- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 400
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
2 Myths About Carbon Steel
- Thread starter me2
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 400
This thread was simply intended to dismiss the rather broad notion I've heard since I could open a folder that carbon steel is always better than stainless in edge holding and sharpness. There is a lot of information in that study, but it's interpretation must be done carefully and within the limits of the study.
52100 is considered by many to be a high end carbon steel, while AEB-L and it's Swedish cousins, 12C27 and 13C26 are considered mid range or budget stainless steels. Now, I'm not suggesting that AEB-L with a budget heat treatment should be compared to 52100 with a week long procedure for one blade. However, given similar treatments, by someone who knows what they are doing, producing a similar microstructure of similar strength (hardness), which is in the range common for upper end knives now, the stainless holds an edge longer using the CATRA test. Your low end vs. high end statement is very true, but one must carefully define low end and high end.
One must also carefully define carbon steel and stainless steel. 10xx steels are classified as carbon steels by the steel industry. 52100, 8670M, 5160, and similar are low alloy steels. A2, W2, O1, D2, and others are tool steels. Many people would classify all these as carbon steels, which is incorrect. 301, H1, 440C, ATS-34, S30V, 316, etc, are all stainless steels, as classified by the steel industry and people you ask "on the street" so to speak. As you can see, there is way to much variety to say "carbon is better than stainless," even if you limit carbon to 10xx and stainless is any steel with sufficient chromium. This is one of the reasons I say such comparisons are meaningless. This study directly contradicts the two most commonly heard (by me) myths about carbon and stainless steels.
Regarding lab testing vs. "real world" testing, this kind of comparison has always irritated me. It's not as though the lab tests are done on Fantasy Island. They happen in the same "real world" that everything else happens in. If there are disparities between service performance and lab test results, then a different, or possibly new, lab test must be considered (happens fairly frequently), or the "real world" observations have been misinterpreted (happens a lot, imho). New tests come out every year, and old ones are revised or replaced. Unexpected service conditions happen often, but different performance in service doesn't negate the tests. Both are necessary and both must be chosen and interpreted correctly. I suppose this pet pieve of mine started with my stepfather asking what I was going to do when I got out of college and into the "real world." I asked him to explain how I got stuck in an alternate universe where working 30-40 hours/week and going to school full time didn't qualify as real. This mini-rant wasn't directed at you specifically.
i love carbon steel...so easy to touch up and hold edge well.Its all about heat treatment, my bark river bowie in 1085 holds an edge better than my spyderco knives in vg10 with the same kind of edge.I know many pple wouldnt believe in that but I do not care!
LOL! No worries.
:But here's an example of what happens in a lab VS what happens in true life.
Titanium hammers will spark if they strike concrete. No one in a lab thought
about this when they were testing them in conditions they thought they'd be in.
Well, some one found out the hard way (Ti hammer, concrete, propane, boom).
As for the relevance to this topic, I'd like to see how these knives tested do
with a human being wielding them both under as identical conditions as possible.
I'd trust that more than a lab test any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Well, yes, stuff like that happens. Like I said, lab and field have to go together. No one in the lab thought about it because the field guys never told them "hey, we know we asked for a lighter carpenters hammer, but we do odd things with our tools, so you might want to see what happens if they get dropped on something, or we decide to use it to break concrete. Oh, and by the way, we'll be using them in a highly flammable environment." And for what it's worth, the lab guys are the ones that came up with the non-sparking tools of high strength copper alloys for just those situations.
The more I think about it, there's so much wrong with that scenario that I don't know where to begin. Steel hammers can spark and lead to the same thing. See the non-sparking tools section of a Grainger catalog, but keep a hold of your wallet.
The more I think about it, there's so much wrong with that scenario that I don't know where to begin. Steel hammers can spark and lead to the same thing. See the non-sparking tools section of a Grainger catalog, but keep a hold of your wallet.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 8,968
Well, I trust results measured to a tenth of a millimeter on a machine running a constant load with precise cut stroke and speed. The only thing a human does is reduce the possibility of the conditions being identical and completely eliminates the repeatability of the test. When I want to know how much something weighs, I put it on a scale. When I want to know the temperature of something, I use a thermometer. Someone could hold these things in their hand or stick their tongue on it, but I have a little less faith in those measurements. Crazy, I know.As for the relevance to this topic, I'd like to see how these knives tested do
with a human being wielding them both under as identical conditions as possible.
I'd trust that more than a lab test any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Bigfattyt
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 19,215
Good article.
Couple of points that struck me.
The thickness of the stock of the Stainless was thinner than the carbon steels. While they recognized that this might increase cutting performance, they compensated by using a ratio reduction equation for the stainless cutting results.
Seems strange, that with so many closely controlled variables, they simply did not either order the stock the same thickness, or just machine it down. No reason they could not have taken a surface grinder to it. A wet surface grinder could have made all the stock EXACTLY the same thickness with very little difficulty.
