Bladsmth (Stacy Apelt) in latest issue of Blade!

Status
Not open for further replies.
bladsmth said:
Here is my letter to Steve Shackleford, Editor of Blade magazine.

To the Editor of BLADE

Introduction:
I am Stacy E. Apelt, and have been a reader of Blade magazine for over 20 years and have been making knives since 1961. I have technical background in metallurgy, and chemistry, having worked in research for VA chemicals ( formerly VA smelting) in the 1970's.
I am currently the moderator and advisor on Bladefourms.com Knifemakers Shop Talk sub-forum. Bladeforums name - Bladsmth .

I have been disappointed in the articles you have been running by Ed Fowler for quite a while, but lately his information is a disservice to knifemakers and your magazine. His self-proclaimed superiority and science is egotistical at best, and totally false in many cases. He has publicly admittedly that he has not made a knife in over a year, but posts articles about his "knife Making" skills, testing, and research. His version of metallurgy is so flawed that any person who has only moderately read on the subject will see the problems in his methods.
Most of his articles are just promotion of his personal theory on metallurgy, of himself, and his school.

His recent article in the January 2012 issue is case to point. It pulls the reader in with "The Cure For Blade Warp"....but is an article on Ed Fowler. It goes for two pages, ending in "To Be Continued".....without any information on curing blade warp.
Mr. Fowler constantly refers to his laboratory testing and unknown metallurgists who back his theories, but never posts any such information or names the labs or people doing the tests. His only mention of any others is Rex Walter and Doc Daugherty. He constantly reports that his methods produce far superior blades, as tested by these two, but never posts the actual tests or results or methods that they were obtained. I am not sure, but believe they work with him at his school.

His claims of metallurgical science are often totally false. Case in point is his constant mention of the "memory" of steel.( referenced in the 2012 article). His claims that "Every hammer mark and thermal event is forever recorded in the memory of the steel" ( direct quote from the article) , and only his "special" process can conquer it, is insulting to metallurgists who have spent lifetimes in the study of steel and its properties.
Steel has no permanent "memory" of past events. Every time the steel passes Ac1 in a heat treatment and converts to Austenite, nearly all prior states are erased and a clean slate starts. If Mr. Fowler's premise was true, the steel would have been ruined at the steel mill, and the damage made worse in his forging and grinding.
Another instance is his claim that placing his blades in the refrigerator overnight can produce a large gain in toughness and hardness, as well as reduce grain size. The conversion of retained austenite in the steels he works ( 5160 and 52100) is a minor issue ( only a few %), and would not happen until -105F. I know of no commercial home freezer that reaches that temperature. Grain size is set at temperatures above 1350F, not at -32F in a freezer. Grain size is re-set each time the steel heats above the Currie point and cools below 1000F.
His claims that his processes , which he will teach you at his school, is going to produce a blade with super fine grain and many times superior to all others is pure hype,..... and insulting to the thousands of bladesmiths reading your magazine.

To wrap this up, I understand that different smiths will have different methods.
I understand that different smiths will disagree on some metallurgical principles as applied to bladesmithing.
I agree that Ed Fowler has a right to his opinions.

Where I disagree is his right to use your magazine to spread his opinion as hard cold fact, when it clearly is false.
I disagree in your running articles claiming all sorts of knife making and testing from a man who has admitted he does not make knives any more.

Final comment:
Everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of metallurgy science....but no one is entitled to his own metallurgical science.

Sincerely - Stacy E. Apelt, FSA Scot
Click to expand...

hi stacy

i have decent metallurgy knownlogde background. i do have years of heat treat experience in both theory and actions. i have not worked with ed fowler, not even heard of him until i readed this thread this morning. so i think i can give my opinion in a nuture state. you have been a good advisor and a very helpful person on bladeforums, and i do respect your right of quenstioning other people's claims.

but here is something i must disagree:

i am from china, and i have no chance read any ed's aricle about "memory" of the steel at the blade maganize. but from my experience i learnt that sometimes there is sort of "memory" in the steel. i don't know how can i explain this correct in english. but steel does acting "memorily" or "inheritance" in some situation. its too complicated to explain everything in detial. so i will use a few examples just to state the fact in certain situation.

(1): 20CrMo steel austenitlized at 1250°C in a vaccum furance, holding for 10 hours to form a very large grain size. then oil quenched to room temperature, polish, take photos of the grain boundary. then the steel was slowly re-heat up to above ac1. took photo again. and found some of the grain reformed back to almost excatly same size and shape before. it happened again after repeat heat back up to ac1. so in this situation, it seems like the steel "inherited" things happened before. the common theory believed this is caused by RA that remain at original grainboundry. it act as nuclearation for austensite to form up when reheat to ac1. thus cause this kind of "inheritance" reaction. so less RA, less chance this kind of memory will happen. and it more likely to happen when use induction furance with a very fast heat rate. or the very slow heat of a vaccum furance. the midium heating rate usualy have less chance cause this kind of "memory". cryo treatment or carefully controled heat rate can avoid this type of inheritance.

