Cpm-189?

Boy, this thread sure headed south in a hurry. A few pages back I believe someone (I think it was the OP) saying something to the effect that M4 is no better than 1095.

Interesting, but would have to disagree. I'll admit part of my basis is from personal experience & not the "scientific" testing of noz, but in recent yrs, Championships of cutting/chopping contests seem to favor M4 over 1095, at least in the U.S. I would think they would use what works best for them. However, their criteria is for toughness as well as edge holding. They can't afford for their blade edge to chip or fail & it has to stay sharp.

However, I'm assuming you're talking about blade steel in folders vs FBs, right?
 
nsm said:
We are rolling some CPM S125-V, 15-V and S90-V for our knife stock at Niagara Specialty. They will finish at .093, .125 and .156. We will process small lots and see how the demand is before we stock more. We have plenty of CPM S35-VN and CPM D-2 on the shelf as well as the rest of the commonly used Crucible CPM grades.

Crucible has an agreement with ATI to use their lab (The old Crucible R&D Lab in Pittsburgh) to develop new grades. I know they are looking for feedback on what customers want so they can start working on something by the end of 2010 or early 2011.

How about a more wear resistant S35-VN? Let me know and I will pass it on.

Bob
Click to expand...

Well feedback is pretty simple. Can they made stainless steel which will perform better than Dozier heat treated D2? Can they make stainless steel which perform better then Carpenter 440XH (CTS-XH)?

So far Crucible use PM for old steel (CPM 154, CPM D2, CPM M4) or throw exotic elements into like Nb into alloy to make it more wear resistant (CPM S110V), but this is not really make edge holding better. May be they will experiment with Ce and Malleable iron? May start producing bulat/wootz?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
You do realize that modern steelmaking does everything it can to prevent the formation of anything resembling wootz, that it would have zero application outside of knives, it performs worse than the CPM steels in your own testing (S30V, 3V, CPM154, S110V, CPM M4, CPM D2, 10V, & S90V), and would be ridiculously expensive for Crucible to make.

I also do not get the Dozier D2 comparison. Crucible D2 would work the same as any D2 when Dozier treats it. It is dependent on more factors than just the alloying out of the mill. Look at your 1095 results form Miller. 1095 has a very wide allowance for composition and isn't all that clean these days. Not only is D2 first on your list, it is also last. Waht is the mill supposed to do about that, they only make the steel, not the knives.

Crucible already makes steels that outperform 440XH. So does Carpenter. There are steels with higher working hardness, hot hardness, dimensional stability, corrosion resistance, impact toughness, ultimate strength, etc. AFAIK, none of the foundries produce test samples and then cut manila rope by hand to judges worthiness. They cannot produce a steel to win your testing, because they do not/will not rely on your methodology to determine what gets turned into a 250 ton melt that won't get sold to any other industry.

There isn't enough difference among your top ten steels in measured sharpness to make a foundry switch over. You have D2, 1095, and 52100 at/near the top, what does Crucible have to do differently when very standard stuff that's older than the companies making the knives is already winning? Crucible already makes basic tool steels, and these steels are already winning by your standards. On top of that, their exotic and new steels, along with these classic tool steels, are sold in quantities dwarfing what is used in the knife industry for all other production.

It is awesome that we have cutlery grade steels by design-S30V, ZDP-189, VG10, etc. But they aren't winning your competition.
 
hardheart said:
I also do not get the Dozier D2 comparison. Crucible D2 would work the same as any D2 when Dozier treats it. (...) Not only is D2 first on your list, it is also last. (...) But they aren't winning your competition.
Click to expand...

like i said, his test is about individual blades made by different makers out of different steels. he doesn't test alloys.


but i get his idea, he doesn't like the "all wear resistance and big carbides" way of the SxxxV serie.
 
Actually, the carbides in the CPM steels are smaller than in his top/last place D2. That is basically the reason for PM technology's use.
 
Vassili you're basing your argument on your own testing which granted are to the best with the equipment available but doesn't take into factor the behaviors of cutlery steels in different hardness. Ignoring so many different things that could have went wrong in your testing you didn't include the fact that S30V and S90V are generally heat treated to a much lower HRC In comparison to many steels to maintain the same amount of toughness. ZDP Runs at 65 HRC and above meaning it tends to burr far less then a knife that is treated to 60 HRC. It doesn't mean that S90V wears more if your tests is true, it might be that S90V burrs more than ZDP which makes sense when you have 60 HRC vs 65 HRC. Wear resistance is mostly pertaining how much mass is lost from the blade while in use, your tests doesn't measure that, CATRA does. If you know anything about steels you would know the difference between strength and wear resistance.

