Destruction tests - what can be learned from them, and why?

[FortyTwoBlades]

Actually that depends on your definition of a machete, which is a pretty hard thing to nail down. It certainly doesn't alter the point that some of these so called sharpened pry-bars can chop and slice extremely well.

Actually it doesn't! Look at the "tapanga" style of machete, for instance. VERY clearly a machete, but chops hard woods exceptionally well thanks to its very broad blade.

Here's a picture from Martindale's site:

Edit: Also, I repeat--anyone ever test a quality machete with an injection molded handle to the point of destruction? Anyone? I'm genuinely curious. If someone is able to convince me that they have the sufficient tools, materials, and recording ability to pull off the test I might be willing to part with an Imacasa for the task.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Doesn't the word "machete" mean simply "little man"? ... I'm just wondering what the "definition" of the style would be...

HERE is a link to Cliff Stamp's reviews which contains those of machetes, he may have taken some to destruction...

Noss did destroy a CS Magnum Kukri machete.

 

[crimsonfalcon07]

Far too many blanket statements out there. Can we possibly see if we can refine our statements and provide some reasonable argumentation instead of just making broad claims?

I can see how you could debate chopping ability... There are some knives out there that chop amazingly well, though they all cost at least twice as much as a similarly performing axe. I don't see how you can debate the utility value of a large chopper against a smaller, thinner knife. (The Mora was just an example.) What's your argument there?!?

I don't recall a Tramontina or a BK9 or a Junglas being all that expensive, as things go, and they're pretty good at other tasks as well. The Nepalese use khukuri for every aspect of life. And while there are people out there who swear by their axes and can do amazing things with them, I don't really see the problem with having a tool that can perform a wide variety of tasks, from tasks suitable for machetes, to tasks suitable for smaller blades, etc. I mean, I don't really know how much a good axe costs, but then, I'd rather carry a knife than an axe if I was going to choose one single tool to take into the bush.

(i am aware that these generalizations do not apply in every case)

Then why make them?

Obviously, as the OP, I'm not exactly a Noss fan. I like watching his videos in the same way I like watching a slo-mo train wreck, but I think I've got pretty good reasons for thinking those tests could be done in a much better fashion. I'm also not really a Busse fanboy, although as I've said on numerous occasions, the man makes a great knife.

Despite some (okay, maybe more than "some") juvenile bickering, this is actually a great thread with some lively debate on a topic that matters to many of us. I hope what comes of it is a consensus as to which hard use/abuse tests to put knives through. Let's call it the BladeForums Endurance Test or something to that effect.

I'm hoping to see something more like this.

Here's a thought about what I'd like to see:

Obviously edge retention in ridiculous chopping tests is important to many people. I tend to think the main factors there would be how much material there is behind the edge, and of course, heat treat (and to a lesser extent, steel choice), as well as edge geometry (I'm guessing a convexed edge will be best for chopping concrete, etc). I'm guessing that a differentially treated blade (spring tempered with a hardened edge) will outperform a blade that's just been mono-treated, for lack of the appropriate term. I do think a better test would be the one that FortyTwoBlades suggested, wherein we chop mild steel wire over wood, and see how it does. I might try that on one of my blades here, actually.

Those of you who are a fan of the concrete block destruction brand of knife-testing should weigh in and tell us non-knife-abusers how much abuse you think is realistic to expect a destruction-test to provide. I can't see much more than testing tip strength on a rock impact to be that important for a normal knife user.

People also seem to think that batoning is important. I'm honestly not sure why, but that sort of thing should probably be included. Someone who understands batoning should probably design a test for that.

Prying, perhaps? There are established tests for that. That's a good one to save for last, as the physics of a knife aren't really good for lateral strength, unless you just have a big thick piece of metal, and that's going to do inherently worse at slicing than a thinner chunk of metal, in my opinion.

