Blade Steel wikipedia article

knarfeng said:
Opinions. Half-truths. outright falsehoods. meaningless terminology.

I need only cite the first entry.

WTF does it mean "it is of high quality". That is a meaningless term when used as you have. "Quality" has nothing to do with whether an alloy is suitable for making a blade, even when you detail what kind of blade you want to make, which you did not. "Quality" has to do with how uniformly an alloy meets it specifications, not whether it is a good alloy for the proposed usage.

CPM 154 is NOT more widely used than 154CM.

Amateurs should not try to write technical articles. They fail, as does this "article". What utter balderdash.
Click to expand...

I still think it's a great idea to write a Wiki page on blade steels in particular. To get a general overview about a subject is what wikipedia is made for. If I get really interested in something I'll buy a book about it. Sure, they're 'll be some mistakes and some info incomplete or left out entirely, but again,if you're serious about a subject you'll start looking deeper anyways.
And I believe wikipedia was made for "amateurs",albeit mostly those that "know their stuff".
 
I don't mean this as an argument, but clarification would be nice.

Knarfeng - Since you have issue with 154CM definition, and recommend using FAQ, and in that FAQ Joe said - CPM is again making high-quality 154-CM
So, could you please you formulate what do you believe is correct definition?

Also do we have some data that would suggest that CPM 154 is more or less widely used than 154Cm?
The original author believed CPM 154 was more widely used, Knarfeng believes otherwise. I have no idea where to find specific data and reaching crucible with those questions will be hard, I was calling them for weeks before, never got any calls returned.

The Mastif - the issue with INFI as a proprietary name. FAQ lists INFI.
And how do we go about proprietary steel names in general?

Cotdt - The faq has lots of statements like holds edge well. BTW< could you please email me Larrin's FAQ? the link here is broken.

Basically, I'm pointing out issues with copying FAQ as is, besides the ones I listed in prev. post. I'm sure there's many others.
 
I would totally nuke the page, so I won't edit, just post here.

154CM was not designed by Crucible. There isn't a '154' steels classification in AISI. You have 154CM, and the PM version. The only comment about quality would be the production process, as both 154CM and ATS-34 exchanged places through the years as being considered to ship cleaner and better billets for knifemaking.

420/420J2 is not low quality. It has less carbon. It is still steel, and the quality depends on how it is made, not what the formulation is.

440C could be high-end, but that is totally subjective and not quantifiable.

Not enough stainless CPMs listed. S35VN, S110V, S125V are not mentioned

AUS isn't different just because of V, there's also nickel & silicon to consider. Actually, I'll just mention it now - posting only the carbon content does not help differentiate the steels much. The other alloying elements are critically important in creating the characteristics for each steel. I did the same for a while, consider just what had more carbon, but that doesn't come close to telling even half the story.

VG-1/VG-10, how hard they are to sharpen and how well they hold an edge is not so clear cut.

I think this is outlined incorrectly in general. Don't do AUS, VG, SxxxV, etc. Instead, go by manufacturer perhaps. By saying VG series, you leave out Super Gold, also from Takefu. By saying ATS series, you leave out ZDP-189, also from Hitachi. There are a lot of steels missing. No Sandvik, no Carpenter, Latrobe, Bohler-Uddeholm, etc. This was brought up already, just reiterating.

Also mentioned, carbon steel is 10xx, that should not be the header over other alloys. Calling carbon steel a popular choice for rough use doesn't clear things up much. Rough use itself should probably be cleared up. Lots of use can be rough, and some of it is served by more stainless knives, depending on where it is happening. Meat processing, maritime activities, military tasks - stainless is pretty popular, too.

Some of 10xx is skipped. I don't know if 1095 is 'standard', a lot of knives are also made with 1070 equivalent. Plus, the compositions are kinda loose. There's enough overlap that your 1095 blade might also fit in 1080 if the carbon was low enough.

Tool steels is wide open, but this does cover the seemingly most referenced/popular. I agree with explaining the naming conventions. D2 is not much tougher than stainless, it depends on the stainless. And premium doesn't mean much. Q&T O-1 isn't incredibly tough, about the same as A-2 at similar hardness range.

I would stick CPM under Crucible, along with PM metals from others, as mentioned about organizing by company. Again missing stuff like 1V, 9V, 15V.

Other carbon steels should be renamed, they are not carbon steels. Those missing might include 52100, 9260, 50100-B, 4140, 8670.

Damascus is seemingly incorrect about 'most' having a core. I don't think you'll find that to be the case for most pattern-welded knives and watered steels.

Might mention that obsidian is also used for scalpels. And then you could also list diamond blades.

Good effort though.
 
I know it needs a lot of work, but remember, it's a brand new page.

Thanks for all those pointers, however, to be fair, alot of those metals I had never heard of.

I mostly do it during my free time at school, and not much at home...
 
The Mastif - the issue with INFI as a proprietary name. FAQ lists INFI.
And how do we go about proprietary steel names in general?
Click to expand...

