I mentioned this as well many times already.
Meanwhile any testings which do not have exact list of same results done by someone else can not be trasted - this is very scientific conclusion made by you I guess.
I have different approach and it saves me my money - I am not buying junk any more. You may wait for everybody to came with same lists of results, of course.
Now I am not sure that you list of CATRA testing is quite correct - Bohler made steel with composition similar (possibly) to CPM S30V is not CPM S30V (same for CPM S35VN). For example CTS BD30 which is pretty close to CPM S30V but made by Carpenter shows mych superior results. When you label Geman steel made by Bohler as CPM S30V it is misleading, because real CPM S30V just pathetic looser.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing some other accusation which seems coming and coming...
Well I address all issues already and provide source to lean that. I am not going to answer questions I already answered, especially if this happen in this very thread. When someong ignore my initial explanation and my answers and just keep repeating questions, especially when this happen in very same discussion or just generates more questions turning discussion personal - as two perticipants here demonstrates, I consider answering them again and again, as a waste of time. Because I have clear indication that this is just piss off rampage ether it is very clear or hiddent behind pseudo scientific language,
My data clearly are not a random noise and one who saying that clearly have agenda just to downplay this results for whatever reason. In addition to this - clear luck of studyng this subgect - very base page where results are represented - he never read it and so point finger into informal ranking which I myself label as informal already. In addition to this this silly demand to have "It is only not random if the correlation is with the ENTIRE list" - this is just laughfull, because clearly nobody else did same amount of work I did and available CATRA results (one which were steels are not mismarked as Stamp did in his table labeling Bohler steel as CPM S30V which is almost like faking results to make Crusible pathetic creation looks good) match what I have plus many other tests mentioned.
This last one is just silly "ENTIRE list" is even more simpthomatic then other.
Let me state that again - 7 years kid already capable of generating tons of excuses, and pissed of fan boy capable of "finding" tons of issues with my testindg as well as with any testing he do not like. I observed this very well for five years I am doing testing (there are examples of this right here any one can see) as well as with Noss testing and so on - there is always someone very upset, very active, very aggressive and very loud - sometimes there are bunch of those unhappy campers, but I can not ignore that with some silly excuse like - I am writing book. I provide links where it was explained already - if you really like to know - it is all there. As well I am willing to pay close attention to any consern which has practical support - which is tested and test shows real results. But if someone whom I suspect for reasons I already explained goes to ask tons of questions he pool up from the air - I am not going to waste my time.
In short - I do not trust in Cliff intention (why I did explained many times). I provide where information can be found and ask to support whatever he is saying with test results. I do not trust in his clamed intention and will not accept him as a jugge of my work. I came here not because I was asked to but because I by accident found that, and feel like I have to say few words about all that.
And I did not personally attack Ankerson - unless bringing up "wood base" issue is considered rude. But I do not think so. Please, note and keep in mind I am not just saying that - I did experiment and as well Noss had same observation during his experiments. This is what differs me from Stamp and all other like that - I put work behind my word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question on invisible burr which can be detected only by microscope and whittle hair
Well, I did look at microscope to make sure I have no burr after my regular hair whittling sharpening.
But I do not look at microscope any time.
I do whittle hair and test sharpness on thread befor I start cutting rope - this ensure that all knives are
sharp and do not have burr. Only recently I start making pictures of edge during my testing - last one
and no burr at start as well.
BTW - let me show that - just to make sure we are talking about same sharpness (this is not shaving
forearm which can be done by burr). Sorry to bring that up, but sometimes people means shaving hairs
not hair itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQPwHu4lxsQ
Can you show me you hair whittling and burr which able to do that?
Can you also check my pictures and see if there is any burr there as I may expect you eye traind
for that better?
Concerning last questions - of cource It is impossible to have identical results even for two identical knives from same maker. There are many factors in that. Here we may be looking for different things. I am not after finding best possible performance for given steel - I am saving my money by not buying junk. It is actually very valuable information for me that BM knives always quite behind knives from other manufacturers. So I do avoid that even they have excellent quality in all other terms. That testing does not represent best of D2 or M390 - but it is important to know for me. This is why once sample of M390 from different manufacturer came - I jump on it and tested. As I expected result was way better. Does that best representation - who knows, but from what is available on the market it shows promicing results.
Of course nobody ever can guarantee that good results on one knife means that other knives from same manufacturer will be as good. But it is good enough for me and so far it works for me very well. And no any testing ever will guarante that - CATRA or super CATRA or whatever.
If whittling hair may not show this - thread test does - it was proven by experiment. Burr lower results and that can be seen by test. Actually I learn how to sharpen to whittlinh hair sharpness onlly because I introduced this test and able to detect sharpness much better then shaving forearm.
But whittling hair to my experience impossible with burr. During sharpening it is to inconvenient to do thread test or look at microscope, whittling hair is my "field" microscope. Many times only that detects burr.
My sharpening Coarse DMT + Extra Fine DMT and Jewelers Chromium Oxide left visible burr after Extra Fine DMT and then it disappear after Chromium Oxide - which does not produce butt by nature. So if visible burr gone - no other burr left, this is what I see from time I start whittling hair.
So I like to see myself this burr which whittle hair - can you tell me how can I produce one.
Fortunately there are in deed some steels which are good performers. And not only simple carbonsteels made by skill bladesmith but by good manufacturers. Recently I found excellent performance by CTS 204P... Unfortunately this is not what industry like to use - they need some easy to work junk like CPM S30V or CPM S35VN etc...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microtech already selling WhaleSharks with CTS 204P and I tested it and for now it is best in my testing.
M390 is behind - however I have 710 made out of it and it is just 29th place - as expected from BM. Sample blade do better and probably almost same as CTS 204P little behind.
So Spyderco is not first - they are slowing down for last sevral year. They had too much recalls on my opinion. Now day you never know if what you buy from them is good quality or it will be recalled right when you got your package. And it is not only Quality control - warranty is not same as well... I am not sure what is going with them now.
Any way, I am boyckotting their product for rude comment Sal made when we discuss Spyderco quality control - they had another recall and I was wondering why not a single knife was ever tested before releasing them to market... It is not really hard to do - nothing too exciting they produce lately anyway...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let me correct you - we may expect with certan level of probability similar performance due to alloy content.
However it is not true that steels from different manufacturers will have same performance, especially from different knife manufacturers.
Actually, steels with same composition from same manufacturer have different performance. For example CPM154 and 154CM - same composition, but first as goos as BG-42, littel better, second one this days almose entry level steel.
If you are looking to be serious tester you should change your mind set (and eliminate wooden base). You need to be free from all those ideas all those "experts" has. Only test results is what metter.
I am not sure what is your beef with Spyderco, we all do not know about that. But why you even brought it here - "Spyderco is the 1st to use it"? What is your beef with Spyderco?
Anyway - Spyderco is not first. You should get used to this lately.
Microtech is first
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing post that there is no difference between CPM154 and 154CM
Well this is ridiculos. CPM154 is way better then 154CM. Period. It is also why many custom makers switching to it now.
You keep derailing and substituting tearm and subjects of discussion. RWL34 and CPM154 different steels as well as 154CM and ATS34. But without too much your own data you bringing pieces of this and pieces of that and create some kind of franken theory skuizing here and puling there all in something which suite you.
You are keep talking with such a look like you know already everything - but all what you are talking about is just unproven theory, no more.
CPM 154 and 154 CM two different steel and this is proven by my testing and by custom maker choise and by practical use. Your reference to some 10 years old data for different steels - noncense, as all your theory you pull from somewhere.
Why don't you do some testing yourself. Then you will be able like me to referr to you own results not to search for some 10 years old results done by others.
For example - "It has to be of course as the edge stability is only dependent on primary carbide volume and hardness (to first order) and these are not significantly different."
And my question is - why? Ho sad that?
There is no theory of edge. There are no real research on this matter, because this is not mainstream of modern science and technology. There are no solid test base not only to prove any theory, but just to yet came up with one - not base to do conclusions. We of course always can play scientists, use silly language - "proper diffirential equasion" (ha!). But it is just laughful.
We are on the front line doing this science. I mean people like me, Noss, Ruslan and other who did not expose themself, collecting data to analyse it when critical amount will be collected.
But you - like already know anythign already! Lecturing everybody around... What is this kindergaden and we playing scientists?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep talking without providing any testing data - unless you provide some, this is just words. Well crafted words to impress people who are not very well informed. CATRA result are not availabe most what we have results from Knife Illustrated 2009 and Bohler handouts on some show about year 2010/2011 ago plus few leaks Sal let in order to promote CPM S125V. As well as Ankerson's tests can not be taken seriously until he eliminate major factor which make it random (wooden base). (based on what test results) it yet have to be proven and I do not see it - not too many testing available. Fact that you are keep pretending that it is - actually quite symptomatic. This is what I call playing scientists.
As well as you statement about my tests as random noise. Especially when you refers to Ankerson's testing show as real testing. This is not about testing but something different.
I think you are trying to develop some image of some knife science knowledge house or something. You acts so far fall quite well into this model...
Why do not you do some testing first? You sad in your YouTube comments that you going to do some - it was quite some time ago. It looks like this is same taboo question as "wooden base" for Ankerson...
Show me your test results.
I am not going into pointless discussion while your intention are clear as it was for this other guy who has "secret education level". Only difference - language.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I understand you are not doing real work but reading literature. This is fine until you go into something like "this results are random noise" writing it in your little forum here. You ask me question on YourTube - you was in contact, then you post your "scientific" comment here and I found it out by accident. To me this is clear indication of you true intention.
With this literature study - sure you need to be aware of what is going a round. Same as I did. But I learned pretty fast that there are no much data available and CATRA results are closed by industry (and after CPM S30V results leaked out it is clear why). Only Virkhoeven do some real research which results in same way I already sharpen my knives.