The usual battery of cutting tests--paper, cardboard, manila rope, etc. Space those out periodically to test edge retention? I gather the d-test folks want a "jack-of-all-trades" sort of knife, rather than one that truly excels at something (which is what I think custom makers shoot for). I gotta say, I find the comments about how the Ash outperformed the Fallkniven A1 to be a little silly, because the Fallkniven, while it's a good knife, is still a production knife, and it's the rare production blade that can outperform a really good custom.

Each test should escalate until a point of failure is reached, and should include information about edge geometry, hardness at edge and in the blade, blade geometry, and steel choice (this is where Busse fans may have a problem, since he guards his heat treat information as a trade secret, rather than sharing it like many custom makers do). I don't doubt the Busse blades will perform (or outperform), but this sort of information won't likely get disclosed in tests like I'd like to see. Odd that Noss's fans complain about the "lack of disclosure" in performance from custom makers, yet those same custom makers will happily share their techniques with other makers and their customers, if the customer asks.

 

[Dan57]

A Busse BM can clear a campsite; an axe can't can't. You could carry an axe and a machete, but then you'd still get stuck with dense woody undergrowth.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said, but now I'm curious: Just how thick is this undergrowth, that you need a Busse BM to get through it??? What kind of plants are we talking about?

Nope. That's not what Cliff says: if you don't get the English, just look at the graph. (Or read on.)

Nope. Cliff was very clear: "the MT would require 1-2 mm on a draw and the Mora 2-3 mm" - i.e. the 151 was cutting the same thickness of material using half the amount of blade the Mora was.
This is how Cliff always measures slicing ability, I think. Blade length is irrelevant.

That's how he measures sharpness. The 151 was slightly sharper than the Mora at the beginning of the test.

(However I have to add that you're making a mistake: it is not blade thickness - quoted as it is at the spine - that makes a good slicer but the grind and thickness at the edge. This is probably why the 151 (an FFG) out-sliced the Mora and is one reason why the big-knives-can't-slice meme is silly.)

The grind and thickness at the edge are important, but thickness at the spine still matters. Thinner blades displace less material, thereby requiring less force to move forward an a cut. If you compare two knives with the same blade shape, width, and thickness at the edge, but one is 1/4 inch thick at the spine and the other is 1/16, the 1/16 will cut better, especially in thick materials.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Cinder blocks make an interesting testing medium in that they are comprised of a fairly loose concrete which fractures when struck with sufficiently concentrated force. Hitting an actual rock of equal size would be MUCH more damaging!

 

[BePrepared]

Cinder blocks make an interesting testing medium in that they are comprised of a fairly loose concrete which fractures when struck with sufficiently concentrated force. Hitting an actual rock of equal size would be MUCH more damaging!

yeah, i don't think even a busse battlemistress would fare well against a nice big chunk of quartzite

 

[chiral.grolim]

Quoted from a previous thread regarding destruction tests:

What is 'hard-use' or rather, what does it include or what can be expected of a knife labelled as such? I suppose that gets to the heart of the matter. Since 'hard-use' can vary among individuals, the most appropriate course seems to be to push the tool to its limits, i.e. destroy it through stressing its various surfaces against magnified forces that may be encountered in a variety of fields of use:
- Edge stability (resistance to deformation and fracture) when push-cutting soft materials, more abrasive fibers, tougher and harder materials (dry wood)...
- Edge stability when impacted with these materials and others that may be encountered (e.g. if it fares well on wood, what about concrete or metal)
- Overall fracture resistance when subjected to significant impact along the spine
- Tip-strength on a variety of materials, what are the limits
- Lateral strength (resistance to deformation and fracture) when subjected to variable force (bouncing weight), constant force (flexibility), and impact force (hammer blows)

These aspects (and probably some others) help to demonstrate the level of a blade's toughness and strength, appropriate to 'hard-use' however you define it, no?
Throw in subjective opinion on handle ergonomics during use, corrosion resistance, overall weight, etc. and maybe we end up with a decent review of performance level in a 'hard-use' knife?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Sounds fairly thorough to me! :thumbup:

 

[meanwhile]

Actually it doesn't! Look at the "tapanga" style of machete, for instance. VERY clearly a machete, but chops hard woods exceptionally well thanks to its very broad blade.

