Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

[yerscattergun]

Hey Noss, when are you going to start testing folders?
Love your vids. Don't listen to the naysayers..


:thumbup:

 

[Matthew Gregory]

I am still waiting for the 'knives are only for cutting' crowd to answer a simple question... why are these blades a quarter inch thick? Somebody should tell these guys they're wasting a hell of a lot of steel making these things so damn thick.

You'll need to ask the folks that make them, as I can't justify why they do what they do. I have my own methods, which I've found to be more practical. I use a machete for clearing brush and light chopping, a saw for cutting beefier stuff, a large knife for cutting things, a smaller knife for more detailed work. I carry all of these things at the same time when out in the woods. All of these devices combined weigh around what most of these 'well-tested' knives do, and yet all of them are better for the appropriate task than an 'all-in-one'... and cheaper, to boot! Before I hear anything about not having this stuff at hand, and needing it in a pressing situation, I'd like to remind people why this is even a discussion at all, and that's because there are those that seek to prepare themselves for the unforseen. You'll have to ask yourself who's doing the better job of preparing, I guess.

I am not pooh-poohing the knives, as their reasons (and the reasons people buy them) are their own. I know I enjoy having stuff, but I am also wise enough to know when I'm justifying something and when I'm kidding myself. I disagree that these tests are important research, or even tests at all!

Nullack, I agree that no engineer should ever discount anecdotal evidence... but they shouldn't abandon common sense and account it as being 'open-minded', either!

 

[watchcollector1968]

Sometimes it seems that there are folks out there who follow these tests with blind faith. I almost think that if somebody were to strap 3 pounds of c4 to a knife and blow it up, if it was to take a lot of damage you would have folks saying "the knife is worthless since it blew up...I mean, I may not blow my knife up, but blowing it up shows what a knife is capable of".

Sound unreasonable? Yup, but so do many of the "tests" people put some of these knives through.

 

[c00per]

I'm going to have to agree with the nay-sayers. I don't see how Noss's tests show us anything other then the fact that a knife breaks when hit with a hammer, or into concrete. Any knife that has a reasonable temper will.

Knives that are softer then the hammer clearly are going to last a little better most of the time, but then the knife edge will dull quicker (I suppose this is a somewhat moot point seeing as any knife will dull/chip/roll when whacked into concrete or steel...).

The fact is, it seems completely random when a knife will fail in Noss's tests because there is no accuracy on where the knife is being hit with the hammer. If a knife just happens to get hit with the hammer a few times in the same place or towards the tip of the blade earlier in the tests, it will break sooner. I seem to remember the Busse breaking when it was hammered through a weld in the pipe showing an inconsistency in the medium being cut, something that should be relatively easy to control.

Even if it was producing consistent results (the only way to know for sure would be to repeatedly test each knife), then all it is testing is toughness which isn't everything when looking for a survival blade...or any knife for that matter.

Sorry if the post is redundant in this thread, I just see these threads often and wanted to get it off of my chest .

 

[me2]

I'm going to have to agree with the nay-sayers. I don't see how Noss's tests show us anything other then the fact that a knife breaks when hit with a hammer, or into concrete. Any knife that has a reasonable temper will.

I think watching the tests will show that not to be the case. Several knives survive being hit with a hammer or chopping into concrete.

 

[c00per]

I think watching the tests will show that not to be the case. Several knives survive being hit with a hammer or chopping into concrete.

Yes several did survive, I hold that the reasons that they survived longer then others to be due to random uncontrolled occurrences, such as the previously mentioned hammer or knife placement. I'm saying other knives may survive longer if tested again, and others may survive shorter, hence the results being meaningless...but still kinda fun to watch .

 

[Joshua J.]

Knives that are softer then the hammer clearly are going to last a little better most of the time, but then the knife edge will dull quicker (I suppose this is a somewhat moot point seeing as any knife will dull/chip/roll when whacked into concrete or steel...).

1. Most carbon steel knives fair quite well, and when a knife is too soft, it readily shows (like the Ka-Bar, Hi Kukri, and CS Machete). Knives like the GI tanto and Busse don't bend and they don't break very easily either.
It's also useful to know whether an edge will chip, dent or roll. If a knife is chipping that is generally seen as a bad thing. When I use my knives to clear trails I hit small rocks all the time. I know first hand that a dented or rolled edge requires much less time to fix. Once again this is useful information.

