Even though Cliff has now stated that AEB L is only really for a highly polished edge.
This, as frequent behavior by you, is a out right lie as it implies I had a different position earlier. What I have stated, which is supported by peer reviewed research, is that AEB-L has a very high edge stability, so much so it is considered to be a benchmark for stainless in that regard. This isn't hype, unless you want to claim Landes PhD thesis and Verhoeven's works were a misrepresentation of data or that I have misquoted them. Landes is well aware of my references to his work as are Verhoeven as I discuss steels with them fairly frequently.
What I have clearified in detail, including a graphical representation, is that edge stability provides a retention of maximal sharpness at minimal geometry. As Verhoeven has noted, with coarse finishes the edge thickness increases and thus edge stability requirements are lowered. I have noted specifically that AEB-L has a much lower wear resistance than the high carbide steels and they give much better edge retention at low sharpness because once the edge wears/fractures to the point the large carbides are stable then essentially the edge starts wearing like carbide.
What Phil has done in the above is of value because he has added his quantification of how AEB-L compares at its weakest point which is extended slicing aggression down to a low sharpness. I have never seen anyone actually contend it would be superior to high carbide steels in that aspect. I have noted directly it would be inferior. When I first talked to Devin about AEB-L some time ago he was quite clear it got very sharp easily, stays very sharp well, has high corrosion resistance and he postulated toughness, but there were better steels if you wanted extended edge retention such as Phil is testing.
Is 20 pounds of downward force a lot?
Yes, considering the initial force and adjusting for the amount that was due to wedging, the sharpness at the end about 5-10% of optimal. This as noted clearly in the graphs I showed in the edge modeling is dominated by high wear steels, not steels with high edge stability. It is why for example Buck's 440C eventually catches up with their 420HC which is an exact comparison of a high edge stability vs high wear steel in two extremes or what Landes calls Type I and Type III steels. I also noted in the work I did to model that data how a high wear steel like BG-42 had little advantage to a high edge stability steel like 420HC at high sharpeness but did at a low sharpness. High edge stability steels are also in general much cheaper and easy to heat treat and sharpen and are far tougher.
He talks about slicing with downward pressure. So I’d think it’s a combo of slice and push cut.
Obviously there is an element of a push cut with any slice because if you didn't press down there is no vertical movement unless the knife is so heavy its weight is enough. Phil noted he does a slice along the entire blade and thus it is very much a slice favored cut with a very low push element. You can contrast the effect by a straight push cut and the force will be
much higher as I have noted many times and I usually compare a much shorter slice which makes them actually closer. Phil is testing a much closer version of a pure slice because the force is spread out over a longer edge, this length fraction could be used to calculate the amount of "slice" of a cut.
AEB-L is my steel of choice when my customers leave the choice up to me.
Arthur, thanks for the extensive information. Have you had any 154CM or S30V blades field tested by the same individuals. I would be interested in how AEB-L compares to them for such work. Specifically, if you notice a difference in regards to edge toughness, corrosion resistance and of course frequency of sharpening.
-Cliff
