Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
they're not scientific because they are not controlled, and they are not performed on a sample population, and nothing is measured.

if you want an example of a test that is truly scientific, take for instance the rockwell hardness test.

noss's tests are just field tests.
 
emperorwang said:
they're not scientific because they are not controlled, and they are not performed on a sample population, and nothing is measured.

if you want an example of a test that is truly scientific, take for instance the rockwell hardness test.

noss's tests are just field tests.
Click to expand...

Rockwell hardness test is measurement by precise tool and this is not scientific test but measurement tool for engineering, which were developed and established for a while. It called test but this is not only tests science know. There are quite a lot tests which are far from this precision. How do you think this tool was developed? Just get out of someone mind ready to use?

Noss test are most precise to this moment and there are no other. This science discipline is not established yet - Noss establishing it and doing it pretty well.

Thanks, Vassili
 
i think you don't grasp the difference between a scientific and an unscientific test.

i'm not saying noss's tests don't have value. i think they do. i'm saying they are unscientifc. which by definition, they are.
 
emperorwang said:
i think you don't grasp the difference between a scientific and an unscientific test.

i'm not saying noss's tests don't have value. i think they do. i'm saying they are unscientifc. which by definition, they are.
Click to expand...

Well, I found them perfectly scientific, may be not as precise as Rockwell tester but for not yett established well science - just fine.

Can you give me this definition you are talking about?

I had some mandatory classes on scientific methodology and practice. And it was not anything like this there. To my understanding we have first stage og scientific process - collecting data.

So what is you definition?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

the highlights missing from noss's tests are the lack of a true sample, control sample, and no effort to reproduce the results. among other things.

and this is fine. he's not TRYING to conduct scientific tests. what he's doing is testing knives in the way that the average Joe Blow knife enthusiast would want to see them tested.
 
I don't purchase a stapler based on which stapler can be hammered through a concrete wall. I purchase a stapler based on its ability to staple paper in the context of an office environment.
Click to expand...

THE STAPLE HAMMER! What a genius idea! I've used a few staplers with hammer like handles before, they work really well when you have lots of stapling to do (insulation to building frame, not paperwork). If they built a hammer onto the other end, it could effectively do two jobs at the same time!
It could have it's applications.
 
emperorwang said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

the highlights missing from noss's tests are the lack of a true sample, control sample, and no effort to reproduce the results. among other things.

and this is fine. he's not TRYING to conduct scientific tests. what he's doing is testing knives in the way that the average Joe Blow knife enthusiast would want to see them tested.
Click to expand...

You know providing link to wikipedia is not enough. You should learn already that I will read it, unlike many here - there is nothing in this page about true sample, control sample and effort to reproduce results (which should be independent BTW - this mean reproduced not by Noss). As well as nothing about conducting this or that tests.

However this is pretty good link and I really suggest you to read it and learn. Then we may discuss what you will find there and how it is applicable to Noss4 tests and at what stage of scientific process we are now.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
wow, we've gotten off on quite a tangent here i fear.

vassaili, those things ARE in the wikipedia article. i'm sorry you missed them. i'll post the quote here, it's under the "experimentation" heading.

Once predictions are made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are subject to further testing. [bold]The experimental control is a technique for dealing with observational error. This technique uses the contrast between multiple samples (or observations) under differing conditions, to see what varies or what remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help isolate what has changed.[/bold] Mill's canons can then help us figure out what the important factor is. Factor analysis is one technique for discovering the important factor in an effect."
Click to expand...

by "true sample" i mean that a scientific test is conducted on a sample of something, i.e. not just one individual from a population. individuals are all different. ever single Project 1 knife is different from the next; that's why a scientific test would test a group, or sample, of them. I was saying that one knife is not a "true sample"

get it? to be honest, i'm a little annoyed that i had to point out the relevant part of an article that you supposedly read. this is more work than what this thread is worth, really, and we're getting off topic. the question is do his tests have value, not whether his tests are scientific. you are the ONLY person here who believes that his tests are literally scientific tests. does that tell you anything?
 
Joshua J. said:
THE STAPLE HAMMER! What a genius idea! I've used a few staplers with hammer like handles before, they work really well when you have lots of stapling to do (insulation to building frame, not paperwork). If they built a hammer onto the other end, it could effectively do two jobs at the same time!
It could have it's applications.
Click to expand...

Except everytime you use the hammer part you might shoot a staple in your eye.
 
Last edited:
Sharp Phil said:
I don't purchase a stapler based on which stapler can be hammered through a concrete wall. I purchase a stapler based on its ability to staple paper in the context of an office environment.
Click to expand...

