Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

A lot of thing look like nail:p, so I use my rusty hammer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_optimization

bluntcut said:
Here is my process to come up with conceptual/logical CWF 'how'. But 'how' to 'what'? So I must clearly/quantitatively define 'what' is the goal? otherwise - the whole process is like a blind squirrel looking for moon nuts - well: I contacted NASA, my chance increased by 10^-18 :p

Graph

Map an aust volume (inside a grain) as volume/3D graph, where Fe & C are vertices and inter-atomic electromagnetic as edges. FCC = planar Fe4C = 5 vert 4 edges. There are total of N edges.

FCC transformation to BCT, where BCT = volumetric 9 vert 8 edges.

Optimization Goal:
1. optimize for highest number of edges from 1N to 2N (can't get to 2N because of volume skin/outer surface). Strength & toughness components.
2. least increase in volume radius. This is spatial/dimension component, which affect inter-grain.

Since BCT transformation is shear volume (i.e. increase length in one direction, hence orientation), easy to see/simulate an optimal volume graph should be where BCT change orientation(weave) at smallest cell unit as possible minimal # of broken/disconnected edges.

Well, I expect a few of you to turn ON those LN2 cool super-cluster-massive-parallel computer to crunch this graph. I would like 10 best configurations. Maybe throw in hexagonal and cementite as well.

*** GOT IT - said you :cool: ***

Physical/practical/applied ht-CWF 'how' with step-by-step to be disclose.
Click to expand...
 
edited to remove part of post.

Luong, I KNOW I am not knowledgeable enough to say yea or nay about anything metallurgist - you talking about all the crystal lattice structure, etc is so far over my head. I do have the ability to follow instructions, so when you do publish your process I WILL be trying to duplicate your results. I'm sure there will be a stiff learning curve, but I'm willing to work. The results in your videos are amazing!!! I'd LOVE to duplicate those results, or even come close.

Ken H>
 
Last edited:
My replied in CliffStampForum about 'how' CWF ht

I will video walk through the entire CWF ht process.

Summary steps. Then show step by step (obviously - I will need to cut out the waiting and repetitive times)

Saturate aust matrix - whatever appropriate aust temp+soak for steel in video
CWF steps - will yak about what each step supposed to do (reality may differ than what in my head) - what I think could be ideal but settle for practical
Probably: show hardness test
Optional: put on quick edge and whack stuff when blade is basically untempered at peak hrc

I plan use 2 steels for this video - probably high alloy (deep hardening) so I don't have to worry about avoiding PN.
​

I've quite a pile of low Cr steels but only limited quantity in high alloy steels. I will use 2 steels - which have similar aust temp - for small blades (stick or full tang depend on qty avail).

10V, N690, S110V, A2, K390, Elmax, D2, CTS-XHP, M4, cpm154, aebl, 4v, zwear, 3v, s35vn

Suggest 2 if you like - LOL, if not on list - you donate via bring/ship to me:D
 
I will be first to suggest steels to use. AEB-L is by far my #1 choice, with perhaps...... hmmm, I've only used S30V, so maybe S35V? BUT - AEB-L is BY FAR my main choice. Reasons for choosing AEB-L because it's such a popular steel due to good preformance at a very reasonable price.

Again, looking forward to the procedure so I can try it.... and looking forward to reading the book. Says it should ship in the next week or so.

Ken H>
 
IME - Aebl optimal aust temp around 1975-1985F. So 2nd steel aust temp max mfg recommended - (max+50F) should overlap 1975F.

I appreciate your time in reading the book (hopefully, it's the one in my signature :))
Ken H> said:
I will be first to suggest steels to use. AEB-L is by far my #1 choice, with perhaps...... hmmm, I've only used S30V, so maybe S35V? BUT - AEB-L is BY FAR my main choice. Reasons for choosing AEB-L because it's such a popular steel due to good preformance at a very reasonable price.

Again, looking forward to the procedure so I can try it.... and looking forward to reading the book. Says it should ship in the next week or so.

Ken H>
Click to expand...
 
A2 & M4
Because of the number of knives available in A2, that would be my first choice. There is a Huge variety to compare it to in terms of blade shape and size, though I will concede that geometry will differ, but that Should be for the better.

M4 because it is a personal favorite. It has a Fantastic amount of potential and I feel that it isn't used Nearly enough!
--------
AEB-L is a Very tempting option as well.
 
Huge aust temp diff between A2 & M4.
NJBillK said:
A2 & M4
Because of the number of knives available in A2, that would be my first choice. There is a Huge variety to compare it to in terms of blade shape and size, though I will concede that geometry will differ, but that Should be for the better.

M4 because it is a personal favorite. It has a Fantastic amount of potential and I feel that it isn't used Nearly enough!
--------
AEB-L is a Very tempting option as well.
Click to expand...
 
Just want to be very clear - choice of 2 steels are just merely choice of aust/hardening temperatures. CWF ht steps are the same for all steels I have tested.
 
bluntcut said:
........
I appreciate your time in reading the book (hopefully, it's the one in my signature :))
Click to expand...

YES!!! I ordered "Catching Shrimp with Bare Hands" off Amazon. After reading the pingbacks and excerpt I wanted to read rest of book.

Ken H>
 
interesting i have been non std HTing for a few years. will be fun to see what it is your doing and see if its close to how i do things
im knocking out XHP with 400f temper 63.5rc
 
I'd ignore price and availability and chose the steels which will likely end up performing the very best.
The idea is to see the maximum possible with this new HT.

Then later it would be interesting what it can do to cheaper more available steels.

