Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

[Morales]

Izan---Your Post could end this INSANE Thread.
Tnx.

Lycosa could be right...never lose hope...Thx Izan!!

 

[ADD]

No, let the thread drag painfully on. Like a festering wound.


Uh, it seems to me he is using the oldest "scientific method" to test knives.

Trial and Error, until the desired results are achieved.


On a side note:

Mr. Elmore, why do you feel the need to be a relentless gas bag, who is never wrong, in every thread you post?

 

[davebillin1963]

Im sorry if this has been already mentioned but the film appered to show the hammer as it hit the back of the knife just in front of the handle and not on the area of the blade that was in contact with the wood. Any chance that was the reson or part of the reson the blade broke?

 

[nozh2002]

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.

Noncence! Why exact force need to be known for science. After all any measurements has their own precision and so you can not ever measure EXACT force it is all limited to what your tool capable for - in many cases they are not very precise and require careful calibration. Also you may question this way any test - what was temperature in the room, what was phase of moon, pressue, temperature of hammer etc... This will not make test unscientific if it can not answe any question some can came up with.

I should point also that you, probably, should refer to me directly - again this is not scientific way to conduct discussion. I do not really care to much, but if you teaching me what is science at least keep proper tone.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[nozh2002]

In general I think only term scientific methodology may be applicable to one or other discipline. There is certain process for some theory to became scientific knowledge.

It should describe and fit existing observation, it should predict something unknown facts. This unknown facts should be verified by test. Then it is presented to scientific community and several independent researcher should verify newly discovered fact predicted by this theory by independent experiments.

This is in short what is scientific methodology is to claim some or other theory science theory.

This is as you see very limited to certain part of our life. Some see science as an new religion. And so clame this and that scientific or not scientific, which is quite strange.

To me we can not use term unscientific to experiment. We can say this about theory - like low temperature nuclear fusion fail to be independently proven. It failed at some stage of scientific process.

How you can apply this to Noss4 test - hard to understand. He is carefully and methodically collect information establishing process to test certain knife properties which may be useful in practical use - so EXACT force of impact does not really important - nobody in the field will carefully measure it before batoning.

So what is Noss doing is very scientific. He put diffirent knives in same situation and collect data how differentely they bahave for further analysis. What unscientific is here?

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[nozh2002]

Im sorry if this has been already mentioned but the film appered to show the hammer as it hit the back of the knife just in front of the handle and not on the area of the blade that was in contact with the wood. Any chance that was the reson or part of the reson the blade broke?

Can you point to exact part of the video wher this happend?

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[Joshua J.]

First, I think it is reasonable to say that science is not exact, everybody deals with tolerances. If you were using a machine you could get away with saying that you hit the same spot within a few hundredths of an inch. Noss performs within the tolerances of "the back of the blade". It's a pretty wide tolerance, but you could make the argument that he is operating under the same principles.

To take it a step further. If Noss were to find some machine that measures shock, and hit it with his hammer a few times, we could even get an average for how hard he hits a knife. Or at least he could get a feel for how hard the different blows are, giving an approximate amount of force within given tolorances.

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.

I specifically focused on the knife as it broke, both times you can see what went wrong. Like I said, he doesn't do it wrong all the time, but it was enough to get these blades to break. I'm fine with Noss being little sloppy (I would be too), realistically not many people will anyway, thus it's such a common way to break a knife, and a reasonable test IMO.

 

[nozh2002]

First, I think it is reasonable to say that science is not exact, everybody deals with tolerances. If you were using a machine you could get away with saying that you hit the same spot within a few hundredths of an inch. Noss performs within the tolerances of "the back of the blade". It's a pretty wide tolerance, but you could make the argument that he is operating under the same principles.

To take it a step further. If Noss were to find some machine that measures shock, and hit it with his hammer a few times, we could even get an average for how hard he hits a knife. Or at least he could get a feel for how hard the different blows are, giving an approximate amount of force within given tolorances.

I specifically focused on the knife as it broke, both times you can see what went wrong. Like I said, he doesn't do it wrong all the time, but it was enough to get these blades to break. I'm fine with Noss being little sloppy (I would be too), realistically not many people will anyway, thus it's such a common way to break a knife, and a reasonable test IMO.

OK, I checke final blow - it is 8:50 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VmWJOAJB5I

Absolutely clear that he is doing this just right when it broke! Nothing like it was in that article! No any shaking on the handle - entire set up shake a bit but nothing what may cause breakage as it was written at that document.

Please, everybody have a look! It is clear that he did not expected it, it is clear that he did not have any pressure on handle, it just fall apart 3" from the place where it was hit, 3" from the wood.