From Zknives: "Putting it all together, you can see how these properties might determine your steel choice. To pick on S60V and ATS-34 again, there seems to be a feeling that S60V is "better" in some absolute sense than ATS-34. But S60V is often left very soft, around 55-56 Rc, to make up for a lack of toughness. Even left that soft, an abundance of well-distributed vanadium carbides gives S60V superior wear resistance to ATS-34, at acceptable toughness levels. However, does that mean S60V is "better" than ATS-34? Well, many users will find edge rolling and impaction the primary causes of edge degradation for everyday use. For those users, even though S60V is more wear-resistant, S60V is also so soft and weak that they will actually see better edge retention with ATS-34! The S60V user can leave the edge more obtuse (raise the sharpening angle) to put more metal behind the edge to make it more robust, but now the S60V will suffer serious cutting performance disadvantages versus the thinner ATS-34 edge."

But conversely that may mean that a steeled S90V knife vs a steeled ZDP knife through sessions and tests should see similar edge retention properties.

Note: To make this more basic if you have two individuals going through the same tasks, one with S90V and one with ZDP-189, if the S90V person doesn't steel his knife or strop it (even without compound) he will see that ZDP is superior in edge retention, however if the person steels or strops it (without removing any steel) he will find that S90V is similar to ZDP in edge retention while holding superior toughness.
 
hardheart said:
Actually, the carbides in the CPM steels are smaller than in his top/last place D2. That is basically the reason for PM technology's use.
Click to expand...

yes but some pm have more than other see cpm154. that is a joy to sharpen compared to some other and in my experience can hold a thinner edge. but i honnestly don't know how hard it can practicaly be heat treated.

i understand that i'm no knifemaker, no metalurgist, i'm perhaps :jerkit: here and it's hard to put it in words, especially in english... but i try.
 
hardheart said:
You do realize that modern steelmaking does everything it can to prevent the formation of anything resembling wootz, that it would have zero application outside of knives, it performs worse than the CPM steels in your own testing (S30V, 3V, CPM154, S110V, CPM M4, CPM D2, 10V, & S90V), and would be ridiculously expensive for Crucible to make.

I also do not get the Dozier D2 comparison. Crucible D2 would work the same as any D2 when Dozier treats it. It is dependent on more factors than just the alloying out of the mill. Look at your 1095 results form Miller. 1095 has a very wide allowance for composition and isn't all that clean these days. Not only is D2 first on your list, it is also last. Waht is the mill supposed to do about that, they only make the steel, not the knives.

Crucible already makes steels that outperform 440XH. So does Carpenter. There are steels with higher working hardness, hot hardness, dimensional stability, corrosion resistance, impact toughness, ultimate strength, etc. AFAIK, none of the foundries produce test samples and then cut manila rope by hand to judges worthiness. They cannot produce a steel to win your testing, because they do not/will not rely on your methodology to determine what gets turned into a 250 ton melt that won't get sold to any other industry.

There isn't enough difference among your top ten steels in measured sharpness to make a foundry switch over. You have D2, 1095, and 52100 at/near the top, what does Crucible have to do differently when very standard stuff that's older than the companies making the knives is already winning? Crucible already makes basic tool steels, and these steels are already winning by your standards. On top of that, their exotic and new steels, along with these classic tool steels, are sold in quantities dwarfing what is used in the knife industry for all other production.

It is awesome that we have cutlery grade steels by design-S30V, ZDP-189, VG10, etc. But they aren't winning your competition.
Click to expand...
This is a solid post in my eyes.
 
I can't believe this has been woken up. Don't we have a ZDP knife for slaying zombie threads?

threadnecromancyjk7.jpg
 
thombrogan said:
Would CPM154 fit that bill?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes. However, CPM-154 doesn't have the toughness advantage over S35VN. I wish they would use the niobium and vanadium carbide combination while developing a steel with around 8% carbide volume.
 
My opinion is based on well defined and described test. It happen that nobody else but me conduct such a test and disclose everything.

As I sad before you may say simple "- Your test suck" or phrase it differently. I do not care until you prove you point by showing some effort and do some formal testing.

I am doing this for over 5 years. What does prevent you from do something like this? Or it is hard work... I see. I am Russian - all World know how lazy we are. And I am start wondering why?

All those talks, reasons, this, that - just bla, bla, bla.

I on a spot can produce tons of pro and cons arguments for any subject - in fact it was our best entertainment in seventh grade when we learn logic. So words is just characters which may lay one way or another - but tests are facts and worse way more then any theories any human brain can came up with.