It's nice that you enjoy these things, but that doesn't even make minimal sense. Firstly, you can't class a blade as a machete or not by profile. Secondly I never mentioned hardwoods... Assuming that hardwood (or better still hard wood, because some "hardwoods" are actually quite soft) is especially tough to clear is silly - all sorts of factors like density and thickness of branches factor in. Yes, some machetes do have have weight forward sections and will do better against the sort of undergrowth I talked about. But as will as a billhook, a design that was optimized over centuries for this task? In my experience, no. Not nearly.

Which has almost nothing to do with the real point, which is that your contention a knife can't cut be strong and cut extremely well is wrong. Admittedly one has to pay for this, and I'm not willing to, but there you go... To give one example, all the knives you sell probably have lateral strength indexes of something like a fifth to a tenth of their longitudinal ones (unless the factory misaligned the grain, in which case it will be the other way around - which does happen.) But INFI is a homgenous steel and its lateral and longitudinal strengths are the same - and its lateral strength is probably something like 2-5 times as high as one of your those of one of your knives. So given equal thickness and identical geometry, in at least one important index for strength will be 10 to 50 times ***at no cost to cutting ability.***

As a knife dealer, one would have hoped you understood stuff like this, at least a little. There is nothing wrong with the products you are selling (well, I'm sure you get the odd faulty 'un, but who doesn't?) But the idea that any knife substantially stronger than those you sell won't cut well is just silly.

Edit: Also, I repeat--anyone ever test a quality machete with an injection molded handle to the point of destruction? Anyone? I'm genuinely curious. If someone is able to convince me that they have the sufficient tools, materials, and recording ability to pull off the test I might be willing to part with an Imacasa for the task.

Why not just send it to Noss? No one else's d-test would generate the same marketing benefit.

 

[Dan57]

great point!!

Also, a quick note to meanwhile- Do not get into a debate about machetes with 42B. It's like challenging Chuck Norris to a fistfight.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Sounds fairly thorough to me! :thumbup:

Now go watch Noss put a knife through this same regimen:
slice apple, cut webbing, cut wood, chop wood, be pounded through wood by hammer, chop concrete, be pounded through concrete by hammer ... with occasional testing of edge sharpness on the webbing, just to see where it is.
Stab tip into wood, bore hole through wood, stab tip into metal and flex back/forth, pound tip through concrete...
Brace blade a certain distance from handle and test weight-bearing static... bounce a little...
Is knife still intact beyond reparable edge damage? Use it to cut through metal. Still intact? Hmm... perhaps try to flex the blade laterally with it clamped in a vise? Nothing? Well, leave it in the vise and smack it with the hammer a few times, that should destroy it. No? Hmm... maybe cut through some thicker metal...?

This seems to have been Noss' method. *shrug*

 

[marcinek]

Nope. That's not what Cliff says: if you don't get the English, just look at the graph. (Or read on.)



Nope. Cliff was very clear: "the MT would require 1-2 mm on a draw and the Mora 2-3 mm" - i.e. the 151 was cutting the same thickness of material using half the amount of blade the Mora was.
This is how Cliff always measures slicing ability, I think. Blade length is irrelevant.

Yet again....wrong. That's him measuring edge retention.

Here's a clue as to what Cliff is doing. That section....it's called "Edge Retention".

Really, if you are going to accuse members of not understanding English and living in a fantasy, it helps if you carefully read the source you are basing your accusations on.

 

[chiral.grolim]

It probably seems like i am interjecting random posts into this thread... so here is another!