It just looks like separate by itself - I am very sure that this is some shock waves in the blade body, because it is too thick. From other hand Busse is thick as well and has no such problem.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[akadave2]

I think the flak comes from you saying that you have the math in your testing when in actuality, there is very little math. Actually, there's no math. If there's math, show it.

But I guess that's why some of us go into a science field, while others go into a liberal arts field. That's no attack to anyone. It's another way of saying different strokes for different folks.

One thing can be argued. People like numbers. 0 - 60 mph times for those crazy speed freaks. Torque numbers for those that like to haul stuff in their pick ups. MPG for those that like to get the most out of a tank of gas. Ghz for those that like a powerful computer. F# for those that like precision photography. The list goes on.

I will say this. Your vids are enjoyable to watch for me, but to me it's just a spectacle.

I think his statement about "Math" was more in coloquial manner as in "Crack will kill you....do the math!"

I dont think he actually meant calculations of any sort at least I didnt get that from his comments.

Seems to be a lot of jumping to personal attacks rather than calm debate.

 

[davebillin1963]

Hi Vassili. The hit I mention is the last one. It look like the hammer hit between the front handle of the knife and where the knife was on the wood. If he can slow down the film it will be better to see.

 

[Cotherion]

Assuming there is a bad hit involved in the CR knives tests then I wonder how other knives would fare if subjected to similar 'bad' blows.

I have a feeling a Busse will be at least 10x more resistant (meaning takes up 10x more blows) of such blows. Actually I suspect most other knives could handle more than the CR knife can take.

I like what Izan said, good points. Something is definately wrong with CR's FBs and instead of over analyzing on the correctness of Noss' vids perhaps we should acknowledge that there is definitely room for improvement in the CR's knives.

 

[Joshua J.]

Assuming there is a bad hit involved in the CR knives tests then I wonder how other knives would fare if subjected to similar 'bad' blows.

I have a feeling a Busse will be at least 10x more resistant (meaning takes up 10x more blows) of such blows. Actually I suspect most other knives could handle more than the CR knife can take.

I like what Izan said, good points. Something is definately wrong with CR's FBs and instead of over analyzing on the correctness of Noss' vids perhaps we should acknowledge that there is definitely room for improvement in the CR's knives.

Well that's just it, I'm pretty sure they all are.

 

[Cotherion]

You mean 'they' as in the past tested knives or are you referring to the bad blows?

I personally thought that it was more the case of accumulated damage until breakage and not to a single or a few really bad blows.

 

[nozh2002]

Hi Vassili. The hit I mention is the last one. It look like the hammer hit between the front handle of the knife and where the knife was on the wood. If he can slow down the film it will be better to see.

No! I watch this carefully about five times and he hit is same place he hit before - right on top of wood. It will be nice to see it frame by frame, but YouTube does not allows this. And break point is far from hit point. Hammers slips then because blade displaced, but hit point was same.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[emperorwang]

okay i'm going to address the gist of a lot of posts here without doing the quote thing, i hope that flies with you guys.

izan, i think you and others may have beef with my posts because you think that because i say the tests are unscientific, that i am somehow demeaning or belittling the value of the tests and dismissing the results as worthless. that's not the case. i find value in the tests and they interest me.

also some guy said that trial and error is the "oldest scientific method" or something. ummm...if you want to get extremely reductionist, i guess i know what you're getting at. but it's not scientific method, it just, well, trial and error.

if you're testing out a new drug, do you test it out one white guy, one black guy, one woman, etc? "well, it works on white people, kills black people, has no effect on women." that was trial and error, right? so that was scientific? absolutely! Not! that's why we would test a SAMPLE POPULATION and compare it to a CONTROL GROUP of people given say, placebos........

if you fail to see how this applies to the topic at hand i can't help you. there's too much prerequisite learning to be done to engage in a discussion.

and vass, i really don't know what to make of your posts, aside from the irrelevant focusing on my third person tone in the one post and that time you insinuated i was being childish (have you been hanging out with sharp phil?)....anyways, i don't know what to say if you don't accept the standard definition of scientific experimentation.

fuck, just to put this tiresome thing to arrest, let's not even call it the standard definition. let's just say you have a different idea of science than i do. want to leave it at that? or do you want to keep this going?

 

[Grimspoon]

I like knowing what sort of abuse I can reasonably expect to apply to the knives I buy before they hit their breaking point. Noss destroys his knives so we don't have to.

I don't care if Noss destroys his knives in a laboratory with goggles and a lab-coat or if he does it in a garage with a mask and coveralls. He's giving me information which is relevant to my interests.

I also don't give a damn who he is. He could be Bill Nye the Science Guy for all I care. He gives me the information I want, he entertains me in the process, he doesn't ask for anything in return and I couldn't be happier.

I think we should all give the guy a break and just appreciate the service he provides. He's not holding a knife to our throats, forcing us to watch his vids.