So came back with some tests to discuss (thanks but theory I can generate myself and do not see value in it without any backing up data). And we can discuss those test results in different thread in different sub-forum better.

But doing this for five years I learn that nobody here has whatever is needed to actually do some real work.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
hardheart said:
You do realize that modern steelmaking does everything it can to prevent the formation of anything resembling wootz, that it would have zero application outside of knives, it performs worse than the CPM steels in your own testing (S30V, 3V, CPM154, S110V, CPM M4, CPM D2, 10V, & S90V), and would be ridiculously expensive for Crucible to make.

I also do not get the Dozier D2 comparison. Crucible D2 would work the same as any D2 when Dozier treats it. It is dependent on more factors than just the alloying out of the mill. Look at your 1095 results form Miller. 1095 has a very wide allowance for composition and isn't all that clean these days. Not only is D2 first on your list, it is also last. Waht is the mill supposed to do about that, they only make the steel, not the knives.

Crucible already makes steels that outperform 440XH. So does Carpenter. There are steels with higher working hardness, hot hardness, dimensional stability, corrosion resistance, impact toughness, ultimate strength, etc. AFAIK, none of the foundries produce test samples and then cut manila rope by hand to judges worthiness. They cannot produce a steel to win your testing, because they do not/will not rely on your methodology to determine what gets turned into a 250 ton melt that won't get sold to any other industry.

There isn't enough difference among your top ten steels in measured sharpness to make a foundry switch over. You have D2, 1095, and 52100 at/near the top, what does Crucible have to do differently when very standard stuff that's older than the companies making the knives is already winning? Crucible already makes basic tool steels, and these steels are already winning by your standards. On top of that, their exotic and new steels, along with these classic tool steels, are sold in quantities dwarfing what is used in the knife industry for all other production.

It is awesome that we have cutlery grade steels by design-S30V, ZDP-189, VG10, etc. But they aren't winning your competition.
Click to expand...

As I said in the PM this afternoon, thanks for this post.
It explains in basic terms why we have what is available currently and what might be available in the future.
Hopefully it is understood by all. Hopefully. ;) *Edit* Guess not.
 
Last edited:
You have done a lot of work. The problem is, it isn't enough. You retested one knife, and got drastically different results by your scale of measurement. You also changed your test procedure and equipment, and are reporting with a different force measurement. You only tested one knife in 440XH, and have already declared it the best and told Sal Glesser that he needed to use it in more knives or risk being left behind.

I really did consider mimicking your tests to add data points, but I can't. My 1200 grit diamond plate is a 6x2 with polycrystalline diamonds, my strop is loaded with both chromium oxide and diamond powder. I can not say if my edge finish will match yours from the outset. I live in a different part of the country, and would be cutting completely different hanks of rope. I cannot say the rope will be in the same condition and therefore have the same effect on the edge. I will not match your cutting stroke exactly. The same you, cutting with the same knife, using the same technique, got two sets of results, 5th and 16th place overall. What value would my numbers add? How much value can we place on your results before you retested the Yuna? How necessary is it for you to test the Yuna again to look for another change? How necessary is it for you to retest every knife?

You have cut a lot more rope & string for the sake of measurement than probably everyone else on the forum, outside of possibly a few makers. That doesn't mean Crucible should worry about you waiting 4 years for a new alloy, or that Spyderco should listen because of your sample size of 1.
 
nozh2002 said:
All those talks, reasons, this, that - just bla, bla, bla.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

VAssili, did you even read what hardheart wrote in post #104 ?

This is a discussion forum whether you like it or not.
It is not a personal soapbox for you to imply members here don't know anything because they haven't cut rope for 5 yrs.
If you would listen instead of being so standoff-ish people would be more inclined to help you out.
Actually listen to what is being suggested.
They didn't say your tests "suck", they were merely offering opinions on how to MAYBE make it a better test.
You ask why why why but when you get the answer and it doesn't meet your standards you kick it to the side as no one else's thoughts matter.
 
hardheart said:
You have done a lot of work. The problem is, it isn't enough. You retested one knife, and got drastically different results by your scale of measurement. You also changed your test procedure and equipment, and are reporting with a different force measurement. You only tested one knife in 440XH, and have already declared it the best and told Sal Glesser that he needed to use it in more knives or risk being left behind.