There obviously is a place to discuss steels like Carbon V, Infi, and SR101 as many people enjoy and use knives with these steels. I'd just suggest naming them as unknown proprietary steels, or known if there is sufficient evidence. An explanation of the whole concept isn't really difficult. They are good steels just called names made up by companies that are marketing them

My question is can we use as evidence the testimony of certain ex camillus employees as to what Carbon V was, for example?

I believe him, but does that he worked for camillus and posted the real name of the steel in a forum constitute a fact? That's my question.

Busse's Infi, Well we only have suspicions and hearsay so just call it a proprietary steel of unknown name. That should be enough if the concept of taking a steel and renaming it as a proprietary steel is explained.
 
D2 is no tougher than the high end stainless.

asdxzczxv.png

From CPM's website.
 
Nomad333 said:
The main reason I have American steels is because of the Steel FAQ's I've found (talmadge included) just have them and a few Japanese steels.
Later on I plan to add others.



From research CPM 154 IS more common than 154CM.
Also this page is not about "which blade you want to make." This is not a "how-to" article. It is about GENERAL information. Also "quality" is a term used for a high standard of material or make, as a result of the Quality control and process control during manufacturing. Quality is also a word to describe how the steel stands up against others, in a purely scientific way. Otherwise if you try to tell me something like 420J2 is on par or better than either 154 material, you are a fool.

And the fact that you base your entire opinion on just the first article shows me you were prepared to just not like it.
Click to expand...

Young man I have worked as a chemist and materials engineer for some 30 years. Your definition of "Quality" is... well lets just say it is non-standard in the materials industry. You are trying to write a technical article about materials; so you need to use standard industrial terminology.

I'll say it again, "The term 'quality', when applied to a steel alloy refers to how closely an alloy meets its specification." It has nothing to do with the purpose to which you put it. You are writing an article about STEEL. The MATERIAL, not the KNIFE in which it is used.

I did not base my entire opinion on the first entry. I only needed to cite the very first entry to illustrate my points. A technical article states facts and uses correct terminology. It does not cite opinions.

I agree with hardheart. There are so many errors in the article that instead of correcting each one I would erase the silly thing and start over.

oh, and show me the count of knives in 154CM vs CPM 154 citing data across all manufacturers. I've been at this somewhat longer than you. I have a pretty good idea of what is out there.
 
Rather than "nuke" why not give constructive criticism in order to help rather than harm.
Also my definition of "quality" comes from sources YOU said I should've used, WHICH I DID.


I don't mean to flame war, but at least I (and some others), have actually contributed...

Why not put your experience (not going to question you here) to use and give us pointers?
Starting over would just be a waste.
 
knarfeng said:
Your definition of "Quality" is... well lets just say it is non-standard in the materials industry. You are trying to write a technical article about materials; so you need to use standard industrial terminology.
Click to expand...
Frank, come on :) It's not exactly his definition, he took it from the same FAQ you pointed him to.

knarfeng said:
You are writing an article about STEEL. The MATERIAL, not the KNIFE in which it is used.
Click to expand...
My understanding was to make a review of certain steels from the perspective of their use/usability in knife blades. There is a fairly large article about steels on wiki already.

Also, please bear in mind, the article, like most of the stuff on Wiki is geared towards beginners, once you get very basic stuff from it, then you dig the reference links, buy books referenced there, do more serious research in short. Guys like you with 30 years of experience in the area will not be needing it. Ideally they are the ones writing it for novices, in a language that will not require years of experiences to understand it.

E.g. String theory is far more complicated than steel terminology, and not every physics or math Phd can grasp it fully. Yet the simplified article exists on wiki and many other places. I though we are taking the same approach.

That's my opinion on the article "complexity", if we all decide to make it highly technical, so be it.

knarfeng said:
I agree with hardheart. There are so many errors in the article that instead of correcting each one I would erase.
Click to expand...
Well, as a programmer for over 20 years and web developer for over 12 years, trust me editing is easier and faster ;)

knarfeng said:
oh, and show me the count of knives in 154CM vs CPM 154 citing data across all manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Please, no need to get confrontational over small details. I've removed the statement, based on the absence of the hard data. If you have something citeable that 154CM is more widespread I can add it there. For now it's neither since we have no data.

Besides, so far nobody tried to prove anybody wrong here.
 
Last edited:
I agree on most, couple questions:

hardheart said:
420/420J2 is not low quality. It has less carbon. It is still steel, and the quality depends on how it is made, not what the formulation is.
Click to expand...
Ok, so how do you suppose we express the idea that steel A is considered better than steel B, for a given purpose, assuming ideal heat treatment etc?
Like you said yourself in another thread, steel formula defines a lot and HT can only do so much. Break down by use?