(2): steel in martensite state is cold rolled at room temperature, cause significant lines of dislocation and subgrainboundries. then reheat up back above ac3, quench again. take photos and found the original subgrainboundry caused by cold roll is "inherited". and grainsize is refined due to recrystialization. very interesting fact is this kind of inheritance can be forgoten after several quenching from above ac3. and the structure can be "reinherited" randomly by more quenching. just like genetic can be hint inherited pass several generations.

(3): annealed steel in its balanced states is cooled rolled to a x%deformation at room temperature. heat up and quench at above ac3. similar things happens.

the excat reason and possiblities that can trigger this kind of ferrous "memory" react are many, and the metallury studys done on this field is still not enough to explain everything. and most of times this "inheritance" thing react unpredictable. but there are already plently of heat treatment used to benifit from this memory nature. i knew factories using the example (3) to product leaf spring for extra tensil-strength gained from the heat treatment. i am not sure what mr ed fowler did to his steel, but we can't denie that there is a chance he is benifit from this "memory" nature.

also, cryogenic treatment might also have a chance to creat finner grain size. i believe it has something to do with the supper fined carbides dispersionaly precipitate from matrix during the cryro treatment. then these very dispersional supper fine carbide will act as nuclearation when heat up just above ac1 during the following annealing. as for austensite, the more nuclearation the finner the grain, more dispersional of the nuclearation the more even of the grain size. again, i do not know how Mr ED fowler did his cryo with his refrigerator. but over here, at northern HeiLongjiang. we got like 2 hours every night at -40f for a month, sometimes it drops to -60f. if i cross that frozen river into russian forests, the cold goes even worse hahaha. so what i am saying is, there always a chance that something can acctrully happen. even though to most of people it seems just impossible.

personally i do not denie any possiblities unless i personally tried it many times and the results tells me no. 10000 years ago at mesopotamia, there was this man who cutted one of his testicle off to find out if it can grow back. eventully he got the answer is No. he then used another one testicle successfully made many children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, their name are Aristotle, Galilei, Newton, Einstein...his family tree lasted to even today. it is said that every single scientist on the earth was decendented from this man with only one ball... so everyone who is reading this now touch their balls, if you find one of them is smaller than the other, i guess you all shares same ancestory lol.

so back to the topic. as i said before, i might disagree some of the statement there, but i do respect your freedom and rights to questioning other people's claim. the improvement of science is base on questioning, otherwise we are still at stong age.
 
Last edited:
hammerfall said:
personally i do not denie any possiblities unless i personally tried it many times and the results tells me no. 10000 years ago at mesopotamia, there was this man who cutted one of his testicle off to find out if it can grow back. eventully he got the answer is No. he then used another one testicle successfully made many children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, their name are Aristotle, Galilei, Newton, Einstein...his family tree lasted to even today. it is said that every single scientist on the earth was decendented from this man with only one ball... so everyone who is reading this now touch their balls, if you find one of them is smaller than the other, i guess you all shares same ancestory lol.
Click to expand...

Just as I had suspected. LOL
 
Hammerfall, Thanks for the comments.

I was concerned that some people would take the comments I made in the letter and apply them as an ALWAYS AND FOR ALL STEELS situation. The steels we are talking about are 52100 and 5160.
I am aware that there are more complex metals with very complex metallurgy and HT. Results based on these steels should not be confused with working fairly simple steels into knife blades.

Most times I use the terms, "For the most part" or "Normally" when making such statements, but did not in this case. In this case, I used the term, "Nearly all prior states are erased". In keeping the letter short, I did not cover every possible exception, such as grain boundaries, and deliberately induced stress.

However, beyond grain boundaries and some carbide issues, most of the structures we deal with in knife making are reversed in standard HT procedures.

The claim ,"Every hammer mark and thermal event is forever recorded in the memory of the steel....." is largely why I wrote the letter. Such an empirical claim is so false, that the few exceptions do not justify it.

I know you were being humorous about the cold temperatures in China and Siberia, and the story of "Won Hung Low" - They are are cute stories, but are not applicable to the discussion at hand.
In a scientific discussion, these type of things are often used by the folk lore and anti-metallurgy crowd as "proving" that metallurgy and science are false. If I was to post advise to someone who lives in Los Angeles, California that they could calibrate their pyrometer in boiling water and it should read approx. 212F....someone would post. "I live outside Denver Colorado and you are completely wrong! Water boils at 193F." He is correct, but that does not change my advise that it boils at 212F in LA.