I am not sure why are you keep pretending like there are tons of data (referring to that fractional CATRA results). It is clear that nothing really available.
Now I am not sure how it is in your science world, but I have to deal with angry fan boys and "experts" - see links provided. And that make me learn how to recognize one and how to deal with that. So let's not pretend that this is some kind of futuristic lab with everybody honest and polite. You does not act this way - again based on my observation and your comments like "random noise" I consider you as a pissed off "expert" and to continue with - ask to show me that this is not a case. I did explained my point on that many times already here. I have enough evidence to support that. If you do some real testing and instead of throwing at me "random noise" say like - I did this experiment and it shows this and that which is different then what you have - then it will be base for discussion, otherwise it will be endless because as I sad even 7 years old can generate excuses.
So real test results is the key for you if you want me to take you seriously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question - do I observe edge between cutting sessions in microscope
Not really. Just when I tested CTS 204P (best for now) I made pictures in between of
cutting sessions.
I have pretty precise and sensitive method to measure sharpness, and it works like a charm.
So I do not really need it to measure state of the blade in terms of ability to cut.
This is critical part to be able to see real sharpness and cutting list of paper or shave forearm
does not really precise and sensitive. While cutting thread works extremely well. Only because
of it I learn how to whittle hair and not to roll edge on Chromium Oxide - it shows me real state
of the edge. This is really important to have - reliable and precise way to measure sharpness.
I start making macro just out of curiosity to see what is really happening on the edge, but it
is not obvious, first I need to learn what to look fore. Our science is in data collecting stage,
so I will keep looking.
Unless you already found something with your researches?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing provided "test results".
Great example of "scientific dance" around some pieces ripped off from different sources which and sewed together to suite your theory and no any research on your own not a bit. You are talking about wear resistance - like this is same as edge holding, you are talking about RWL - like it is CPM154. This is just pathetic.
Do some real testing. already!
Of course PM impact performance a lot. It reduce carbides size for sure to the size of particles - about 1 micron no more and make it way more evenly dispersed. Here is your "Pixie dust" - steel dust created by high pressure inert gas blowing into melted alloy.
Now this is just laughful to hear that PM is only for improving machinery and forgiving HT. Did you ever see CPM S90V created without PM? You did not? This is because this steel only possible to be made using PM otherwise it will be iron cast. Now what about performance difference between iron castr and CPM S90V? Should be same according to you. Just pathetic!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing question if my testing inducing erratic edge deformation due to unevenly applied loading.
I am not quite follow how does your exercise would suggest that?
Things you done is quite far from what I am doing. I will love to see
you results presented as numeric data, and more details on what you
actually did. But even having this synthetic kernmantle rope and rolled
up tissue paper is not manila rope as well it is unclear how you did your
evaluation visually and how it relates to edge sharpness.
Can you you provide more details (I hope you are not saving it for book).
Especially important is to make this little jig to avoid edge hitting base.
If it is wood as in Ankerson's and Willson's cases - it will random results.
I remember complain from the guy who bought knife with ZDP-189 that
it got dull after dinner restuarant - turns out he just cut stake on fine china
plate... So this is very important - wat is you edge hit after cutting rope.
Well, I am not sure that we yet can limit edge holding to this two components.
So far there is not yet enough data to suggest this. I do not really stick to one
or other theory, until we have enough data to verify that.
And honestly I do not really care much about this theories, for 10 year of my
knife hobby I learned that all those theories are completely not practical and
can be applied to very limited subset of steels of processes etc... Not a single
one I heard ever work.
Fortunately there are many way to achieve greatness - by composition, by technology
by craftsmanship. A lot of example of that I see during my testing.
So I can not give you answer about proportions - I believe it is more complicated
then spoons of abrasion resistance plus three heads of edge stability...
Again, I am not yet understand how it is possible to see edge sharpness under
microscope. As I understand you also did not see clear correlation between your
evaluation under microscope and real life performance. If you want to evaluate edge state this way - it should be in correlation.
But please, give me some details on that - I have microscope with x10 x50 x200 but do not
really see much use for it in terms of sharpness evaluation, as well I can do macro If you
tell me what should I be looking for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty easy - isn't it? Somehow for Ankerson and Willson this is sooooo hard - kind of taboo, I guess...
Just found this "discussion". All the same story again and again - "experts" repeating their mantras trying to make my test results to varnish... Well this is continues for 5 years when I start testing knives and show the real value of all this "knife community" - people who keep talking and talking and do no actual work. I keep hearing - "You should be wrong because it does not match my theory. Because my favorite knife I like soooooo very much, my precious, are not on the top as I like it to be.......". I am tired really. I repeat all my arguments for this five years hundreds of times same again and again. I am not going to answer this no more.
If you do not like my tests - well do you own! If you are lazy - do not bother me I am not going to do additional testing on your terms for you. This is hard work - do your part if you are interesting, do not be upset if I ask you to do same, because this is what you asking me to do.
So far - five years and nobody among all those "experts" move a finger to do anything! This is just pathetic. Because only what is happening - is desperate and silly attempts to talk away my results which shows shat commonly accepted ideas which this "experts" teach everybody around has no any connection to real life.
I am doing this just for myself - to save money, as I waste over thousand bucks on one well known super steel impressed by reviews and words from this "experts". Turns out all of this things I bought are just crowbars made in a form of very sexy knives - good for smashing concrete blocks but not cutting.
After this extreme disappointment I have my testing to verify if one or other steel is good, so I only may waste money once on sample and will not buy more if results are not what I like to see - I can accept this waste. I am saving a lot now, because knife industry keep throwing on the market high priced "super steels" with poor performance, but I can check is it real deal or another hype.
So I do not really care what some big mouth "expert" says about my testing. If I found someone else doing tests - I will have a look, because if it is real testing I really like to compare results. However, so far I saw mostly testing shows which just tell "experts" what they like to hear. Some Russians doing real works (like Ruslan Kiyasov's soft cutting tests), but so far volume is bit little, however I keep watching what they are doing.
I am not saying that my tests are ideal, as well as my ranking. I am saying that from the very beginning - here the quota:
"To understand results I create this more or less informal list - I did not came up with solid formula yet to transform six measurements into one "score" number and so were guded by my "feeling". Also test has certain error margin so I think that it is fair to say that steels five steps apart may be almost same. So it would be good idea to rather look at raw data and make conclusion from that."
This is just more readable then raw results.
But still Cliff Stamp blaming me somehow - I guess he is so much "expert", he do not need to bother reading what I wrote there...
Again this is hard work, I found procedure which gave me good estimates I trust with amount of work I am willing to do and for price I am willing to pay - anyone who want better results, more tests - go ahead! Do this hard work, if you can, I am not going to do this for you. I can help and tell how to do good testing - but you have to contribute. No pain no gain.
More from that discussion:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing claim that my results are just Random noise
What testing of yours are you talking about? Are you serious. is it some kind of joke?
I would not do all this if you had any back then, but you have nothing. On YouTube comment
you sad you are going to do something - where is it? Show me I am thrilled to see.
Until you prove that you are one who not only talks a lot, but do some testing - I do not care
what you think. You can call it random noise - but what do you have yourself? A lot of talk
which sounds scientific?
As I pointed out already - you in your "review" miss important comment I made about my
ranking. This indicates - you did not really read what you reviewed. In addition to absence
of any testing experience (not just playing scientist but real one), I do not see why you are
positioning yourself as a reviewer. I know why you do this, but you are not credible reviewer
for me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing clame that I ignore comments
This is all BS, if you are part of so called "community" you should perfectly remember few hundred posts thread on BF where I address all questions many times. I have variables tightly controlled in testing and explained that a lot - not going to do this again. Little example - I cut rope the way it does not hit wooden base - which according to my experiments does make results random (unlike other "testers")...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing demand to defend my methods and data to any ideas of my testing anyone may has
I do not have to do anything! I do not care. I defend my data, methods and everything probably hundered times already. If you can not understand that - I gave up, I am not going to do this over hundred times, what the point? I doubt it will do any help.
Show me test results which are different then mine - that will be valid reason to discuss and revise my methods. If someone pull from somewhere another idea why my tests are all wrong - I am not going to pay attention to that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing statement that someone do not like me and wishing me being banned
Whatever, but how do you expect me pay any attention to anything you are saying? You just admitted that you do not care about testing steel performance - anything of this nature, but just looking for revenge for whatever reason. This is personal vendetta, not discussion of testing methods.
Unfortunately there are quite a few people like you who just irritated with results I got, because they does not match their believe and because of thate, same way as you just did - generate tons of conserns, complains, cospiracy theories etc... First I did address all of that, but then I realize people are just annoyed and there is no point to answer that. They will come up with something else.
So I decided I will pay no attention to all that noise, caused by irritation, but rather look at test results when someone will do real testing and at that point will review my procedures etc... Why should I waste my time reasoning someone who is in vendetta mode?
And no need to pretend that it is abot review - like Stamp scientific review is - "All your data is just a random noise!". This is not review, on my opinion, this is clearly statement - "I do not like you and your results!".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I studied what Cliff has quite while ago. Again if he had what I need - I would not do any of my own testing.
But he does not have much really. As well he is attempting to downplay what I did in his very first post. He did not call
me to came here - I found it myself. He did not comment it in my blog ( [nozh2002.blogspot.com] ). He just start this
negative comments behind my back, for whatever reason.
His major point is - ranking I provided is informal. Well - this is what I sad right away on my page - what is his point to tell this again? I am pretty sure he did not even look at that. If so - what is value of his "review". Is he looking for truth here?
What about other guy - he just want to see me banned, he do not care about "truth". So how can it turns out well?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing Cliff repeating that my results are random and he has arguments for that
First of all my results are not random noise and this is absolutely clear, you attempts to add some scientific flaivour around, but you just pissed of with my results - random noise is just scientific (as you think) way to express that.