That sums up Phil. He only wants a stapler that does paper. Say a surgeon wants a suture stapler that will leave the least scarring. A carpenter may need one that will staple through flashing and 1/2 inch plywood in below freezing wet weather and survive a 2 story fall. These don't fit Phil's criteria of what his stapler should do so it will be argued ad hominem to death because it is not what Phil thinks a stapler is. Same with knives and every opinion Phil has.
 
emperorwang said:
wow, we've gotten off on quite a tangent here i fear.

vassaili, those things ARE in the wikipedia article. i'm sorry you missed them. i'll post the quote here, it's under the "experimentation" heading.



by "true sample" i mean that a scientific test is conducted on a sample of something, i.e. not just one individual from a population. individuals are all different. ever single Project 1 knife is different from the next; that's why a scientific test would test a group, or sample, of them. I was saying that one knife is not a "true sample"

get it? to be honest, i'm a little annoyed that i had to point out the relevant part of an article that you supposedly read. this is more work than what this thread is worth, really, and we're getting off topic. the question is do his tests have value, not whether his tests are scientific. you are the ONLY person here who believes that his tests are literally scientific tests. does that tell you anything?
Click to expand...

I see you are little annoyed, as well as I do when people here start talking about thing they did not learn well first. This arrticle does not limit testing to one or other technique which you mentioned. Sometimes it is not possible to have. This article enumerates possible but not required ways to do experiments.

Again please read it. When you understand what is scientific process, you then can clearly see what Noss4 is doing.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
This thread is like a soap opera. You stop watching for a month, come back to it, and its like you never left.
 
emperorwang said:
... you are the ONLY person here who believes that his tests are literally scientific tests. does that tell you anything?
Click to expand...

Please! We are not in kindergarden. If we are talking about scientific methodology, keep at least appropriate level of discussion.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Well said.I can't believe that this has gone on for 20 more pages of the same thing the last identical thread did.
 
Ok, so I watched the tests, specifically the part where the knives break (Project I and GB), Noss is definitely hitting on either side of the wood, not all the time, but the blow that finished the Project I was on the side closer to the handle.
He's also steadying the knife with his hand, it's not floating, you can see the shock from the hammer blows shake his hand (I'd say that's what broke the GB). I know from the little batoning that I've done it can be very difficult to keep things aligned correctly, and if you want to go fast it works better the way Noss is doing it. You just need a knife that won't break.

As for whether all this is "scientific" or not, I'd say for the most part no, and in the most basic sense, yes.
There is no theses, there isn't anything specific Noss is trying to prove from the outset of the test. It's simply a test to show how well a knife can stand the procedures Noss puts it through. If there were any numbers (it takes x amount of force on the side of the handle to break it off, etc), then there would be some comparable information for us to use.
On the other hand, we are getting some very basic information. We know the size of hammer he's using, we can count blows (one knife takes 10 blows to break the tang off, another takes 3), Noss gives us an approximate weight when he stands on the side of the handle, so you can draw some very basic conclusions.

That being said, I don't think the purpose of the testing is to try and come to conclusions about any individual knife and the precise amount of force it can withstand in any given direction. The tests are relivant in a more practical sense than statistical. The numbers aren't important, it's the behavior of the knife under stress that we're looking for.
 
Can you give exact time.

He started at
5:45 - perfect batoning according to that pdf. You may see no shaking on handle.
5:52 - same perfect batoning edge flat on wood no shaking on handle.
5:56 - same - may be some minor shaking at the begining - but not at all as in "bad example" from that document. And most likely because entire set up shaked.
6:04 - perfect.
6:07 - perfect.
...

Can you just give exact point of time where you see him doing this wrong?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
until noss duplicates his test on more project 1s, it remains unscientific.

vassili still doesn't grasp what constitutes a scientific test so i can give some examples of questions that could be answered by a truly scientific test. and this is leaving out the fact that its performed only on an individual knife

1 what is the EXACT force of the blow that broke the knife?
2 EXACTLY when did the knife's structural integrity first beging to be compromised, even at the invisible level?
3 what was the temperature in the room?
4 EXACTLY where on the knife did each blow fall?

i could go on. the tests don't answer questions like that. they just let you know that if you hit a knife like so, it breaks. that is extremely general information not the kind one would get from a scientific test.

also vass says that since this is a "new science" that we are still in the data-gathering stage and insinuates that somehow, the scientific method does not apply when gatherind new information. this again indicates that you are unfamiliar with the terms of science. we don't reinvent the wheel any time we attempt to learn something new; the method is always the same.

again, i must AGAIN point out that this is all irrelevant, because these were not intended to be scientific tests in the first place, but rather demonstrations, field test, or garden-variety consumer reports.
 
Dude, the knife broke deal with it. If you where in the woods and a tree fell on your leg and all you had was your knife on one leg and were able to reach a big ass rock to help chop the log would you be worrying about the fucking scientific method to make sure you have an accurate point of impact for future strikes? Shit no, you will be chopping and smashing that log/tree to get it of of you as fast as you can to field dress your wouunds and make a splint if need be.

All this talk about science and crap is pure garbage, talk about, " i don't use a knife for things other than intended" bla bla bla. Wake up and smell reality, Noss smashing knives until they break, and ALL of them break. If his tests help ONE man make a decision about what knife to purchase and that blade SAVES his life, would that not be worth it?

Sure, CRK are awesome, but TWO of them broke in the same place doing the same thing, if that is not proof enough that something is wrong with the heat treat or the actual fabrication of CRK knives so that it will not preform under EXTREME conditions, than so be it.

Stop crying, stop fighting. Knives are meat to be used, and some times, they will be used for other things than INITIALLY designed for
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top