Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Generally it is in regard to the people who make the knives I describe with positive characteristics and/or refer to often as benchmarks such as the Mora 2000, Bruks Wildlife, Ratweiler, Johnson utility, etc. . It is an example of when you can't deal with the arguement you attempt to destroy the reputation of the speaker. Of course if the guy speaking was totally without substance it should be kind of obvious that the arguement should therefore be easily refuted on a factual/logical basis.
In general I would not tend to prefer either of those types of grinds but there are uses for them. David Boye for example had knives which were close to 3/8" at the spine but 0.005" at the edge where you had a combination of very high shallow cutting ability and very high strength, dive knives. Even his hunters were ~1/4" at the spine because they mainly did shallow cutting (or deep cutting on non-binding media) and the wide and well rounded spine was a nice ergonomic aid. I also think the fact they were cast had something to do with it.
Yes, in general. There is kind of an interesting point here though, I have done test cutting with really thin blades on carrots/turnips and found that there is a point where if you decrease the thickness further the force goes up because the vegetables have enough elasticity to not crack at all and thus they bind heavily. These are really thin knives, 1/16" with very wide blades so they have really acute angles, ~3 degrees. You can usually compensate for this with use of hollow relief grinds.
He isn't responding to what I said just his general impression of me, often from what someone has said or past posts I made where I critized a knife/steel, this is fairly common. For example you will note the constant references to "but I don't break knives / chop up concrete" if someone is in disagreement with me and they use that to imply this is why their opinion is different because that is all I do. In fact I have not done either of those things in a long time, the vast majority of work I have done recently has been on blade minimization (what is the least knife I can do something with) and trying to quantify edge retention in a more defination manner. Even when I did really harsh work it was always a minor part of the reviews and in the majority of the times on request from the maker/manufacturer.
And yes, that was my main point about the convex bevel. It isn't the curvature which defines the properties. I have a cutting tool now with a convex bevel which is about 1/8" thick and 25 degrees per side, that is the midpoint tangent angle so the apex bevel is actually much higher. The edge is well sharpened, viewed under magnification straight into the edge it is as well formed as any Spyderco I have seen so it is very sharp. However it in general will not cut well because the angle and thickness is very high and being convex doesn't change that at all.
As a general note, the main reason that posters like LaBella engage in personal attacks is to try to induce the same in responce. The ideal reply is to attack him and better yet the product he is supporting with equal or better vigor, this both destroys your viewpoint as being impartial and ideally also locks the thread so any further critical discussion is prevented. If you are losing a debate and turn it into a fight which causes the debate to be closed then it is highly likely that people will forget about any valid critism and just remember the fight. So in short, try not to return the insults/implications.
-Cliff