But I'm just a curious observer and I can see how testing the more common and cheaper steels would help actual knife makers and be more useful in the short run.
 
This ht should help most steels (at least 0.6%C) gain good performance. Steels with conventional ht where high RA% (retained austenite) have most to gain (perhaps more correctly - not sucks as bad due to their leaden with large RA% or lousy secondary hardening tempered). Perf differences probably be much less discernible/delineate. Carbide volume & size dictate durability of apex radius/width. Of course, wear resistant has many depends.

Cheap steels are those loaded with excess tramp elements, inclusions and manufacturing/rolling defects. Clean steels will sing, especially great (for general purpose uses) when carbide size is smaller than 250nm.

Jens Schuetz said:
I'd ignore price and availability and chose the steels which will likely end up performing the very best.
The idea is to see the maximum possible with this new HT.

Then later it would be interesting what it can do to cheaper more available steels.

But I'm just a curious observer and I can see how testing the more common and cheaper steels would help actual knife makers and be more useful in the short run.
Click to expand...
 
Nice working hardness for cts-xhp, Butch!

My rule-of-thumb (or hand-waving) calculation, every 3% of RA roughly equate to 1rc (in certain range but surely not linear). So your 1rc higher than curve shown COULD mean your blade contain 3% less RA than others - given all other things equal.

'COULD', i.e. not meaningful compare HRC between object because due to indentation scale is macroscopic. Hence, I've mentioned about nano hardness a few times. While back I posted (some where) about macro/micro/nano hardness which has to do with homogeneity of the matrix as a whole.

65-65.5rc is my projection # for my 67.5rc hxp blade if temper at 400F. Javelin/sky-drop a big bar of cts-xhp to my house... I will temper my blade to 400F right now :D

butcher_block said:
interesting i have been non std HTing for a few years. will be fun to see what it is your doing and see if its close to how i do things
im knocking out XHP with 400f temper 63.5rc
Click to expand...
 
Hi Luong,

How about AEBL and N690? A wild guess they should be quite close (?)
If not, just ignore.. :eek:

It's mostly because of stainless property is desirable for a wide range of use, and that performance gain from VC, etc is countered by apex radius (smaller is better) ...
 
im jsut too leary to test untempered blades. most of my work is kitchen stuff so banging on a board and side loading with thin profiles. i think if i ajust a bit i coudl run it harder but for everyday use im not sure its worth the risk.
seen alot of HTs come and go over the last 16 years i always keep my eyes open and also my mind. time will tell what sticks to the wall as they say
will keep my eye on this thread as more info is released
 
Chris - Excellent suggestion:thumbup:, probably based from knowing desirable properties. Yeah a healthy dose of VC but not too much. Of course, stainless.

Aebl & N690 (almost identical to VG10) - 1980F should be optimal aust temp for both of them.

Chris "Anagarika";16267740 said:
Hi Luong,

How about AEBL and N690? A wild guess they should be quite close (?)
If not, just ignore.. :eek:

It's mostly because of stainless property is desirable for a wide range of use, and that performance gain from VC, etc is countered by apex radius (smaller is better) ...
Click to expand...
 
Regarding AEB-L:
How does the chromium and carbide structure affect the stainlessness and character of the edge when it is heated to a higher aust temp?
I found the following and I was curious as to how you think it might work when it is used in conjunction with "CWT".

- Below the temperature of 1144 °C (2091 °F) the chromium-rich M7C3 primary carbides start to precipitate from the austenitic matrix, but when heated above the temperature of 1144 °C (2091 °F) the resulting martensitic microstructure will contain no primary carbides.

Paraphrased from this link:
http://www.calphad.com/AEB-L.html
 
Butch - you have been knife making for a long while now and generously share info. In my case - your tolerance for my out-of-box yaks over the years, clearly shown open mindedness :thumbup: I agree with you, conventional ht untempered blade is not ready for service. Tests = a waste of resource at best.

Relevant to when untempered equate to glass brittleness. Loop back to something most probably missed (or maybe ignored because my data seem outlandish) in my 3V thread.

CPM 10V

Conventional ht - harden curve in hrc
https://www.alphaknifesupply.com/zdata-bladesteelC-A11.htm

In this post - my untempered 68rc 10V is like glass. Thus FAILED - weaved granularity was too coarse, so it behaved better but still similar to conventional ht AQ(65rc) hardness.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-ht-3V-chopping-tests?p=16226596#post16226596

A quick trace of time frame in that thread - I was eager to use a finer weave/CWF to fix 10V. Curious doesn't it - 10V edge at 69.5rc is very stable vs brittle at 68rc:confused::D
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...-ht-3V-chopping-tests?p=16242988#post16242988

Will a 70.5rc 10V be more stable than 69.5rc? YES. My guess, 10V max hrc = 71 +- 0.5rc.

butcher_block said:
im jsut too leary to test untempered blades. most of my work is kitchen stuff so banging on a board and side loading with thin profiles. i think if i ajust a bit i coudl run it harder but for everyday use im not sure its worth the risk.
seen alot of HTs come and go over the last 16 years i always keep my eyes open and also my mind. time will tell what sticks to the wall as they say
will keep my eye on this thread as more info is released
Click to expand...

edit to add: My calibration block for my Rockwell Hardness Tester is certified/correct. My tester - I throw away first 3 to 5 cold reads. Warm reads can flux +- 0.25rc inside 0.25" radius of subject surface. All this mean, my tester is good. Anyhow, for my use(or IMO your) - macro indentation test (HRC) +- 2rc flux make very little diff. Nano identation is much more important but way too expensive, so I use super thin cross section (aka APEX) to infer nano strength.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top