Anyway, I also see that this thread is being described as Ed Fowler Bashing on other forums.
I really want to emphasize that the discussion here should be on the letter and the science and metallurgy being discussed.....and not on personalities or people.

I do not regret writing the letter, I do regret that it is taken as an attack on Ed personally.
 
Stacy,

I take, "Every hammer mark and thermal event is forever recorded in the memory of the steel.....", as more of a metaphysical or poetic statement than one of science. Perhaps we are trying to apply science to a non scientific area.

It's poetry.
 
Last edited:
If that's poetry, then I see a lot of poetry lying about in cow pastures. :rolleyes: :D
 
Tai Goo said:
I take, "Every hammer mark and thermal event is forever recorded in the memory of the steel.....", as more of a metaphysical or poetic statement than one of science...
Click to expand...
In all fairness, Tai, you take it that way because you are an experienced maker. We could assume that it is meant to be taken poetically and spread the word....... but I suspect that it wouldn't sit well with Mr Fowler, simply because he makes several other statements that fall in line with the literal meaning. The funny thing is that if Ed started his claims with. "It is my belief..." or "The way I see it..." a lot less people would get frustrated.

A well known maker made a comment on another site that if the raw data was produced to back these claims that very few would be able to make sense of it. That hit home because I certainly wouldn't be able to. It really let me know where my place is in this discussion. I am in no position to argue the finer points of metallurgy and will leave it to the experienced from here on out. I am however, familiar with the basics principles... likewise, I don't need a chemistry degree to know that if I carve a penguin in ice, melt it down and refreeze it... I shouldn't expect to see the penguin again.(I have read a similar analogy before)

I keep using Ed Fowler's name because I feel silly using "certain bladesmiths" at this point... but really, IT ISN'T ABOUT ED.... and definately not questioning the performance of his blades. Ed may want to pop me in the kisser for being a smart-mouthed punk when I see him at Blade 2012 and I probably deserve it... but I'd rather shake his hand, buy him a hotdog(not sure if he drinks) and talk about something we can feel relaxed about.... like wilderness adventures.
 
Last edited:
bladsmth said:
I do not regret writing the letter, I do regret that it is taken as an attack on Ed personally.
Click to expand...

Stacy why do you regret that it was "Taken as an attack on Ed personally"?

You said
"I have been disappointed in the articles you have been running by Ed Fowler for quite a while, but lately his information is a disservice to knifemakers and your magazine. His self-proclaimed superiority and science is egotistical at best, and totally false in many cases. He has publicly admittedly that he has not made a knife in over a year, but posts articles about his "knife Making" skills, testing, and research. His version of metallurgy is so flawed that any person who has only moderately read on the subject will see the problems in his methods.
Most of his articles are just promotion of his personal theory on metallurgy, of himself, and his school."

How else should negative comments about him personally be taken?
 
To quote myself from another thread:

“When the importance of science becomes overstated in the arts and humanities, it becomes a self defeating philosophical position often referred to as "scientism".

When the scientific explanations behind a knife become more important than the knife itself, I think we've sadly crossed the line and missed the mark.”


Whether or not we agree with Ed, whether or not we acknowledge it,… I believe Ed’s work and career have benefited us all.

Thanks Ed. :)

...Besides, it would be pretty “dull” if there weren’t a few folks like Ed out there.
 
Last edited:
Rick Marchand said:
In all fairness, Tai, you take it that way because you are an experienced maker. We could assume that it is meant to be taken poetically and spread the word....... but I suspect that it wouldn't sit well with Mr Fowler, simply because he makes several other statements that fall in line with the literal meaning. The funny thing is that if Ed started his claims with. "It is my belief..." or "The way I see it..." a lot less people would get frustrated.

A well known maker made a comment on another site that if the raw data was produced to back these claims that very few would be able to make sense of it. That hit home because I certainly wouldn't be able to. It really let me know where my place is in this discussion. I am in no position to argue the finer points of metallurgy and will leave it to the experienced from here on out. I am however, familiar with the basics principles... likewise, I don't need a chemistry degree to know that if I carve a penguin in ice, melt it down and refreeze it... I shouldn't expect to see the penguin again.(I have read a similar analogy before)

I keep using Ed Fowler's name because I feel silly using "certain bladesmiths" at this point... but really, IT ISN'T ABOUT ED.... and definately not questioning the performance of his blades. Ed may want to pop me in the kisser for being a smart-mouthed punk when I see him at Blade 2012 and I probably deserve it... but I'd rather shake his hand, buy him a hotdog(not sure if he drinks) and talk about something we can feel relaxed about.... like wilderness adventures.
Click to expand...

Anvil Jaw, you really need to come down to Tucson for a visit sometime,… So I can open your “Third Ear” for you with my new electric bass, and a full 300 watts of power! There’s a good chance it'll get through, if you get real close and put your jaw against the speaker. ;)
 
Last edited:
Is opening the third ear one of the services you offer now, Tai? how much does it cost (apart from the hearing loss in the other two ears, that is)?
 