For example when CATRA results for CPM S30V became available - it shows same what I was saying for few years already, while all the experts supports industry story about it "holding edge as good as CPM S60V and being tough as A2". Same with CPM S35VN - Sal did not provide his results but admitted that CPM S35VN does not do any better then CPM S30V etc. So this is not random noise. As well you are not reading my explanation on raiting even it is clearly on my result page - what do you expect me to think about your "supported arguments"? I sad you before - have not less education then you do and this "science" language does not charm me at all.
You pull some ideas and because of that call it random? I have comparison with CATRA (fow what was leaked to general public) and I have some unexpected results provel later (SGPS failure for example) etc. But you dare to call it random noise because of some ideas of yours. Does not impress me really.
And all what you question is not new to me I heart that already among many other things and already answered that many times - I am not going to do that again. Basic idea are on the page - details are in BF discussions. If you are looking for truth - you should be able to find that out. I am not going to repeat that again.
Jim started his testing shows on my watch - initially I was very excited about someone who starts doing real things and supported him, but he ignores my biggest concern about having wooden base when he cuts. As I poinetd out before this make results random - I noticed that first, then experiments on purpose and I am absolutely positive his as well as Wilson results are not really came from controlled environment - wooden base level all rope cuts to nothing and there is no control over this impact. It is very easy to avoid that with pretty simple device, however neather Ankerson no Wilson did not ever attempted to try this out and see the difference. What kind of conclusion I made out of it? Well I do not trust those testing at all.
I am not sure why it is such a mentall block for everybody. It is easy to verify practically and easy to avoid, but somehow it is just impossible to accept for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing questions on why blade geometry does not matter
I cut rope by about inch of the blade - so it does not matter how long it is.
I measure sharpness by cotton thread which thinner then any edge I ever see, so it does not metter how thick edge - contact area with the rope always same and depends on thread thickness. I think edge angle may make a difference, but it is always about 30 degree.
Same - type of grind does not matter.
I do not measure force needed to cut rope - I just cut same amount and with thread measure sharpness.
In result I can see how steel with given HT performs after cutting certain amount of rope - what work did it take to cut this rope out of scope.
It is harder to cut with thick edge because contact area with rope wider then if it is with thin edge, this is why Ankerson's see different results with thin and thick edge (however it is still too random due to constant hitting on wooden base he does).
I do repeat this just for you because it seems that you are looking for answers, howeer all this was sad hundred times already - if you check my page and BF discussions you may find that and many other information there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering post that CPM S30V never was clamed to be as good as CPM S90V and as tough as A2
Here it is - I guess you did not study this area as well as I did:
[www.bladeforums.com]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPM S30V:
The newest stainless steel from Crucible, purpose-designed as a
cutlery steel. This steel gives A-2-class toughness and almost-S90V
class wear resistance, at reasonable hardness (~59-60 Rc).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And leaked CATRA results:
[www.bladeforums.com]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel - Total cards cut
10V - 1044
S60V - 1030
S90V - 1014
3V - 682
S30V - 541
154CM - 468
I have CPM S60V - it is not brittle at all. It is 6 times more wear resistant and so coast more to produce. Brittleness is jus part of this cover up story to make everybody believe that this new CPM S30V is just dream of knife enthusiast. I have many CPM S60V and never had any problem with brittleness.
It may not replace CPM S60V - it is just all models which were made out of CPM S60V before from about 2003
start having CPM S30V (with same price tag).
CPM S30V is just pathetic PM steel which has no value but only 10 years old hype and CPM S35VN same loser steel as CPM S30V. 420HC by Buck is as good and priced few times less, being tough and stainless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering another post that CPM S60V can not be 6 times more wear resistant then CPM S30V
I see - it is very old and so we may say it was never was sad...
ABout wear resistance - Acording to Crucible data sheets it was 6 time more wear resistant, but you know better - just by looking at composition I guess.
Lets have a look too:
CPM S60V
C=2.15
Cr=17
Mn=0.4
Mo=0.4
Si=0.4
V=5.5
CPM S30V
C=1.45
Cr=14
Mo=2
V=4
N=0.2
So ... nothing to suggest higher wear resistance... Really?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering to one who sad he is not going to explain why my methods are random and not repeatable, because he is writing book about testing...
Well, OK. I can understand that.
But then before you will be able to provide some proves for you clames and actually discuss what you are saying,
may be you should not throw that at me?
What happen - you say I am wrong.
When I ask you why.
You sad - I am not telling you I am writing book.
Well ... why then you even started this?
Do not you think it is not quite right?
Because until you publish your book this is just baseless clames.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing same "book" "argument"
Well, I am sorry, but until you explain all this it is just silly excuse, no more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing this time saying that it was already explained...
No you did not explain anything.
Can you decide what is your story - you are not explaining anything because of book or you explained it already. This does not play well together.
I do remember you saying you tests are repitable and all other clames like that without any details, I have good memory, you probably noticed already, but not explanation ever were given.
And you keep avoiding wood base question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing answer that once one spend his time and money on testing he is not going to explain anything
Well, nobody sponsoring me. Nobody doing tests for me as well.
It is hard work and I know that.
However, this still left all your clames about how your testing superior over mine baseles - you are not giving any explanations to you clame. Reasons why you are doing that does not matter. It may be valid, but your clames are baseles. For now it is just marketing for your coming book (if it will ever came).
And you keep avoiding wood base consern, like you afraid to even think about that.
You are repeatable in terms of repeating this "my tests are repeatable" and mine are "not repeatable" and "all over the place" - but nothing more. Just keep saying that. This is bottom line. I do not think this is right. I think this looks pretty silly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing moving discussion to dead folder and post that I did not provide arguments against my data being "random noise"
Well I already provide several cases when my data was supported by other testing. This demonstrates that your statement that it is "random noise" has nothing to do with reality.
Once you have your own testing done and I feel that you are not one of this pissed off experts - I am goint to pay attention to you, otherwise - as I sad already - I am not going to answer someone who just pissed off and thows at me one idea after another just to talk away my results, because this never ends.
Sorry, but I consider your "random noise" nothing but just angry bashing hard work I am doing for 5 years. Once you prove that you are not protecting you image and reputation, but really looking to steel performance, Once you show your effort and do some real testing - I will listen, but not before.
If you are in deed interested about your qustions - you may find answers on BF discussions link to which I already provided.
However, I see no indication that you are after what you clame you are. You was not aware about my comment on my ranking - so you did not read original page with results. If you did not read it - then you are not looking for answers. As well, how do you explain starting this thread without letting me know about it? I found it accidentely. This does not look that this arguments you presented are for me, but for others just to make my testing look bad. No you just badmouth my tests hoping I never answer.
So do not give me this BS.
And yes - I am not simple making statement - I did 5 years testing. Tested 49 different knives cutting 200 x 49 times manila etc...
And what you did? Put my data in nice chart? Well, congratulation!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And The Great Finale!
Old Spice
How about you get off our forums since you aren't here to contribute anything, other then being an attention whore. We don't care about your work. It is completely flawed, you wasted 5 years of your time for what amounts to nothing. You won't listen to anyone you don't approve of, so you can sidestep all the criticism. Do us a favor stop posting in this thread and go discuss something else on forums that one of the other members have contributed. Of course you won't because that wouldn't fulfill your attention seeking nature.Well one more knife forum erected! Scientific one. Nice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is pretty unfortunate, but looking back for ten years of my knife hobby I should admit that I has really nothing useful to learn from any knife forum I was participating. The only positive was talking to people who have same passion, but from information point of view - I do not think I got anything good. All what I learned I learned myself. I learn how to sharpen - but initially I was mislead by reading forums. I learn how to test steels - again myself without any help, but rather huge resistance from forum "experts", once real results made clear that whatever everybody agreed on has nothing to do with reality, but just reflection of twisted misconceptions and marketing influences. I learned myself that certain brands are not as good as fanboys cry about - many build business only on fanboys hysteria, while forums were actually propaganda vehicle for that hysteria. I learned myself that for example Tanto presented here in US has nothing to do with Japanese tradition, that one side grind has nothing to do with Japanese blades...
I can continue this list of misleadings coming from many different forums. Problem is that forums is just bunch of people united only by their interest to knives, everything else is different. Different cultural background, different education level, different everything. Some of thew people has commercial agenda, some personal vendetta, in any case this is never intellectual discussion about knives. Mostly rude and arrogant big mouse easy toke over any conversation and trash it any time they like, for whatever reason. As you may see on this example. This make forums useless to learn, useless to discuss anything. It is more or less only to got news may be, not really more then this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question did I make sure no burr on the edge before testing, no dust in the rope and about different heat treatment by different manufacturers
I whittle hair before start testing - this ensure that edge has no burr.
I look at microscope few times not every testing, just to make sure
whittling hair edge does not have burr.
As well way I tested sharpness will show right away if burr is present.
I only recently start doing macro of edge before and during the test.
That also support that hair whittling edge does not have any burr as
weel as pre test sharpness test will catch that.
[nozh2002.blogspot.com]
Steel treatment is part of the test. I am not looking for best possible steel
under best possible heat treatment. It is not very practical. I am only looking
who makes best knives. And yes Benchmade continue to do worse HT among
all other manufacturers. With high assembling quality and good design, their
blades show poor peformance even with good steels. It is better to know then.
I buy rope only for testing, from Home Deport of Lewis. it is in big rolls there
top layers of rope cover bottom layers, but it is not quite dusty there anyway.
Tey have good ventilation ad everything. The dust factor is not an issue.
I keep this rope precut in box in door to prevent it from degrading in wet condition
as well as being affected by humidity. If rope got exposed to more or less high
humidity it will be much softer to cut and that affect test result.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing concern about "human factor" - uneven force applied to cut uneven rope etc...
