I will post my personal comments.
I would not trust advice from an electrician who says he doesn't understand how electricity works.
I would not fly in a helicopter worked on by a person that doesn't understand how it flies....and says it shouldn't
I don't know how much he has studied these fields, or what books he has read, but both these things are common scientific knowledge,........ and despite the internet wives tales about bumble bees not being able to fly, that is well understood ,too.
I would also not put much stock in a HT defense by a new maker who does not understand HT, but blindly follows someone else's advise over the vast majority of well studied and experienced people who have proven facts to go by. That isn't to say that Ed's advise is wrong, it is just that chad doesn't know enough to get as defensive as he has. His "facts" used to present his case also don't help his argument, either.
I don't think we should open the Ed Fowler HT debate again, as it has been pretty well worked over. Most of us have agreed to disagree.
Ed's a nice guy, he makes a good knife, he is happy with his HT, end of story. If people want to talk about it, I suggest a PM or taking it to Around the Grinder. Shop Talk isn't the place for it.
I think Ed's advise to make your knives and test them to destruction is good advise.
I suggest chad make his next 20 or 30 blades in the metal he wants to learn how to use, test them to destruction, and keep detailed records on every part of the testing.They should be identically shaped and size, made from the same batch of metal stock, individually Heat Treated in groups of three with the same HT specs - That is three separate HTs, not three at a time. If all three blades of a test set aren't the same, there is a variable in the HT that needs to be addressed. With the charts of temperatures, times, grain structure, hardness tests at several places on each blade, and all the other testing data, he will learn how he wants to adjust his HT. Every change will require a new group of 3 blades to be made. All knives should be identical, and all equipment should be the same.
As suggested by lazlo, before a certain process variation can be valid, it has to be compared to the standard. So making a three blade test set exactly by the books, and comparing it to the different methods being explored is part of the procedure. Merely doing one set of parameters and saying it made a good knife doesn't mean that it is better or that another method isn't good.
Side-by-side testing of both processes gives the best results. To make it really accurate, blind testing is the only way not to bias it.
Each tang should be marked with a number before HT, and the number recorded. Then the blades should be heat treated, and the detailed HT notes made for each numbered blade. Put away this HT sheet.
After HT, the tangs should be covered with tape or simple handles ( which should all be identical), and the blades finished and prepared for testing. This means you should not be able to tell one from the other. When ready for testing , each should have a letter or ID mark placed on the tape or handle. The detailed records of the testing should be kept for these letters/marks.
After the destruction tests are completed, remove the tape/handle and match each tang number HT data with the handle letter test data. This prevents pre-conceived impressions affecting your test data.
Now, as moderator;
If this stays civil, I'll let it run. If there is any more name calling or insults, I'll lock it and give warning points.
If you don't like chad's or someone else's ideas.....just hit the ignore button instead of send.