I really did consider mimicking your tests to add data points, but I can't. My 1200 grit diamond plate is a 6x2 with polycrystalline diamonds, my strop is loaded with both chromium oxide and diamond powder. I can not say if my edge finish will match yours from the outset. I live in a different part of the country, and would be cutting completely different hanks of rope. I cannot say the rope will be in the same condition and therefore have the same effect on the edge. I will not match your cutting stroke exactly. The same you, cutting with the same knife, using the same technique, got two sets of results, 5th and 16th place overall. What value would my numbers add? How much value can we place on your results before you retested the Yuna? How necessary is it for you to test the Yuna again to look for another change? How necessary is it for you to retest every knife?

You have cut a lot more rope & string for the sake of measurement than probably everyone else on the forum, outside of possibly a few makers. That doesn't mean Crucible should worry about you waiting 4 years for a new alloy, or that Spyderco should listen because of your sample size of 1.
Click to expand...
This is a solid post in my eyes.
 
Larrin said:
Technically, yes. However, CPM-154 doesn't have the toughness advantage over S35VN. I wish they would use the niobium and vanadium carbide combination while developing a steel with around 8% carbide volume.
Click to expand...

:foot: Sorry. Didn't realize it was too close in toughness.

IIRC, you mentioned niobium adds hardness to steel without hanging around grain boundaries. Is that addled memory anywhere near correct? The only other thing that comes to mind is that guy in PacNor who smelts alloys with thermite and got his niobium from belly-button rings.

He who shall not be named also once mentioned an alloy called F2. Basically, he said it was like M2 in terms of properties knifeknuts may want, but lacked the high-temp hardness and the higher heat-treating temps of M2. Theorycraft to be sure, but so tempting.

What would a niobium vanadium carbide alloy with 8% carbide volume bring to the table? My favorite stainless is AEB-L/13C26 (sorry Crucible :o ) - how would it stack up against that steel?
 
nozh2002 said:
(rant)
Click to expand...

This is your problem, you are so wrapped up in your own test that you become myopic to other tests, objective theories regarding composition and hardness and you think that your test is law. You make excuses that everyone elses criticism is invalid because we don't go to the effort to try and make a tests more accurate than yours in execution. You rationalize that because you put the effort in trying to make something as best as possible with your resources makes your argument better than everyone elses because they didn't try.

You don't get that your data isn't accurate enough for a lot of us no matter how much effort you put into your design simply because we are dealing with microscopic effects on a very thin edge geometry and you don't have the equipment to measure accurately to the milligrams or hundredths of a radi edge geometry effects off one single consistent perfect cut of homogeneous rope. I don't know how good your education system is but here in Canada our Chemistry course teaches us about hypothesis and theory, and during our practical lab our formulas and predictions doesn't always match up with the hypothesis and our set up formulas and theories. Because on steels we are dealing with are on a quantitative scale (dealing with numbers) our results in our chemistry lab are always flawed to the established theories. We don't take our results and throw away our initial predictions and theories because most likely our predictions and theories equations are established by more accurate tests than what we ever did, so we find sources of error of which how we could have gotten to a number more or less than what we wanted.

You feel that because you spent 5 years trying to develop a system and found one out, that you can't think there is ANY error in your testing. And don't say you don't because you say things like S90V is not as good as D2 on an OBJECTIVE level from results in your testing, like an absolute truth.

Is it hard to take in? Yes. Is it part of being a scientist? Yes. The best scientist spend years developing systems to predict and assess results but their procedure will always have some error when dealing with quantitative data especially.

Errors in your testing? How is your rope? Is it 100% pure throughout the whole section that you bought it? How do you know there isn't any impurities that would affect the data? How do you know your sharpening skills gave you the absolute perfect 30 or 40 degree angle you wanted? Even a slight angle difference would affect the results in a different way. You used a spring scale in your testing, spring scales are notoriously inaccurate in weighing results, especially a kitchen one which are meant to measure results on a very large level. I doubt you have the eagle eye to measure on a spring scale that wobbles back and forth when it's trying to measure a load, especially in a short period of time like cutting something with an edge. Springs also wear out causing different pressures to be read when the spring takes less energy to compress. What about your own human error in testing? How do you know your perpendicular to your string with your edge? How do you know you hit exactly the same spot on the blade cutting rope? What about blade carbide ranges? Why do you think 1095 is always listed as a range from 1% to 0.85% carbon? It's because there's different carbon contents in each section of the blade. See? Your results can hardly be called perfect. Does it mean it's worthless? No. but because you have created such a wide degree of error that it's silly to say that your 1# on your test is objectively better than your #2, but if you had a #50, you could safely say that 1# is probably better than #50 because you took into account the errors that if #50 took all of the positive errors (errors that would affect the steel positively) and took the #1 and all of the errors that would affect it negatively, #1 would still be better than #50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top