I do not measure work which need to be done to cut rope as you are doing as well as CATRA. I am not cutting rope on the scales. For me rope cutting is simpel load blade faces during test. And impact on the edge pretty uniforn even there is variation in hand cutting. Especially if it is not one cut but ten or 50 or 100.
When I measure sharpness cutting thin thread on the scales - this is in deed more or less variable. To handle this - simple statistic is an answer. I take 21 measurement on the scale and take median as result, This gives stable sharpness estimate. Speed is critical factor in this case in deed. I use Metronom to make sure I am going from one step on the scale to another in same time all the time. This work pretty well so far without heavy machinery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question to provide case when my results correlates with other testing (which was done at post 6 and 8)
Well I already did that. right in this very discussion. I do not feel I need to repeat this to you, especially if you are not paying attention.
If you stop lecturing me and pay attention you will find this yourself. I suggest you to look at my test result page, at two discussions on BF I provided links to and to my post here where I provided already what you are ascing again.
If you are not willing to listen but rather pretending that you somehow my scientteacher or something - stop it. I have at least not less education then you do and you "scientific" language does not impress me at all, I found it funny BTW.
This part especially - "which is based on the solution to the appropriate differential equations for the underlyin physics of wear and deformation/chipping".
However, you expose your real intention when you label my results as a "random noise". Not mach different then this other guy. Again - see details in my previous post right here. I am not going to repeat it again - you are not paying attention any way.
And I understand you will be only convinced when you will test as much steels as I did and provide results for all same knives I had. Well, I am looking forward to see your results - I mentioned this as well many times already.
Meanwhile any testings which do not have exact list of same results done by someone else can not be trasted - this is very scientific conclusion made by you I guess.
I have different approach and it saves me my money - I am not buying junk any more. You may wait for everybody to came with same lists of results, of course.
Now I am not sure that you list of CATRA testing is quite correct - Bohler made steel with composition similar (possibly) to CPM S30V is not CPM S30V (same for CPM S35VN). For example CTS BD30 which is pretty close to CPM S30V but made by Carpenter shows mych superior results. When you label Geman steel made by Bohler as CPM S30V it is misleading, because real CPM S30V just pathetic looser.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing some other accusation which seems coming and coming...
Well I address all issues already and provide source to lean that. I am not going to answer questions I already answered, especially if this happen in this very thread. When someong ignore my initial explanation and my answers and just keep repeating questions, especially when this happen in very same discussion or just generates more questions turning discussion personal - as two perticipants here demonstrates, I consider answering them again and again, as a waste of time. Because I have clear indication that this is just piss off rampage ether it is very clear or hiddent behind pseudo scientific language,
My data clearly are not a random noise and one who saying that clearly have agenda just to downplay this results for whatever reason. In addition to this - clear luck of studyng this subgect - very base page where results are represented - he never read it and so point finger into informal ranking which I myself label as informal already. In addition to this this silly demand to have "It is only not random if the correlation is with the ENTIRE list" - this is just laughfull, because clearly nobody else did same amount of work I did and available CATRA results (one which were steels are not mismarked as Stamp did in his table labeling Bohler steel as CPM S30V which is almost like faking results to make Crusible pathetic creation looks good) match what I have plus many other tests mentioned.
This last one is just silly "ENTIRE list" is even more simpthomatic then other.
Let me state that again - 7 years kid already capable of generating tons of excuses, and pissed of fan boy capable of "finding" tons of issues with my testindg as well as with any testing he do not like. I observed this very well for five years I am doing testing (there are examples of this right here any one can see) as well as with Noss testing and so on - there is always someone very upset, very active, very aggressive and very loud - sometimes there are bunch of those unhappy campers, but I can not ignore that with some silly excuse like - I am writing book. I provide links where it was explained already - if you really like to know - it is all there. As well I am willing to pay close attention to any consern which has practical support - which is tested and test shows real results. But if someone whom I suspect for reasons I already explained goes to ask tons of questions he pool up from the air - I am not going to waste my time.
In short - I do not trust in Cliff intention (why I did explained many times). I provide where information can be found and ask to support whatever he is saying with test results. I do not trust in his clamed intention and will not accept him as a jugge of my work. I came here not because I was asked to but because I by accident found that, and feel like I have to say few words about all that.
And I did not personally attack Ankerson - unless bringing up "wood base" issue is considered rude. But I do not think so. Please, note and keep in mind I am not just saying that - I did experiment and as well Noss had same observation during his experiments. This is what differs me from Stamp and all other like that - I put work behind my word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question on invisible burr which can be detected only by microscope and whittle hair
Well, I did look at microscope to make sure I have no burr after my regular hair whittling sharpening.
But I do not look at microscope any time.
I do whittle hair and test sharpness on thread befor I start cutting rope - this ensure that all knives are
sharp and do not have burr. Only recently I start making pictures of edge during my testing - last one
and no burr at start as well.
BTW - let me show that - just to make sure we are talking about same sharpness (this is not shaving
forearm which can be done by burr). Sorry to bring that up, but sometimes people means shaving hairs
not hair itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQPwHu4lxsQ
Can you show me you hair whittling and burr which able to do that?
Can you also check my pictures and see if there is any burr there as I may expect you eye traind
for that better?
Concerning last questions - of cource It is impossible to have identical results even for two identical knives from same maker. There are many factors in that. Here we may be looking for different things. I am not after finding best possible performance for given steel - I am saving my money by not buying junk. It is actually very valuable information for me that BM knives always quite behind knives from other manufacturers. So I do avoid that even they have excellent quality in all other terms. That testing does not represent best of D2 or M390 - but it is important to know for me. This is why once sample of M390 from different manufacturer came - I jump on it and tested. As I expected result was way better. Does that best representation - who knows, but from what is available on the market it shows promicing results.
Of course nobody ever can guarantee that good results on one knife means that other knives from same manufacturer will be as good. But it is good enough for me and so far it works for me very well. And no any testing ever will guarante that - CATRA or super CATRA or whatever.
If whittling hair may not show this - thread test does - it was proven by experiment. Burr lower results and that can be seen by test. Actually I learn how to sharpen to whittlinh hair sharpness onlly because I introduced this test and able to detect sharpness much better then shaving forearm.
But whittling hair to my experience impossible with burr. During sharpening it is to inconvenient to do thread test or look at microscope, whittling hair is my "field" microscope. Many times only that detects burr.
My sharpening Coarse DMT + Extra Fine DMT and Jewelers Chromium Oxide left visible burr after Extra Fine DMT and then it disappear after Chromium Oxide - which does not produce butt by nature. So if visible burr gone - no other burr left, this is what I see from time I start whittling hair.
So I like to see myself this burr which whittle hair - can you tell me how can I produce one.
Fortunately there are in deed some steels which are good performers. And not only simple carbonsteels made by skill bladesmith but by good manufacturers. Recently I found excellent performance by CTS 204P... Unfortunately this is not what industry like to use - they need some easy to work junk like CPM S30V or CPM S35VN etc...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microtech already selling WhaleSharks with CTS 204P and I tested it and for now it is best in my testing.
M390 is behind - however I have 710 made out of it and it is just 29th place - as expected from BM. Sample blade do better and probably almost same as CTS 204P little behind.
So Spyderco is not first - they are slowing down for last sevral year. They had too much recalls on my opinion. Now day you never know if what you buy from them is good quality or it will be recalled right when you got your package. And it is not only Quality control - warranty is not same as well... I am not sure what is going with them now.
Any way, I am boyckotting their product for rude comment Sal made when we discuss Spyderco quality control - they had another recall and I was wondering why not a single knife was ever tested before releasing them to market... It is not really hard to do - nothing too exciting they produce lately anyway...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let me correct you - we may expect with certan level of probability similar performance due to alloy content.
However it is not true that steels from different manufacturers will have same performance, especially from different knife manufacturers.
Actually, steels with same composition from same manufacturer have different performance. For example CPM154 and 154CM - same composition, but first as goos as BG-42, littel better, second one this days almose entry level steel.
If you are looking to be serious tester you should change your mind set (and eliminate wooden base). You need to be free from all those ideas all those "experts" has. Only test results is what metter.
I am not sure what is your beef with Spyderco, we all do not know about that. But why you even brought it here - "Spyderco is the 1st to use it"? What is your beef with Spyderco?
Anyway - Spyderco is not first. You should get used to this lately.
Microtech is first
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing post that there is no difference between CPM154 and 154CM
Well this is ridiculos. CPM154 is way better then 154CM. Period. It is also why many custom makers switching to it now.
You keep derailing and substituting tearm and subjects of discussion. RWL34 and CPM154 different steels as well as 154CM and ATS34. But without too much your own data you bringing pieces of this and pieces of that and create some kind of franken theory skuizing here and puling there all in something which suite you.
You are keep talking with such a look like you know already everything - but all what you are talking about is just unproven theory, no more.
CPM 154 and 154 CM two different steel and this is proven by my testing and by custom maker choise and by practical use. Your reference to some 10 years old data for different steels - noncense, as all your theory you pull from somewhere.
Why don't you do some testing yourself. Then you will be able like me to referr to you own results not to search for some 10 years old results done by others.
For example - "It has to be of course as the edge stability is only dependent on primary carbide volume and hardness (to first order) and these are not significantly different."
And my question is - why? Ho sad that?
There is no theory of edge. There are no real research on this matter, because this is not mainstream of modern science and technology. There are no solid test base not only to prove any theory, but just to yet came up with one - not base to do conclusions. We of course always can play scientists, use silly language - "proper diffirential equasion" (ha!). But it is just laughful.
We are on the front line doing this science. I mean people like me, Noss, Ruslan and other who did not expose themself, collecting data to analyse it when critical amount will be collected.