Neat to see some scientific testing of traditional True Damascus (Wootz) (as opposed to pattern welded steel). I was surprised at the hardness level being so low. I wonder if you could get the same carbide banding and get the steel to a higher hardness?
Another thing, this is a test that basically only tests cutting performance in relation to abrasion resistance against a material that is the equivalent of sand paper (dense paper with a specific Silica/Quartz component).
Of course, if you were testing impact resistance, edge retention when chopping, or applying lateral forces and impact forces combined, you would probably get completely different results. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Couple of points that struck me.
The thickness of the stock of the Stainless was thinner than the carbon steels. While they recognized that this might increase cutting performance, they compensated by using a ratio reduction equation for the stainless cutting results.
Seems strange, that with so many closely controlled variables, they simply did not either order the stock the same thickness, or just machine it down. No reason they could not have taken a surface grinder to it. A wet surface grinder could have made all the stock EXACTLY the same thickness with very little difficulty.
Neat to see some scientific testing of traditional True Damascus (Wootz) (as opposed to pattern welded steel). I was surprised at the hardness level being so low. I wonder if you could get the same carbide banding and get the steel to a higher hardness?
Another thing, this is a test that basically only tests cutting performance in relation to abrasion resistance against a material that is the equivalent of sand paper (dense paper with a specific Silica/Quartz component).
Of course, if you were testing impact resistance, edge retention when chopping, or applying lateral forces and impact forces combined, you would probably get completely different results. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
All good points about the study. The short comings of CATRA testing are there, and they are reflected when a person uses the knife. A large part of reading and being able to use testing like this is realizing the limits of the test. No test stands alone, and all are subject to (mis)interpretation. I used to see makers poo poo hardness testing. This has largely stopped that I can tell, I think mostly because hardness testing is common enough that more makers understand it's limits and don't misinterpret what a hardness number means to them.
Well, if you ever need to know how many 10's of a millimeter your knife will cut a branch,
I guess you can count on those studies! Good luck repeating those "conditons" out in the wild! LOL
As for me, I got some potentially lifesaving advice from guys in the field
(stuff the lab testers didn't know because they never used them in the field).
You'd be surprised at how many engineers I've had to knock back on their heels for some of their
"conclusions" from testing when it came to applying their experiments in actual field conditions.
But hey, what do I know? I just actually USE the stuff (I don't experiment with it).
When I want to know how something cuts, I cut with it.
:Well, if you ever need to know how many 10's of a millimeter your knife will cut a branch,
I guess you can count on those studies! Good luck repeating those "conditons" out in the wild! LOL
As for me, I got some potentially lifesaving advice from guys in the field
(stuff the lab testers didn't know because they never used them in the field).
You'd be surprised at how many engineers I've had to knock back on their heels for some of their
"conclusions" from testing when it came to applying their experiments in actual field conditions.
But hey, what do I know? I just actually USE the stuff (I don't experiment with it).
When I want to know how something cuts, I cut with it.
You seem to enjoy setting up a false dichotomy between "engineers" and "users". Lots of people are both, especially on this forum.
It does no good whatsoever to draw "conclusions" from the "real world" if you don't understand what's going on. Often times, those "conclusions" are false for many reasons, which can be dangerous. I saw this in the Army many times, people flirting with disaster, and not knowing it...
A) What you say the carpenters call "odd" are not odd at all, but commonplace. So, stuff like that
happens because guys who've never swung a hammer to make a living for years didn't experience that.
B) And trust me, in order for one to get a steel hammer to spark as easily as a titanium hammer does,
you have to literally sit there and work hard at it (I know, my buddies and I tried it). I'll be the first to
admit that I couldn't tell you the science behind it, but I can speak from actual experience.
C) There's a reason that non-sparking material isn't used for hammering steel/aluminum fasteners.
They wear much faster. This is what makes Titanium special. There are even Titanium hammers with
steel faces that can be replaced when they wear out, but most Ti hammers last a lot longer today than in
the past because the overwhelming majority of them now are just back-up striking tools to pneumatic guns.
And on top of all that, where they once were averaging in the $100. range for years, you can now pick them
up for about $50. (and I'm not talking about cheap Chinese knock-offs, but good quality brands). I gladly
paid $100. for both of mine (have a 14oz & a 16oz). Same work, less swings, less weight, less fatigue.
Outstanding technology.
(BTW...I only use my Steel Estwings for Demolition Work. The Stilettos are restricted to Carpentry only.)
Experience is the best teacher of all especially for engineers who've never worked in the field.
I was specific about that when I made my statements. I made no false dichotomy.
If you don't believe that things are experienced in the field that aren't re-produced in a lab, fine.
But I know for a fact that unless their lab is a site, they aren't going to know how something
works on a site until they use it on a site. This is why there is "product testing" in the field
(not in a lab). And that's how they find out what they need to tweak and improve.
Right?
There are probably millions of tradesmen today using tools that don't know the science behind those tools that are doing "good" I'd say!