~14 months ago, the thread on Noss' Bravo1 test was revived which led to discussion of limit-testing, describing "hard use", and deciphering the regimen I posted above. There are of course many posts of name-calling and random irrational assertions, but the discussion is there, mostly pages 2-3, if anyone actually cares to read: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/782282-Sooo-Noss4-tested-the-Bravo-1/page2

Again, just pointing out that much of this ground has been covered before. I wonder how long this thread will get?

 

[chiral.grolim]

OK, one more, regarding Noss' regimen (which is not to say that it is even all that great, but who else has offered something like it?)

(Replying to a post by Broos:
The truth is you don't learn much of anything by breaking one knife in an unrepeatable fashion. ... Think repeatability - that is critical to real testing. If you really are interested in the scientific method, even go as far to think what is the hypothesis of the test? This is the first step in doing a test - what question are you trying to answer? When your question is not a very good or specific, your "test" might not tell you anything even if it is repeatable with good method. A test should be to answer a question in a way that can be compared to real use.

Point 1: "repeatability" is NOT critical to "real testing", it is critical to production and duplication of a product, i.e. manufacture. Two identically manufactured products in a lot (or batch) should perform identically when subjected to the same stresses - if not, there is an issue with manufacture.
In testing, "repeatability" only applies to duplicating results when testing the SAME subject, which is NOT the case in the Noss 'tests'. When performing the same test on the same subject, the same result should be generated - if not, the testing method must be reviewed and improved. However, Noss never destroys the same knife twice - he selects or is given a single sample for destruction. That sample may be a unique subject or may be part of a larger batch of supposedly identical subjects. If it IS one of many, selected at random, then observed results regarding that particular sample are hypothetically representative of every product from that lot or batch - i.e. every other knife from that lot of knives would produce the same results as were obtained when subjecting that single knife to the stresses involved in the destruction, each would excel or fail in the ways that the tested sample excelled/failed.

Point 2, the hypotheses of these demonstrations is generated by popular expectation, i.e. prediction of how well/poorly a knife will perform under specific conditions of stress. A hypothesis is fundamental to scientific experimentation but NOT to testing itself. All that is necessary for "testing" is the drive to complete the process itself, whether it be fueled by curiosity ("I wonder what would happen if..."), entertainment ("Wouldn't it be fun to..."), etc. What is great about these demonstrations is how they encourage discussion as viewers theorize regarding performance of the various subjects, draw subjective and objective comparisons, and develop hypotheses for future experiments (even though few people have the means or drive to follow through on them).

Point 3, it is funny to see how often the phrase "real use" is brought up in opposition to destruction testing. First of all, the phrase is entirely subjective to the "user", and could probably be replaced with "popular use" or "expected use". Some people 'use' their knives by preserving them carefully from any stress or harm in a locked safe, others only cut arm/leg hair or envelopes or toilet paper, or soft vegetables, etc., while others use their knives cut / pry / hammer / drill / carve / chop / etc. on materials of varying properties. All of these are very "real" uses of a knife; it just so happens that certain knives are objectively better suited to the user's tasks than other knives (be it that one knife is 'prettier' or tougher or holds a better edge, etc.).
Second, the "limit testing" method employed in the most popular destruction tests (i.e. Noss) CAN be extrapolated to "real use", indeed quite easily thanks to his diligence in posting so many LONG videos of how he destroys the knives he is given.
The problems that I see people encountering include a misunderstanding of these demonstrations, particularly regarding the specific properties of the knife which are being tested. These are not sharpness tests, corrosion tests, or beauty pageants - the primary properties examined are strength and toughness (as well as ergonomics, to a degree). The subjective relevance of these tests will depend on the importance of those specific properties in regard to your personal use of the knife, the levels of stress and frequency that you encounter.
A second problem that people seem to have is penchant for hyperbole - exaggerating the 'possible' (i.e. untested) performance, strength, toughness, or indestructibility of a knife... only to watch it chip or snap unexpectedly. The core question is, what informed their expectations in the first place?