For Anvil Jaw Marchy,... I'll do it free. :)

I hadn't thought about going into the business,... but there's probably a few other guys who could benefit from it.
 
Music therapy for uptight wannabe bladesmiths........ I like the sound of that, Babyface!
 
I just had a few comments. It didn't take me long to separate the hype from reality in the metallurgy of knives. When it reaches the publication status, I wonder if editors didn't know there is better science but choose not to do anything? In life, we have learned to not believe much of what we read without further research.

The tools to research steels go beyond the home shop today. It reminds me of the more poetic research on the light bulb, trying different ideas and methods without really understanding the science that is available today. I guess Ed Fowler has an old school' experimenters mentality and I can appreciate it for what it is. It is my guess that Ed Fowler has produced very good knives and I would love to own one.

David
 
bladsmth said:
Hammerfall, Thanks for the comments.

I was concerned that some people would take the comments I made in the letter and apply them as an ALWAYS AND FOR ALL STEELS situation. The steels we are talking about are 52100 and 5160.
I am aware that there are more complex metals with very complex metallurgy and HT. Results based on these steels should not be confused with working fairly simple steels into knife blades.

Most times I use the terms, "For the most part" or "Normally" when making such statements, but did not in this case. In this case, I used the term, "Nearly all prior states are erased". In keeping the letter short, I did not cover every possible exception, such as grain boundaries, and deliberately induced stress.

However, beyond grain boundaries and some carbide issues, most of the structures we deal with in knife making are reversed in standard HT procedures.

The claim ,"Every hammer mark and thermal event is forever recorded in the memory of the steel....." is largely why I wrote the letter. Such an empirical claim is so false, that the few exceptions do not justify it.

I know you were being humorous about the cold temperatures in China and Siberia, and the story of "Won Hung Low" - They are are cute stories, but are not applicable to the discussion at hand.
In a scientific discussion, these type of things are often used by the folk lore and anti-metallurgy crowd as "proving" that metallurgy and science are false. If I was to post advise to someone who lives in Los Angeles, California that they could calibrate their pyrometer in boiling water and it should read approx. 212F....someone would post. "I live outside Denver Colorado and you are completely wrong! Water boils at 193F." He is correct, but that does not change my advise that it boils at 212F in LA.

Anyway, I also see that this thread is being described as Ed Fowler Bashing on other forums.
I really want to emphasize that the discussion here should be on the letter and the science and metallurgy being discussed.....and not on personalities or people.

I do not regret writing the letter, I do regret that it is taken as an attack on Ed personally.
Click to expand...

i respect your opinion and your choice. and i did not take it as your attacking Ed personally. being bluntly honest and straight forward is an american virture, and i do respect that as well.

my statement mean to say that "inheritance" nature exists in most of steels, from very simple carbon steel to the high alloy steel. it can happen to almost all steel if the treatment meet the "memorizing" condition. i used 20CrMo as the example (1)because its the test i can remember the excatly whole process and be sure with temperature time and every other detial. anyhow, you are right that the "memorizing" condition or "inheritance" condition can be exceptional compare to blacksmith's everyday working.

beside, i personally do not take maganize seriously. magazine is more of a marketing area(marketing in different ways) than metallurgy reference. "Every hammer mark and thermal event is forever recorded in the memory of the steel....." i took this as a romantic way of saying how important is forging and heat threatment to the steel. it doesn't seem to me he really meant it as a scientific claim. Napoleon once said he is taller than a mountain something. i don't think he truely meant that.

well, people might look at things differently, and this is just my opinion.
 
after look through every single post in this thread, i am now very curious about what excatly are the special treatment Ed does to his steel????

is there a link, or can anyone send some information to me? i would not mind lose one of my balls to see if it really works or not. i can access the lab equipment. do the charpy impact, wear resistance, hardness test..etc. and take photos to compare the grain size.
 
Last edited:
Thanks hammerfall, I understand what you are saying.

AVigil,
The point I was making in stating my regrets was that the letter was to Steve Shackelford at Blade magazine, but some people are taking it as a personal attack on Ed Fowler.
I was expressing my disappointment about the articles the magazine was running and giving exact quotes and reasons why I felt that way. The letter was not sent to Ed Fowler, and for the most part, I tried to address his metallurgical claims, not Ed personally.
I realize that it is human nature to take negative comments about ones work as personal, but the comments were not directed to Ed Fowler personally, and the complaint is not based on a personal issue between the two of us.

I'm with Rick in that I have not made myself endeared to Mr. Fowler, but if we were at a function together, I think we are both gentlemen enough to find something to discuss without getting into a ruckus. At the minimum, we would agree to disagree, and give each other their space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top