But you - like already know anythign already! Lecturing everybody around... What is this kindergaden and we playing scientists?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep talking without providing any testing data - unless you provide some, this is just words. Well crafted words to impress people who are not very well informed. CATRA result are not availabe most what we have results from Knife Illustrated 2009 and Bohler handouts on some show about year 2010/2011 ago plus few leaks Sal let in order to promote CPM S125V. As well as Ankerson's tests can not be taken seriously until he eliminate major factor which make it random (wooden base). (based on what test results) it yet have to be proven and I do not see it - not too many testing available. Fact that you are keep pretending that it is - actually quite symptomatic. This is what I call playing scientists.
As well as you statement about my tests as random noise. Especially when you refers to Ankerson's testing show as real testing. This is not about testing but something different.
I think you are trying to develop some image of some knife science knowledge house or something. You acts so far fall quite well into this model...
Why do not you do some testing first? You sad in your YouTube comments that you going to do some - it was quite some time ago. It looks like this is same taboo question as "wooden base" for Ankerson...
Show me your test results.
I am not going into pointless discussion while your intention are clear as it was for this other guy who has "secret education level". Only difference - language.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I understand you are not doing real work but reading literature. This is fine until you go into something like "this results are random noise" writing it in your little forum here. You ask me question on YourTube - you was in contact, then you post your "scientific" comment here and I found it out by accident. To me this is clear indication of you true intention.
With this literature study - sure you need to be aware of what is going a round. Same as I did. But I learned pretty fast that there are no much data available and CATRA results are closed by industry (and after CPM S30V results leaked out it is clear why). Only Virkhoeven do some real research which results in same way I already sharpen my knives.
I am not sure why are you keep pretending like there are tons of data (referring to that fractional CATRA results). It is clear that nothing really available.
Now I am not sure how it is in your science world, but I have to deal with angry fan boys and "experts" - see links provided. And that make me learn how to recognize one and how to deal with that. So let's not pretend that this is some kind of futuristic lab with everybody honest and polite. You does not act this way - again based on my observation and your comments like "random noise" I consider you as a pissed off "expert" and to continue with - ask to show me that this is not a case. I did explained my point on that many times already here. I have enough evidence to support that. If you do some real testing and instead of throwing at me "random noise" say like - I did this experiment and it shows this and that which is different then what you have - then it will be base for discussion, otherwise it will be endless because as I sad even 7 years old can generate excuses.
So real test results is the key for you if you want me to take you seriously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question - do I observe edge between cutting sessions in microscope
Not really. Just when I tested CTS 204P (best for now) I made pictures in between of
cutting sessions.
I have pretty precise and sensitive method to measure sharpness, and it works like a charm.
So I do not really need it to measure state of the blade in terms of ability to cut.
This is critical part to be able to see real sharpness and cutting list of paper or shave forearm
does not really precise and sensitive. While cutting thread works extremely well. Only because
of it I learn how to whittle hair and not to roll edge on Chromium Oxide - it shows me real state
of the edge. This is really important to have - reliable and precise way to measure sharpness.
I start making macro just out of curiosity to see what is really happening on the edge, but it
is not obvious, first I need to learn what to look fore. Our science is in data collecting stage,
so I will keep looking.
Unless you already found something with your researches?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing provided "test results".
Great example of "scientific dance" around some pieces ripped off from different sources which and sewed together to suite your theory and no any research on your own not a bit. You are talking about wear resistance - like this is same as edge holding, you are talking about RWL - like it is CPM154. This is just pathetic.
Do some real testing. already!
Of course PM impact performance a lot. It reduce carbides size for sure to the size of particles - about 1 micron no more and make it way more evenly dispersed. Here is your "Pixie dust" - steel dust created by high pressure inert gas blowing into melted alloy.
Now this is just laughful to hear that PM is only for improving machinery and forgiving HT. Did you ever see CPM S90V created without PM? You did not? This is because this steel only possible to be made using PM otherwise it will be iron cast. Now what about performance difference between iron castr and CPM S90V? Should be same according to you. Just pathetic!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing question if my testing inducing erratic edge deformation due to unevenly applied loading.
I am not quite follow how does your exercise would suggest that?
Things you done is quite far from what I am doing. I will love to see
you results presented as numeric data, and more details on what you
actually did. But even having this synthetic kernmantle rope and rolled
up tissue paper is not manila rope as well it is unclear how you did your
evaluation visually and how it relates to edge sharpness.
Can you you provide more details (I hope you are not saving it for book).
Especially important is to make this little jig to avoid edge hitting base.
If it is wood as in Ankerson's and Willson's cases - it will random results.
I remember complain from the guy who bought knife with ZDP-189 that
it got dull after dinner restuarant - turns out he just cut stake on fine china
plate... So this is very important - wat is you edge hit after cutting rope.
Well, I am not sure that we yet can limit edge holding to this two components.
So far there is not yet enough data to suggest this. I do not really stick to one
or other theory, until we have enough data to verify that.
And honestly I do not really care much about this theories, for 10 year of my
knife hobby I learned that all those theories are completely not practical and
can be applied to very limited subset of steels of processes etc... Not a single
one I heard ever work.
Fortunately there are many way to achieve greatness - by composition, by technology
by craftsmanship. A lot of example of that I see during my testing.
So I can not give you answer about proportions - I believe it is more complicated
then spoons of abrasion resistance plus three heads of edge stability...
Again, I am not yet understand how it is possible to see edge sharpness under
microscope. As I understand you also did not see clear correlation between your
evaluation under microscope and real life performance. If you want to evaluate edge state this way - it should be in correlation.
But please, give me some details on that - I have microscope with x10 x50 x200 but do not
really see much use for it in terms of sharpness evaluation, as well I can do macro If you
tell me what should I be looking for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty easy - isn't it? Somehow for Ankerson and Willson this is sooooo hard - kind of taboo, I guess...
Well - this is really hard to discuss, because it is all human factor. You may see something, I may not see anything - do not get me wrong, it may be very well good way to estimate edge condition. But you need to develop it to the extent when human factor - in this case you ability to evaluate based on you experience.
May be if you just describe as detailed as possible how you evaluate edge under microscope - we may discuss it and came up with some ideas. It also will hep you to formalize your own knowledge - at leas this is how it works with me, when I have some idea on software design - I come to somebody to discuss it, does not matter if I get any valuable input - spelling thoughts out make them solid and tight together.
May be if you just describe as detailed as possible how you evaluate edge under microscope - we may discuss it and came up with some ideas. It also will hep you to formalize your own knowledge - at leas this is how it works with me, when I have some idea on software design - I come to somebody to discuss it, does not matter if I get any valuable input - spelling thoughts out make them solid and tight together.
I read something while ago, but it does not help me really because of limited scope.
I whould not say that ER is summ of this things, but rather influenced by them as well as possible influence may be carbides formations (see Virkhoeven-Pendrey wootz work), graine size. chemical clarity of alloy,composition, trace elements, age of steel, structure of steel, craftsmanship - layered, differentially heat treated etc...
One thing more important for carbon steel, another for stainless, another for high vanadium etc...
So far I learned that this is much more complicated and can not be yet put in some simple theory.
This is so far most important result of my 5 years testing.
I only keep testing and collect data for now. Again I am not positioning myself as Knife World Einstein or something. I am just need to know what is junk and what is good steel, and this does works very well so far.
I whould not say that ER is summ of this things, but rather influenced by them as well as possible influence may be carbides formations (see Virkhoeven-Pendrey wootz work), graine size. chemical clarity of alloy,composition, trace elements, age of steel, structure of steel, craftsmanship - layered, differentially heat treated etc...
One thing more important for carbon steel, another for stainless, another for high vanadium etc...
So far I learned that this is much more complicated and can not be yet put in some simple theory.
This is so far most important result of my 5 years testing.
I only keep testing and collect data for now. Again I am not positioning myself as Knife World Einstein or something. I am just need to know what is junk and what is good steel, and this does works very well so far.
Well, I am Russian - we do not give up so easy and do not want industry marketing drons and forums "experts" pull up our nose so easy to get our money (may be after collapse of Soviet Union we learn to question anything). There are quite a bit Russians testing knives actually - way more then Americans BTW - you should be ashamed.
So I had three attempts - I tested a lot and then throw away everything and starts again. It does take time, but this is not waste and it works for me just fine - I did not waste any money on junk steels pushed to us lately - like CPM M4, CPM S30V, CPM S35V, CTS BD1 etc. One sample is what do I get.
Lately my "random noise" detected that Spyderco sample with CruWear shows pretty poor results, then I learned that it was recall - Spyderco did not tested any of them before selling to customers and once it bacame clear that quality is not very good, they do recall. Then my "random noise" shows that "fixed" Cruwear are quite good - as good as ZDP-189. This make me believe that my "random noise" shows real steel performance.
Another example, why I trust my testing - Fallkniven SGPS by Takefu. Everybody cry about this super steel, because it is 62HRC, lot of carbides, PM, this and that... My tests show very poor results for both Fallkniven and Kershaw made out of this steel, then came negative user reports and BLINTTRUTH4U test results also expose same problem with Fallkniven with this steel. So another unexpected but true discovery.
This is to me good signs and I have a more then just this. Again the fact that you test shows expected results may be due to sloppy procedure which allows you subconscious to manage result and get what you want, especially people who has low level of self criticism. This is why I throw away my first and second testing results even it was a lot of work.
But when you have something unexpected which then got proven by independent testing - this is like example from Scientific Methodology class.
So my method works and no "scientist" prove me opposite.
So I had three attempts - I tested a lot and then throw away everything and starts again. It does take time, but this is not waste and it works for me just fine - I did not waste any money on junk steels pushed to us lately - like CPM M4, CPM S30V, CPM S35V, CTS BD1 etc. One sample is what do I get.