The fact is, it seems completely random when a knife will fail in Noss's tests because there is no accuracy on where the knife is being hit with the hammer. If a knife just happens to get hit with the hammer a few times in the same place or towards the tip of the blade earlier in the tests, it will break sooner. I seem to remember the Busse breaking when it was hammered through a weld in the pipe showing an inconsistency in the medium being cut, something that should be relatively easy to control.

2. When the Battle Mistress did give in, that was after it had passed all the normal tests, and had taken roughly twice the beating any previous knife had. It's toughness had been proven beyond any doubt at that point.
Yes, there is a specific number of tests and they increase in sevarity according to a set routine. It's not just a scramble to break the knife.

Even if it was producing consistent results (the only way to know for sure would be to repeatedly test each knife), then all it is testing is toughness which isn't everything when looking for a survival blade...or any knife for that matter.

3. I still like to know "what if".
If you want a well rounded review of a knife, there are lots of people all over the internet that give those. Noss tests toughness, that's the whole point of the videos, to find out how tough a knife is.

Sorry if the post is redundant in this thread, I just see these threads often and wanted to get it off of my chest .

 

[Broos]

It is freely admitted that these are not scientific tests. The name of the game in scientific testing is to have repeatable results, and normally to have a hypothesis and a stated method you will use to prove your hypothesis, or to define a property, or a specific use, and come up with a repeatable method to test it. Sometimes even backed up by theory.

Obviously these videos are not of repeatable testing, even though some see some trends in the videos that they are willing to go out on some limb to defend. You could make some guesses about the cause of a failure, but without a more defined & repeatable method they are just guesses. You may be able to tell a little with an examination of the failure.

 

[noss4]

Yerscattergun: I was planning to a while back. I got caught up with other fixed blade tests so folders were pushed aside. I'll get to some folders I hope sooner or later. Thanks


To the science folk. Scientist's never agree with one another either.
Just watch the science channel. No matter how scientific the test is. There are always other scientists that disagree with the outcome of a test.

Same will go for any scientific knife test no matter how scientific the test is loyal followers of a brand name will do their best to attack the test or tester without duplicating the tests themselves. Also because they can't look past the "I'm loyal to brand X of knives" First one needs to remove the loyalty factor to Brand X of knives.
This will be very hard if impossible for many to do.

 

[Matthew Gregory]

To the science folk. Scientist's never agree with one another either.
Just watch the science channel. No matter how scientific the test is. There are always other scientists that disagree with the outcome of a test.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read - even on the internet!

This will be the last post on this thread for me, as it's plain that the limits of reason have been met.

 

[noss4]

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read - even on the internet!

This will be the last post on this thread for me, as it's plain that the limits of reason have been met.

I see you can't deal with the truth can you. Your just some angry individual that can't debate without blowing his top. So long.

 

[koa]

I stand behind Noss and his tests 100%. No they are not scientific but they're not meant to be. He's just a guy beating up on his blades to see what happens. I want my knives to stand up to abuse and keep on going so I'm willing to watch him beat on them with a hammer into concrete. They are informative and entertaining and I'll keep watching as long as he keeps making them. Noss if you give me your address I'll even send you a knife to test when you have time.

 

[shecky]

It is freely admitted that these are not scientific tests. The name of the game in scientific testing is to have repeatable results, and normally to have a hypothesis and a stated method you will use to prove your hypothesis, or to define a property, or a specific use, and come up with a repeatable method to test it. Sometimes even backed up by theory.

Here's the problem with Noss' critics: they won't step up to the plate and offer tests of their own. It isn't Noss' burden to prove anything, but rather those who are critical. Yet for all the criticism he's gotten, I can't think of many folks offering anything more than speculation about the hows and whys the knives fail.

Obviously these videos are not of repeatable testing, even though some see some trends in the videos that they are willing to go out on some limb to defend. You could make some guesses about the cause of a failure, but without a more defined & repeatable method they are just guesses. You may be able to tell a little with an examination of the failure.

You seem to be under the assumption that the tests are not repeatable. How do you draw this conclusion? Has anyone tried to repeat them?

I'll repeat, if Noss, or anyone else, were to devise a machine and series of tests to measure the destruction thresholds of various knives, some knives would still perform better than others. There is no reason to believe failures would correlate strongly with brand or cost. And the naysayers would still be whining about the usefulness and/or validity of the tests. Because few knife nuts are willing to put their investments (and perhaps judgment) to the test. At least not for all to see.