LOL
Here's a conclusion: I struck concrete with a Ti hammer. It sparked a lot. I "concluded" that I would be far more careful with striking anything other than the materials that a Ti hammer was designed for. I think I benefit from learning that without "understanding" what's going on.
It's like saying people shouldn't drive if they can't explain the workings of an internal combustion engine.
Last edited:
Your missing my point. Bad communication from the field guys on what they experienced and needed doesn't make it the designers fault he didn't anticipate actual conditions. There are obvious things that can cause problems which the field personnel will be aware of because they see them, and there are very subtle things that only someone who's done the design will be aware of. Like you are so well aware, designers often don't have the field experience to know everthing that will happen, though that is a huge assumption on your part, as pointed out by sodak. On the other side, field personnel can be notoriously short sighted about the full intent of the design. If the field personnel, like you, weren't so full of contempt for the knowitall designers, they could relay back better information. And if the designers would listen to the louts in the field, they might not have to come up with so many fixes for what could have been anticipated. No designer can anticipate everything, and no amount of field experience will give the same information of a few well designed lab tests. What you're saying is in many instances true w/r to field vs. designer. But it's attitudes like yours, from both sides, that keep it that way.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,008
Coming from working maintenance on aircraft and toolstrings, there is always a way that the field is different that is either very hard or impossible to reproduce. With aircraft it's the low temps, the airflow, the vibrations etc.
With tool strings, it's the heat, the vibrations etc.
The important thing about learning in a lab is that there are rules (sometimes you have to make the rules) to doing lab work, documentation is important, you don't get that as much from the field.
I say all of that to say... lab and real world need each other.
While testing is limited, it's better than no testing.
With tool strings, it's the heat, the vibrations etc.
The important thing about learning in a lab is that there are rules (sometimes you have to make the rules) to doing lab work, documentation is important, you don't get that as much from the field.
I say all of that to say... lab and real world need each other.
While testing is limited, it's better than no testing.
Contempt for knowitall designers?
I'm indifferent to people I don't know.
I just don't like the guys who "think" they know it all and don't.
You're projecting something on me I don't feel. Again, I only disapprove of engineers who "fail"
(not engineers who properly test products before unleashing them on workers that trust them).
Are you under the false impression that I have something against ALL engineers just because
they are engineers? That's jumping to a conclusion. What did I say specifically that led you to
that belief (if you believe that)?
What reasonable person wouldn't be against incompetence?
The Short Version:
I once had to deal with one of these "experts" who literally caused a job 10's of thousands of dollars
because of his lack of experience in the field and his "expert" mistakes caused men to not work for
2 weeks and that affected their families and it affected the clients (who were Senior Citizens).
The Details:
Let me give you an example: I never had anything against this engineer I had to deal with until
he failed miserably in assessing a situation from his lofty desk that he resided at while we worked.
Dumbo ordered that a job be stopped because the height of the material didn't match the specs of
the job. He didn't call anyone, he didn't ASK anyone any questions. He just ASSUMED that it was
done wrong and that too much material was installed. For a 2 weeks, 20 men didn't work. Senior Citizens
had their home in danger of being flooded.
While all the higher ups above me were running out of chapstick with this dummy,
I took it upon myself to call him and ask him what the problem was. Numnutz
told me what was wrong with the job (Mr. "I've never even been on site").
I told him he was wrong. He asked me who I was. I told him I was running the job.
He then went on to brag and boast about how he was an engineer and he went to
school and that how could I tell him how to do his job, blah, blah, blah...
So I told him exactly how. I asked the Rocket Surgeon what did the core sample reveal.
He replied, what core sample. PWNED. LOL! Frickin' Idiot! He didn't even know what that was.
I told him "The core sample of the site before the job started. You have the plans right?
What are they telling you?"
He paused. I almost said "McFly! McFly!" but I bit my tongue.
"Uh, uh..." (his response). "Yeah, exactly!" is what I told him. Then I preceded to tell him
who/what/where/when & why he was wrong. He didn't take into account that the specs
they gave my firm were WRONG from the start because there was NO CORE SAMPLE taken!
They "guesstimated" what was on site with on on-site visit!
When I told him what we were dealing with, after literally a minute of silence that I had
to actually say "hello? you still there?" He then asked me what we were going to do.
I told him what HE was going to do! He totally agreed with me and told me that I could
proceed with the work.
The next work day, I had a crew of 20 men BACK to work, back to feeding their familes
and securing that residence for the Senior Citizens who were literally living in a state of
fear on a site where Asbestos was present. And why did we go through all of that?
Because some "expert" made a decision without the hand's on real world experience needed.
It's not uncommon at all. There are no gods in the field. There are no gods in a lab.
Unless a designer/engineer actually puts his hands on a product and works with it
in the real world, all he can tell you is how something performed in his lab.
Anyone who argues with that is just arguing to a wall of fact.
Last edited:
I totally agree with you. Again, no gods in the lab, no gods in the field.
That's why even engineers value "real world" experience. It helps them to
do what they need to do to address circumstances they may have missed.
There is no "either/or" here. Like you said, both need each other.