Lately my "random noise" detected that Spyderco sample with CruWear shows pretty poor results, then I learned that it was recall - Spyderco did not tested any of them before selling to customers and once it bacame clear that quality is not very good, they do recall. Then my "random noise" shows that "fixed" Cruwear are quite good - as good as ZDP-189. This make me believe that my "random noise" shows real steel performance.
Another example, why I trust my testing - Fallkniven SGPS by Takefu. Everybody cry about this super steel, because it is 62HRC, lot of carbides, PM, this and that... My tests show very poor results for both Fallkniven and Kershaw made out of this steel, then came negative user reports and BLINTTRUTH4U test results also expose same problem with Fallkniven with this steel. So another unexpected but true discovery.
This is to me good signs and I have a more then just this. Again the fact that you test shows expected results may be due to sloppy procedure which allows you subconscious to manage result and get what you want, especially people who has low level of self criticism. This is why I throw away my first and second testing results even it was a lot of work.
But when you have something unexpected which then got proven by independent testing - this is like example from Scientific Methodology class.
So my method works and no "scientist" prove me opposite.
Well, it is possibility as well as one may say this is because edge evaluation is too informal. As well as media are different - so for now it is impossible to make conclusion on why you see no difference as well as does it in any way related to my testing. Again until edge evaluation formalized - it is not repeatable.
However you should be able to do thread testing. You need postal scale, cotton thread (Aunt Linda, classic crochet thread), I do not know English word for thread holder (it is from hang lamp):
metronom (my setting is 69 a minute - each click goes to next mark on scale).
Are you willing to try that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it will worse to try. Many people will learn and you yourself have that more clear for you.
I remember one respected member of BF counts chips or something on given area of the edge.
It does not really make full picture , but some interesting results he got.
What is wrong with volumes of photos and explanations? (Are you writing book?).
Depth of field is really a killer. Let me try to play with macro lenses first I think I have few quite informative sessions:
Sharpening - [nozh2002.blogspot.com]
DMT - [nozh2002.blogspot.com]
Pcn81 made quite good macroes of water stones - [nozh2002.blogspot.com]
Testing - [nozh2002.blogspot.com]
[nozh2002.blogspot.com]
I think I will be able to learn how to make it better, if you have any ideas how to improve it - please, let me know.
Well again - it depends on what are you looking for - idea to find ideal steel which with ideal HT and ideal conditions do better then any is just not possible at this stage - only we can do is collect a lot of data.
Thread testing does works very well for me, as microscope works well for you. May be I miss something with microscope. may be you miss something with thread cutting? I am doing this over five years and not just because
I like to cut threads... I cut a lot.
Well - one I have is from Benchmade on 710 which has a record of making high quality knives with poor heat treatment. All suppose to be good steels on BM knives performs on my tests below average. So I can not really say that one I have is good example - I actually pretty sure it is bad example. This is why I retest M390 with different manufacturer. However M2 is now not really highly available. And Boss some years ago refuse to HT it because his equipment does not work on needed high temperature - at least it was his excuse to reject my reques when I was thinking to make knife myself with it.
Any steel take hair whittling edge on my experience - I have a lot of videos proving that on my YouTube. In general all HSS I have does not really on top - CPM M4, SRS15, even T1 did not really match my expectation (raised on BF by reading those "experts"
. May be I need to find some made by ABS member, to be sure HT is done properly. If you going into "systemic error" in my tests - we need to have your results in numbers for different steels to compare - I explained it here few times..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I read Roman posts on link provided.
I can not take that seriously - he just playing to down very idea of testing at home and asking questions he do not has answer to, but already resolved by me. It is again - "I am scientist here, knee at my presence!" This can not be true as all generic statement of this nature.
This kind of grounding any attempt to do testing because ideal condition will never be reached and ideal answer will never be made is simple excuse to do nothing - this is why apes are still live on trees. And this is even worse if you do that to other people who are willing to pay some effort, but after this never started. I hate this!
Again - this is all silly excuse, they are so universal that can be applied to any testing including car safety tests, and everything else. It is easy to throw tons of ideas at very same CATRA tests to make it look "random noise". But then next step would be accept all BS marketing drones generates - it is easy to learn how to say words which looks right, but this is all nothing but words.
On the other subject -
Now it is clear already that concept of toothy edge is not practical, there is not tooth on the edge which helps cutting - 30 degree angle is bit different what are on the saw, those 30 degree tooth may be good for chewing but not cutting - make saw with 30 degree angle between sides and try to saw something - will never work. In practical use they dulls very fast and you have dull edge much faster then if you sharpen it properly to whittle hair.
I learned that all this toothy edge - just knife urban legend. Simple testing will make it clear in no time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing point that Roman is PhD, that not any steel can whittle hair.
I read his posts and to me it seems like it is just dismissing any effort done by anybody by chosens.
This is just wrong. I do not really care about his PhD or whatever - I see his arguments and way of talking -
it is all about dominance.
As well I have pretty good example of home testing done well - my five years testing.
To me the fact that some PhD too arrogant to accept anybody else work does not prove anything.
Well this is another example of Cliff being disconnected with reality - any steel I have, any steel I tested I sharpen to be able to whittle hair. Again this is difference between me - I know what I am talking about and him and other "experts".
I did whittle hair myself with D2 - once he keep saying it is impossible. He just can not realise that DMT sharpen not only steel but carbides as well.
He cameing up with some stupid ideas and then keep himself jailed in this ideas. Like that one.
There is a difference between "Cliff Stamp can not sharpen D2" and "D2 can not be sharpened to whittle hair".
This is just good example of arrogance.
Diamonds sharpen anything including carbides. Period. Need prove - see my video of many different steels whittling hair as well as hair whittling thread on BF where quite a lot of people demonstrate same with different steels.
Well, I hoped you to share you experience with visual edge evaluation...
Too bad. I am really sorry if you decide to keep it for yourself.
It looks like no one here willing to share real data.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adressing story about Roman and Kevin experience both an awe, sadness, hilarity and sheer frustration approaching the density of a white dwarf
Oh... I am shoooooooooooooo shorry for two little scientists. They are shooooooooooo shad and frustrated.... How come one can hurt this little creatures by some unscientific testing... Oh... I am going to stop it right away!!! Yes I do!!!
Did you try write book for kids? Like "Two little scientist" or something...
As I sad before - I do not count you literature talent (even it is very good), provide some real data real work done. So far I see nothing done by rapid typing and words manipulation. This story about two little scientists got hurt - just brilliant, however - I do enjoyed it.
This one is just blows me away - "When Roman and Kevin read such claims they will experience both an awe, sadness, hilarity and sheer frustration approaching the density of a white dwarf". White dwarf! Coon not neutron star or black hole but white dwarf. Sooooooo cooooooooool!
You should seriously think about writing books, really.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, again, blind statement: "... is not possible to replicate (different knives, different rope, different everything)..."
No one so far did even try to do same. And so this statement yet need to be proven. It does look more like silly excuse to avoid real work. Until some one do same testing and we compare results - this is all just another theory generaed to talk my results away.
If no one want to do real work - it will never be replicated, as well no other test will be available, but this.
Of course my tests are not ideal, but there are no better then what I did so far.
Everybody, like to play scientists and cry if somebody do real work... This is my conclusion on what is going on. Yes it will be nice to have more tests - but no single one even try to do real work. I however did quite a lot and not going to do more then I feel I need to - not because some unhappy expert demand that.
I already provide evidences what my method is in pretty good correlation with other testing and events (like Spyderco recall), those were ignored. Again agenda here is - we are only kings of knife science no more. But no real work done and I guess not going to be done because "It is impossible to do testing at home" is mentality here. Even idea of that cause sadness and frustration...
So what is left - discuss some idea which has nothing to do with reality again and again and pretend to be Einsteins of knife World? Like some steel can not be sharpened to whittle hair, like micro saw on the edge and other dreams, already proven on practice to be wrong...
Pathetic!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question on how to reproduce my tests
Of course. It was already presented, but if you are really after that I will be happy to provide you
full assistance.
First and most important thing is edge sharpness evaluation with statistical thread cutting method. Let me copy it for you from post #61.
You need postal scale (OffiseMax), cotton thread (Aunt Linda, classic crochet thread - Wallmart), I do not know English word for thread holder (it is from hang lamp from Wallmart):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1Ftbus7LbtU
and latest modification - metronom to make sure pressure applied evenly. My setting is 69 a minute - each click goes to next mark on scale). It is important to have same amount of time for each mark - in general if you wait long enough edge will go through thread sooner or later - this is why I had to get rid of all my test results from second session. Time for each mark should be limited by metronom.
I hope from the video you see whole process. Let me know if you have any questions. This assure sharpness evaluation with blade geometry aside - except angle which is 30 degree for all my knives. You need to mark blade with marker to do thread measurement around this mark (+/-1mm) and cut rope by marked part of the blade.
This way you do 21 measurement - may be more but not less. then take median - this is your sharpness evaluation.
To take median - write whole measurement in descent order and one in the middle - 11th will be median.
Second important point initial sharpness - I make it my usual way, it whittle hair. This indicates to me that edge has no burr and not rolled out. Do initial thread evaluation is 0.5 oz - best and rare, but mostly 1.0 oz may be 1.5 oz. to make sure all knives starts from same level of sharpness.
How to sharpen - first of 14 videos (if you did not see it already):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TscN9h-1xQ&list=UUtx81G_LQalT_hlZDLb-fYw&index=107&feature=plcp
Third important thing - cut 1/2 inch manila rope fresh from Home deport or preserved in home in shoe box. Cut the way edge does not touch anything else but only rope. This is very old video, but idea is same. You do not need to mark blade every cut - just make big triangle pointing to edge testing area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8_C7jV_gI4&list=UUtx81G_LQalT_hlZDLb-fYw&index=102&feature=plcp
You need to wrap you wrist with wide elastic band to avoid damage I unfortunately cause to myself cutting rope this way thousands and thousands times. Also do it outside - rope produce pretty unhealthy dust. As well do not do mere then one session a day or better a week.