What strikes me as funny is that bladeforums is full of anecdotal accounts about all manner of knife related topics, few of which are backed up by any testing or evidence whatsoever. Yet when Noss comes up with a destruction story, with video evidence to boot, all of a sudden folks start yelling about science, standards become rigorous, and there's no shortage of folks willing to get nasty and personal. I'm all for the tone of the forum to go high road and intellectually honest. But c'mon. Does anybody want this to become a reality? Especially if it makes some esteemed/paying members/manufacturers look disingenuous?

 

[Karda]

He's just a guy beating up on his blades to see what happens.

That about sums up the validity of Noss's "tests" right there.
Simple self ingratiating grandstanding.:jerkit:

It's just a shame that good knifemakers can potentially be harmed by them.

 

[orthogonal1]

What "grandstanding"?

All I ever hear is remarks as to what other knives have done when stresses in a similar manner.

Where is the umbrage as to the performance of the Cold Steel knives tested? The KaBar?

 

[harkamus]

To the science folk. Scientist's never agree with one another either.
There are always other scientists that disagree with the outcome of a test.

That's making a bold and blanket statement. The foundation of any science is built around tests that have been repeated countless times by scientists the world over for sometimes years at a time. Any new discovery is documented and written in the form of a research article sent to a peer reviewed journal (for my field: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, etc) who then repeat the tests to confirm or deny the results. If the results conflict with one another, even more tests are undertaken to see if there was some kind of anomaly. Following a strict scientific (and ethical) method, most tests end up with the same or similar results, as long as the tester can separate his/her own biased views from the test.

It's more accurate to say that scientists usually agree with one another. The ones that disagree are either biased or have not conducted a repeat test to the tooth.

 

[nozh2002]

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read - even on the internet!

This will be the last post on this thread for me, as it's plain that the limits of reason have been met.

Where you get you impression about science from?

The nature of science is to question everything especially "commonly accepte knowledges" and learn.

I think this is common case here people who has no idea what science is, what scientific methodology and process is, most likely having their view of science from some Hollywood movies, start telling what science is and what is not.

Google it, check wikipedia or something - it is all open to learn.

Whatever Noss4 is doing is same what practical physics doing in their lab. There is no difference between his shop and physical lab (real one not Hollywood).

Now if scientist have disaggrements - they provides conter testing with opposite results, without personal attack and emty statements. And this is what I do not see here.

Why no any CR defenders provide some evidence that those knives are not weak? If you are so proud and sure in this knives strength - show it. Is'n it simple?

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[nozh2002]

That's making a bold and blanket statement. The foundation of any science is built around tests that have been repeated countless times by scientists the world over for sometimes years at a time. Any new discovery is documented and written in the form of a research article sent to a peer reviewed journal (for my field: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, etc) who then repeat the tests to confirm or deny the results. If the results conflict with one another, even more tests are undertaken to see if there was some kind of anomaly. Following a strict scientific (and ethical) method, most tests end up with the same or similar results, as long as the tester can separate his/her own biased views from the test.

It's more accurate to say that scientists usually agree with one another. The ones that disagree are either biased or have not conducted a repeat test to the tooth.

Well this is figure of speach. I do not see any difference between what Noss4 sad and your example.

If you apply just what you sad to this discussion we may rephrase it - scientists does not agreed and test for this reason.

Having established procedure make it less emothinal, for this reason so there is no clear agreements or disagreements before tests are repeated. As well as established labs make it easy to retest. In knife world this sings are not established at all.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[Twindog]

People can clearly see what Noss is doing and come to their own conclusions. We don't need thought police telling us what we should watch. It's not like he's telling us to smoke cigarettes or eat white bread.

The sad part of all this is that knifemakers are not providing this information in a scientific manner so we know exactly what we are buying. Don't blame Noss. Blame the industry for hiding behind its own hype.

 

[STAGE 2]

Don't blame Noss. Blame the industry for hiding behind its own hype.

+1000000

This reminds me of the glock koolaid that is so common on gunboards. Someone will post an incident where a failure occured and immediately the ad hominem dogs come out because there is no way that anything could ever be wrong with a glock. Gaston made it so its perfect. The same thing is going on here.

As far as the science junkies go, its ironic that those screaming the loudest only rely on anecdotal evidence whereas Noss has provided real documentary evidence. Guess what the scientific method thinks about anecdotal evidence.