Grouping - That's rather complicated. If we group by makers, then there will be duplicate entries for many popular steels. E.g. D2 with its 150 names and 50 makers.
The same CPM 10V, it's also A11 Mod(PSM Industries), DuraTech A11(Latrobe), PM A11(Diehl), K294(Bohler-Uddeholm), ASP 2011(Erasteel), LO-QPM A11(Lohmann).
We cant' really list them for all of those guys. On the other hand they're slightly different in composition, technology used CPM, PM, etc..


hardheart said:
Again missing stuff like 1V, 9V, 15V.
Click to expand...
Another question, how far do we go? The three you listed are much rarer than even 10V and S125V, which themselves are quite exotic today.


The Mastiff said:
There obviously is a place to discuss steels like Carbon V, Infi, and SR101 as many people enjoy and use knives with these steels. I'd just suggest naming them as unknown proprietary steels,
Click to expand...
Some of them aren't that unknown, we know what SR101 is, and Carbon V was analyzed by Goddard, INFI, well I have 2 different compositions for it.
I mean we have compositions for some of them at least. Manufacturer's Proprietary Names or something like that?

The Mastiff said:
An explanation of the whole concept isn't really difficult. They are good steels just called names made up by companies that are marketing them
Click to expand...
Yup, concept is easy. I'd just keep unknown for the steels that we really know nothing about.
Although, I am not sure if it's ok on wiki to post compositions for INFI and Carbon V.

The Mastiff said:
My question is can we use as evidence the testimony of certain ex camillus employees as to what Carbon V was, for example?
Click to expand...
I think Knarfeng mentioned before Goddard's' book. At least that can be cited for composition.

The Mastiff said:
I believe him, but does that he worked for camillus and posted the real name of the steel in a forum constitute a fact? That's my question.
Click to expand...
I don't have an answer :) But, if we put them under proprietary names and skip unverified data we should be fine.
 
Gator97 said:
Ok, so how do you suppose we express the idea that steel A is considered better than steel B, for a given purpose, assuming ideal heat treatment etc?
Like you said yourself in another thread, steel formula defines a lot and HT can only do so much. Break down by use?
Click to expand...
Well, to avoid peeing in cornflakes or protracted edit wars, I would just post intended steel application (die, high speed, shock, cutlery, etc) impact test results, abrasive wear results, maximum attainable hardness, grain & carbide sizes, and carbide volume. People can figure stuff out from there.

Grouping - That's rather complicated. If we group by makers, then there will be duplicate entries for many popular steels. E.g. D2 with its 150 names and 50 makers.
The same CPM 10V, it's also A11 Mod(PSM Industries), DuraTech A11(Latrobe), PM A11(Diehl), K294(Bohler-Uddeholm), ASP 2011(Erasteel), LO-QPM A11(Lohmann).
We cant' really list them for all of those guys. On the other hand they're slightly different in composition, technology used CPM, PM, etc..
Click to expand...
Well, I meant the proprietary names and letting people know who makes cutlery steels in general. Not the standard designations everyone makes, but something like naming Champalloy & RDS in passing if L6 makes the article. If that even. No one calls M2 Rex, and D2 is just D2 to knife users in general. I would specify something like 10V for the same reason I would point out that there is both 154CM & CPM154, or ATS-34 & RWL-34

Just to get it out there that CPM means Crucible, and that not being Crucible doesn't mean no chance at PM steels. I've seen many comments about the 'difference' between S30V and CPM S30V, or that if Crucible had shut down that there would be no CPM M4, or S90V. While true in a literal sense, there are still companies making steel of the same/similar formulation in the same process type, particle metallurgy. It's funny how some knuts see M4 as a new steel. Heck, even the CPM steels that have been around longer than I've been alive.

This name game would of course also link and reference your database :D

Another question, how far do we go? The three you listed are much rarer than even 10V and S125V, which themselves are quite exotic today.
Click to expand...
I figure just to hit on the ones stocked/shown on knife supplied sites, or what's been used in production/mid-tech runs.
 
Last edited:
hardheart said:
Well, to avoid peeing in cornflakes or protracted edit wars, I would just post intended steel application (die, high speed, shock, cutlery, etc) impact test results, abrasive wear results, maximum attainable hardness, grain & carbide sizes, and carbide volume. People can figure stuff out from there.
Click to expand...
The first part is relatively easy, I mean the intended application, but the rest... I've been scouring the web for more than half a year for steel data and it's very difficult to obtain those. Even the grain size, or impact test results. We can try though. Obviously there's a lot of info I never saw.
Plus, unless we explain all those terms and, what carbides are and how they affect steel, it'll be way too complicated for the novices.


So, if I got you right, let's list the types of the steels used in cutlery, e.g. Die, high speed, etc, I figure with commentary on pros/cons of each type and list most widely used alloys under those categories?
No breakdown into stainless/carbon, since it's way too generic?


hardheart said:
I figure just to hit on the ones stocked/shown on knife supplied sites, or what's been used in production/mid-tech runs.
Click to expand...
You have a link to one of those?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top