Evaluate sharpness after 0, 1, 10 , 50, 100 and 200 cuts. Let's see you results.
One measurement take about 1 minute, about 25 minute per single edge evaluation. About half day for one blade.
Try that - let me know how it goes, post some video - will be interesting to see.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing post about 200% difference in initial sharpness...
This is absolute joke! "Initial sharpness changes by 100%." Are you complete ...scientist. Where you learn to apply percentage this way? I am sorry but I can not take you seriously any more. This is example of your complete disconnect with reality. Are you saying that edge with 0.5 oz reading on scale is twice sharper then one with 1.0 oz reading (which is just next mark on a scale). Yes reading on the scale is 0.5 which is twice less then reading 1.0 but this is not twice sharper - it is just a marks, reading no more, just a scale and how this related to sharpness nature need to be yet understood, is it linear, is it logarithmic or exponential who know, but you - you just gave as you "scientific" conclusion - 100% difference. Pathetic!
I think you completely compromised here. I am not taking your seriously, sorry. You just playing science the way you think it is.
I am serious - go do some real testing, that will snap you out of this insanity pretty quickly, face some real world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question about tweaking my method in reproduction and what do I expect out of it
Honestly, I do not know. It was never done before so I am very excited. Of course you will never be able ideally recreate this, but I do not think it should stop you from trying. So tweaks unavoidable but to say how it affect results we may only guess and in some cases only experiment may clarify that.
What tweaks are you thinking about?
Now, I expect only honesty, I may hope that results will be similar, but again this never was done before and I already learn and get used to get from real testing unexpected results. But, it would be all very useful if it prove or disapprove theory. It will get us closer to truth.
But first let's have results, I am quite sure that you may have lot of question, and I am sure you will need some time to get used to it. Like incremental add pressure on thread guided by metronom etc... However, once you pass certain point - it will be very rewarding to actually have meaningful test results done by your own hands. Be ready to endless discussions and questioning by angry crowd etc... - this is unavoidable. But your results will be real deal, not some theories repeated from one expert to another... I am pretty sure once you feel yourself how one steel performs better then other you will like it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question where did Cliff sad I did not whittle hair.
He did not say that I did not sharpen it directly. However he quote me here:
Then follow this quote with that:Quotenozh2002
I did whittle hair myself with D2 - once he keep saying it is impossible.
Which imply that big carbides simple fall out of edge during sharpening unless it has thick angle, then if all carbides fallen out - edge will be able to whittle hair with remaining 75% of the surface. In result we have picture created by great artist - edge with 25% chipped out because all carbides fallen out of iron martencite matrix and hair whittled by pure luck in a density of white dwarf.Quote
The statements on edge stability note that for high volume carbide steels a larger angle is required to achieve a given sharpness as more material is needed to stabilize the carbides and that the angle also needs to be higher to keep that high sharpness. Roman in fact outlines the exact angles required based on the carbide volume and goes well past D2 in alloy content. Note as well that carbide tear out isn't uniform, even if all the carbides tore out of the edge of the D2 blade then you would expect 75% of the edge to be pure martensite and thus would handle any point sharpness test perfectly fine.
This is not a case of course - I can detect chipped out edge pretty easy by whittling hair and by my thread edge sharpness test, I have this on over hardened Higonokami some time ago, as well as it is easy to see in microscope. This is all words and scientific smoke to cover disconnect with reality.
Steel keep big carbides just fine and no practical evidence suggesting that scary tale of Carbides falling out from edge if you just look at them. Of course poorly heat treated steel will chip out with or without carbides, but this is different story.
Exceptional performance of D2 made by Bob Dozer which was on very top for decades and only recently got surpassed by ZDP-189, Cruwear and finally CTS-204P highly suggest that D2 story is not as simple as it is presented here.
Again I think that D2 by Dozier may be same as legendary wootz - if you read Verkhoeven work on wootz - D2 production involves everything what they recreate except thermocycling when carbides got consolidated around vanadium network. So it may be that by heating and cooling D2 like 50 times one may achieve same effect Virkhoeven suggested used for wootz in Ancient times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing question about test tweaking
Well only part I do not know how to find is this thread holder - I got it from Wallmart, it was laying down on some random place, like waiting for me among unrelated things. Scale and thread are quite standard and available (if you are in US) in chain stores (Wallmart, Office Max). What kind of metronom - does not really matter, I guess it should be some for iPhone or computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing silly excuse on 200% initial sharpness nonsense
Yea.... I heart this before, but if you try to sharpen to this leval and test it you may learn by yourself that there no such thing as twice sharper or twice duller. There are only as sharp as whittlw hair, as sharp as cut free hanging paper, sharp enough to cut skin without drawing blood. There is no definition for "twice" sharper as well as "three times" sharper. This is meaningless words juggling, no more.
And it should be clear for anyone with basic physics education.
For example is 1F ten times colder then 10F? If so - what about 1C and 10C?
Is boiling water 25 times hotter then water in Arctic ocean?
What does twice hotter physical meaning? 2C twice hotter then 1C - does it same as 200C twice hotter then 100C?
So all this pure and clear BS. And this very well demonstrate what kind of scientist you are.
Because this is very basic staff and you have no clue about that.
This is all good just to play scientists - "This is twice more scientific then that"...
Again do some sharpening cut some rope - do some real things and may be it will help.
Yes I perfectly understand what are you saying - I already spell it out in other post and my conclusion is BS.
D2 can be sharpened at 30 degree angle - not thicker then usual, and will whittle hair at any point of the edge, not only where carbides were not present.
And it is pretty easy to reproduce - just sharpen D2 way I did and whittle hair with any part of the edge, as well as test it with thread sharpness test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yea, some can say that something is twice sharp or twice dull, but it would be meaningless. It only can be sad - that some mark is twice hihger or smaller, but this has no meaning as well as samples I provide with temperature.
You did not actually provide meanng of this twice hotter or twice colder...
So this indicate only complete disconnect from edge reality. I hope you will understand that once you try to do real testing.
However when I hear this baby talks from suppose to be scientist - it really raise question about his credibility. He may work in the lab preparing charts, result papers and other thing like that. It would be enough to play scientist on the forums, but when he start talking about 200% difference in initial sharpness, just because test reading was 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 - this expose his real level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you are completely disconnect with reality and actually produce quite scientific looking but still "random noise".
Relative relation for edge sharpness in my thread evaluation is not defined and talking about percentages here is just generation of random scientific noise, which is only what you are doing so far.
You can came up with one or other scientific excuse for you remark but it does not change anything at all - another scientific smokes and mantras without any real hard work done and any connection to reality.
There is no such thing as twice hotter or twice cooler - it is just basic understanding of nature, same there are no such things as twice sharper or twice duller, one who get used to produce random scientific noise may produce another scientific random noise and came up with some bogus definitions for that, but it is same random noise again.
Real science is one thing - paper preparation, drawing charts etc is another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is quite true if you use some poor cheap steel. But good steel surprisingly does not lost edge too fast.
Do you actually try good steel blade well heat treated and well sharpened?
Here is good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0PHxVP6WSo
This is informal test I run all my best knives through (if I have a chance). Somehow good steel keep cutting all the roots until job done (initial sharpness are hair whitling) - like ZDP, Dozier D2, X12MF, Mullers 1095. However INFI stops cutting roots almost in few second. Same for working with tooling leather or paper. INFI got dool in one cut and then got useless until resharpen. ZDP-189 and Humphrey's 1084 cuts as long as I need (when I made handle for steel sample knife out of leather or watch strap or sheath...)
All those jobs require good sharpness to cut roots, leather and paper - it is not chopping, where edge sharpness is not that important. Of course I have to resharpen it after job done, mostly because I consider knife which is not sharp to whittle hair as dangerous.
Dull knife require more force to apply and thus things goes out of control. All my knife related scars I had from dull knives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing claim that I can not suggest anything after I sad that I consider knives which are not hair whittling sharp as dangerous
I am not sure there is any logic here - I prefer to keep my knives hair whittling sharp, how does that prevent me from uncovering this "scientist" play Stamp performing for his true believers?
Are you somehow scared of knife which is sharp to whittle hair? I am not sure how this trigger you. Phobia of sharp edge is bit unexpected here. How come?
BTW - I was not told that my data is "flawed". I know it is flawed and not perfect. Mostly more testing need to be done, but I can not do all myself.
I was told that this is "random noise". And this is bit different then flawed. This is not discussion of testing matters but rather insult covered with all this "scientific" smokes and mantras which Stamp is so capable off (probably learned it working around real scientists for some time).
Do not be mistaken about what is going on.
He simply saying - "This is not testing at all. That is not a True Way of Science! I am only who knows the truth - I am your Scientist..."
In addition to that he sad - "Two great true scientist whom I spoke with sad and frustrated because of all this "home testing". Dencity of this sadness is like white dwarf has!" Listen to me my true believer in Science, do not do it at home, do not make two great scientists sad and frustrated!
I hope you see difference between this and "I found some flaw"...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing another silly excuse for 200% initial sharpness nonsense
Well you keep producing smokes and singing mantras for your true believers. But I am not one of them.
There is different between nature of physical property and measurements. So no one can say that 10C is twice hotter then 5C. Same you can not say 200% difference in sharpness based on. Period.
Now I am not going to discuss basic physics here even if you like. It will goes into more and more smoke and mantras and will lead attention to something different then edge retention testing as well you already demonstrates you ability to generate scientifically looking random noise.
Now back to you reference to Canadian education - are you challenging Russian education here?