What Noss does isn't perfect, but in comparison to some of the videos you've been putting on youtube I can't help but wonder who should REALLY be hiding their identity.

I'm not going to point fingers, but you probably know who you are.

Embarrassing.

 

[just10minreader]

also some guy said that trial and error is the "oldest scientific method" or something. ummm...if you want to get extremely reductionist, i guess i know what you're getting at. but it's not scientific method, it just, well, trial and error.

You're the emperor
How Non-scientists use the Scientific Method

In the simplest terms, common uses of the scientific method involve trial and error. Consider automobile repair. Every weekend handyman, and every high school student with a passing interest in autos knows about the method of trial and error. Your car is starting to run poorly, and you take matters into your own hands in an attempt to fix it. The first step is to guess the nature of the problem (your model). Acting on your hunch, you proceed to exchange a part, adjust a setting, or replace a fluid, and then see if the car runs better. If your initial guess is incorrect and the car is not improved, you revise your guess, make another adjustment, and once again test the car. With patience and enough guesses, this process will often result in a operable car. However, depending on one's expertise, quite a few trials and errors may be required before achieving anything remotely resembling success.

fuck, just to put this tiresome thing to arrest, let's not even call it the standard definition. let's just say you have a different idea of science than i do. want to leave it at that? or do you want to keep this going?

You are the emperor

The methods scientists use to evaluate and improve models are very similar to the method of trial and error, and are the subject of this chapter. You may be reluctant to think that the bungling process of trial and error is tantamount to the scientific method, if only because science is so often shrouded in sophistication and jargon. Yet there is no fundamental difference. It might seem that scientists start with a more detailed understanding of their problem than the weekend car mechanic, but in fact most scientific inquiries have humble and ignorant beginnings. Progress can occur just as assuredly via trial and error as in traditional science, and the scientist isn't guaranteed of success any more than is the handyman: witness the failure to develop a vaccine for AIDS. One of the themes of this book/course is that the scientific method is fundamentally the same as these simple exercises that most people perform many times in their lives.

http://www.vermontlaw.edu/x6716.xml
Craig M. Pease
Professor of Science and Law
PhD, University of Chicago, 1985;
MS, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981;
BA, University of California, Los Angeles, 1977


http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/ib/faculty/BULL.HTM
James J. Bull
* B.S., Texas Tech University, 1971
* Ph.D., University of Utah, 1977

 

[Broos]

Just because a review is not scientific in nature, doesn't mean you cannot learn something from it.

And if you can learn something from an act (or a video), does not make it a scientific test.

The requirements for a scientific test are well known in the fields of science and engineering. Using trial and error in a careless fashion may be how some use the scientific method to solve their everyday problems, but does not mean anything in regards to whether the test is "scientific" or not.

Think of it this way. You are a 2nd year college student taking a lab on materials. Your Professor assigns you to test knives. Do any test you want to, but test knives in a scientific fashion. If you turned in these videos, what grade would you get? Absolutely one of the criteria they would look at is repeatability, & they would also look at how well you tested the quality you stated in your hypothesis (and how well you defined the quality), or how well you tested the theory in your hypothesis.

You know, before you can come up with a scientific test to determine whether a knife is suitable for "hard use" or not, you HAVE to define what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable performance for a hard use knife. Without a scientific definition for this, it is impossible to determine whether these videos or any other test is a scientific test for it!!

For those who insist a hard use knife must survive repeated blows by a hammer, you could extrapolate some useful info from the videos. For those who think a "hard use" knife does not need to survive steel hammer blows, then it would not be very useful. You cannot tell from the videos if the same knives would have failed if hit similarly by the same weight wood, plastic, or brass hammer.

Much of the disagreements in these threads is about the definition of "hard use" - they have little to do about the videos themselves - many think hitting the spine with a steel hammer is not a very good test for determining whether a knife is suitable for hard use. It is a fact that the impact pressures are far greater with these impacts, because the impact area is much smaller given less deformation.

 

[JohnnyO]

Can't believe the controversy over these tests. Just blows me away so many people fighting. Hell, if you don't like the tests, don't watch. If you do, great. I find them relatively amusing.
However, they don't change my mind about CRKs. Have 3 fixed blades. They all treat me just fine, but I also treat them like a knife. Just pick up a sebenza and expect I'll be very happy with it, too.

Lighten up people.

 

[emperorwang]

just10, i understand your point and the point of the "science for dummies" articles you quoted. i agree that trial and error is related to scientific method, but they are not the same. i'm not saying the tests should be overtly sophisticated. i'm saying that they should exhibit at least one of the hallmarks of accepted scientific experimentation.

and still, no one has addressed my following point. i'm going to put it in bold and maybe someone will address it.

HE ONLY TESTED ONE PROJECT 1 KNIFE.