Do you really want to go this way and compare Canadian impact on World Science with Russian?
I know about Canadian robotic arm on Russian made space station...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes this simple means as I sad:
"This is not testing at all. That is not a True Way of Science! I am only who knows the truth - I am your Scientist..."
You just use again your "scientific random noise" to say that.
I am not sure about other - some may just pee themself when you say "data would not pass a t-test (or similar test) for significance" because it is sounds sooooo scientific. But to one who understand that - same crap, same random noise.
You are quite a smoke machine, but you do not fool me. You 200% difference in initial sharpness based on my numbers is as I sad is complete nonsense and expose you as a, well scientific random noise generator.
Again producing scientific smoke even in amounts you do - does not impress me at all. I am not going to fall into pointless discussion - you will just produce more smoke, so there is no point in that at all (as I expressed that many times here).
Do real testing - back up you words with real work, if you are such an expert to lecture everybody around - it should not be to hard to you. Show me how great you are in sharpening and cutting, etc. Because so far I see only ritual dances, smokes and mantras from cult leader, even it is wired one - scientific cult. Let you work speak for you. You produce a lot of noise already here - do some real work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, look we have mister final judgement. I was always fascinated with some people who just love to make their fat point to discussions, they are somehow erected to make final conclusion in discussion. They like above, like some higher beings - "... and the ruling is..." - kind of feel important I guess.
I am not sure why - but I see you miss the fact that I provide way quite a lot of information about my testing here, just because some of the posters look like going to do real work (which is very unlikely but even probability is quite low, I feel I should try). May be you miss that, having "my paranoia" rather in mind - this idea seems to take you bit over...
Let me point out that there is no critics here - critic is something which let you improve what was critisized. Her we have total dismissal as of my testing as whole idea of someone rather then few chosen scientists doing any testing. See little story about two scientists being soooo sad and soooo frustrated because of all that home testing...
I think it is clear that it is not like some wise scientist suggest someone to improve their testing. Not at all.
This is about cult dominance.
Should add - again no real work done...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I am just wondering why "You test is random noise" is nice and fluffy critisizm, but "You comment on 200% difference in initial sharpnes and following explanations are just plane nonsenses" is personal attack?
I see Cliff talk quite a lot in "scientific" language, however everything he sad is just BS. With no real work done - this to me simple indicates that you are here just playing scientists like kids. Is it personal attack or crytisizm?
Clear and loud evidence on facts of nature got ignored because they does not fit some pulled out of the air theory - I am talking about D2 sharpening. This does not really looks to me as scientific approach - rather more fit for cult. Now it it crytisizm or personal attack.
And what about that
Old Spice
I assume this is nice scientific critisism, which this place know for?
How about you get off our forums since you aren't here to contribute anything, other then being an attention whore. We don't care about your work. It is completely flawed, you wasted 5 years of your time for what amounts to nothing. You won't listen to anyone you don't approve of, so you can sidestep all the criticism. Do us a favor stop posting in this thread and go discuss something else on forums that one of the other members have contributed. Of course you won't because that wouldn't fulfill your attention seeking nature.
So my observation is simple:
You have Stamp with smoke and mantras and this other guy who run around biting people to
rase emotion level of discussion. Then "calm and wise" scientist Stamp step up and conclude -
look at him he is not discussing anything, but acts like he fighting dogs here...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing D2 whittling hair
I understand you are not going to experimentally prove you theory...
Well are you saying that you agreed that D2 able to have perfect edge capable of whittling hair, or you are keep insisting that 25% of edge were chipped off and it was other 75% of edge which whittle hair as you sad earlier?
Because very idea that with 25% edge chipped off able to whittle hair is simple demonstration that you simple have no idea what it is to whittle hair. As well as no idea of how sharpening works.
Please, make it clear in one sentence without this scientific smoke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing comment on personal attacks
Well if you consider it as a personal attack - I expect from you to jump in and comment right away publicly that this is not appropriate and not welcomed in this forum. Otherwise it will be seen as appropriate and welcomed. Because whatever you did - there is no any indication that it is happening. And in this case I consider to act myself to make attacker feel uncomfortable - if you are not take care of pests as a moder - I will do it myself. Or you expect me to run away crying for mommy? This trick is not working with me. I am Russian.
Now you started this thread, badmouthing my tests, you did not ask me to comment or join this forum. You talk with me on Yourtube, but when I did not went into pointless discussion on YouTube - I expressed quite a lot why I am not discussing "ideas" - you told me there you are going to do some testing, but instead started this thread - I consider it as badmouthing my tests behind my back and I am not happy about this from the very beginning.
It is you who seed conflict here right away. This is not about testing, about about bashing it by all same "expert" by all same "ideas" repeated again and again and ignoring my answers.
Let take Ankerson - his test has major flow - wooden base. Is it me calling for fight when I keep mentioning? I understand he afraid of that and it makes him very uncomfortable. However it is his problem - if he address that or if he start using proper way - I will not be calling for that. However he just run away from this very idea. Because it is true and he know it better then everybody else who never did testing, but he can not face it and run away (and this book excuse was pretty silly).
This may make some members here angry - well, so what. Is it Grandma Sunday Tea Party? No here you are badmouthing my tests at the first place, so do not expect me being happy with that. Do not make it look like you have nothing to do with that - you started it.
So as I sad before - put your testing on the table against mine - then we discuss methods, math, factor isolation and everything else and I will listen to you. Otherwise I am not going to waste my time in pointless discussions with angry "expert".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How should it be for me to consider this as a test discussion.
1. You call me to join and show some respect to 5 years of testing.
2. You ask me to explaing my testing and after that ask questions.
3. You tell me what do you think can be improvesd and we discuss that. I may do some quick experiments etc...
This would be right way to do that.
Nothing like that ever happen. Instead you pick few "idea" some usual "conserns" addressed by me many times already. Draw some chart and without discussion and without letting m explain anything - just gave your final "scientific" conclusion - "random noise" which is in normal language means " useless data".
Then usual crowd of "expert" joined your bashing repeating usual "ideas" I addressed already many times again all behind my back. Now some wondering Internet user when do search will find this crap and conclusion of course will be - what a magnificent scientist Cliff is and what a useless data this Edge retention testing is...
So having it in mind - what do you expect from me. Great respect to only scientist of the Knife World?
No you are for me in same line as all those "expert" with all this idea they pull out of their anger and I deal with that pretty simple - show me real work behind your ideas, then I pay attention, otherwise - I am not participating pissed off hysteria. Even if you use your scientific language as a smoke for your real intentions.
And so far this trick works very well - no single "expert" ever came back with test results... Because they are all about browsing Internet and reading one nonsense after another generated by same "expert" - creating in result as a snow ball some commonly accepted knife ideas, totally disconnected with reality. They are good for clicking and typing - not for real work.
It seems like you are in deed one of them and you will never put on table your test results...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well. as always. You are shifting attention to different point.
4 paragraphs about wooden base research you did - no real test results again empty claims. Lot of words which casual reader will skip. And as usual no any word about experiments proving it. But I am not going into this discussion at all. Ankerson's behaviour is clear and loud - he afraid of this issue and avoiding it as it is taboo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not required in any research..." - this is BS. This is not scientific magazine with editors and reviewers etc... This is your little personal forum where you play scientist, no more. Did you post comments about my testing on my YouTube channel? You did. I called you to provide test results to prove you point - you sad you are going to do this:
"I have one coming. I will post up the results as I get them." 31 Jan 2012
and you did not. Instead you started this thread, without telling me anything and welcome everybody to do their negative and personal comments about me. All the same "experts" all the same nonsenses all over again doing all the same what they did on BF etc... I should point - already addressed many times, but unlike real scientists who should learn publication first - you did not read that as well as you did not read even my teat page.
You just got what you need to badmouth my work and jumps on it.
Now this "work" has only one author - me. You already approached me once - you have some communication channel, explain me why did not you tell me about this little thread you started? Because scientists not doing that? This is quite a BS I should note.
You are not scientist - you are just playing one. You did no single real test, but pose yourself as judge. Why? Again - after I see your effort - I will get my attention, otherwise I see no difference between some angry fan boy and you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now I have no access to that discussion even for read...
Nice "scientific" move! Now Cliff will continue to act like a "scientist" without anybody questioning his pathetic play. Well for over 10 years he play "scientist" role and produce nothing useful and this is in part why I started my own testing, so I do not expect more then that from him. And it is absolutely clear that even his "literature" research is bogus - he did not read anything about my testing, I think he read few outdated posts and did not pay attention to more then that. Even test result page he did not read, but use only to came up with his pathetic "random noise" claim.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to not letting me even read my thread (and any other). I also got moderator status for all this forums:
Now this is not "academic" at all - this is some kids having fun. Now I am quite convinced that this is just childish game were someone just enjoying act like a scientist using all this scientific words and scientific everything..., but then got into this pathetic - "I fill your e-mail with junk" little revenge...
I guess this suppose to teach me a lesson what does happen if you mess with "scientist"...
Well, this childish reaction is appropriate final for this childish "scientific" discussion. What else to expect? Pathetic!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, how his silly revenge works. I guess setting me as moderator suppose to flood my mailbox... Well, I have like one message in a few days... His site is shoooooo poooooooopular. Most likely nobody care about his play. People are looking for information about knives and this is "Me Only Knife Scientist Cliff Stamp", once it became clear - nobody care any more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I was silently removed from that discussion 2 weeks ago. And now it is clear that nobody really care about testing itself. Even I explain everything when I was asked - no single bit of work was done! First I was told - some will be done next weekend... now several passed and no any sign of anything going on.
This is just "expert" playing "scientists". Another absolutely useless pathetic forum.
Excellent .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also…I’m happy to find so many useful info here in the post, we need work out more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. service steel warehouse
ReplyDelete