IF you are making an informed choice regarding a product/knife/tool/etc. with strength/toughness is a primary attribute, it is reckless (i.e. silly and potentially dangerous) to make your selection without knowing the stress-limits to which the item can be subjected. Ever tried to design a house without regard for load-stress limits in the pillars, beams, and joists? Don't be ridiculous. What about going rock-climbing with ropes and carabiners of unknown/untested strength? Now for most people most of the time, not knowing the stress limits of your knife will not prove immediately harmful if that knife should fail unexpectedly, since most people do not use their knives anywhere near the stress limits ...
For those that DO use their knife in stressful ways, knowledge of its limits is key, for they depend on the knife to perform and not fail when they need it. And you can only know a knife's limits by testing it to destruction. For those that sell or even recommend knives to others under the supposition that it is a "tank" able to endure "extreme use" etc., they must be prepared to justify their statement with empirical evidence. If they have not seen or themselves performed a limit test, what is the basis for their statement? Is it mere hyperbole?


My recommendation: If you are looking for a knife with specific uses in mind, search for empirical evidence regarding the performance of knives under those specific conditions. If you intend to carve wood with the knife, search for photos/videos of people using it or something similar to carve wood. If you are interested in information regarding the stress limits of a given knife, search for empirical evidence of that. Take NO ONE'S word unless you know them and find them trustworthy or are not concerned about the results should their recommendation fail you.

 

[chiral.grolim]

Last rehash, I promise:

To begin, "testing" is not a "scientific discipline", rather scientific disciplines employ "testing" i.e. experimentation to achieve empirical data (results) which are then subject to interpretation in order to reach a conclusion confirming or negating a predetermined theory regarding what the result will be and why.

ANYONE can perform a "test" along whatever parameters they like, with whatever precision and whatever level of repeatability, to conform or not with modern scientific standards. The first key element of performing any test is the rationale behind the test - why are you doing it? what are you trying to see/learn/discover/demonstrate? If you are not seeking to demonstrate anything, just performing the task for amusement, then it is not technically a "test" much less a scientific experiment...
The next key element is determining whether or not the endeavor will actually yield results pertinent to your rationale. If it will not, select an alternate method. Now this is important - you may not actually have a clue as to whether or not the method chosen will yield pertinent results, for indeed that can only be demonstrated empirically. You can draw up a theory regarding this by extrapolating from empirical evidence from other demonstrations, but a theory is not evidence.

So that should clear up whether or not Noss' lengthy demonstrations are "tests". As to whether or not his tests are "documented from start to finish", the videos speak for themselves. Noss does a better job of documenting than any contribution to any scientific journal on the planet. Accusing him of fraud in regard to documentation is utterly ludicrous from an objective stand-point, pure slander with no demonstrable basis whatsoever. One can say anything about anyone on the internet, I just hope that those "listening" will go to the primary source with an open mind and draw their own conclusions based on objective evidence.

But this still does not get into "tests" as a matter of "science".
I mentioned earlier the question of whether the techniques or methods employed by the tester are capable of yielding pertinent results. Many will state as a matter of course "No, hitting a knife with a hammer is not capable of yielding pertinent results regarding the durability of that knife! Any knife hit with a hammer will break!" But what evidence exists to support this? In demonstrable reality, the OPPOSITE is in fact the case, i.e. hammer impacts do NOT have the same effect on different knives, for a variety of reasons (most of which can be summarized into "knife design"). So, does this negate the objection? No, it only negates the rationale behind it and people continuing to spout that rationale can be ignored as ignorant of physical reality. And without the rationale of the objection to oppose him, Noss swings the hammer... repeatedly... over and over again. (Does anyone actually watch these videos straight through from start to finish?? Geez.)

Regarding measurement of the hammer impacts as important to proper interpretation of the data generated, that would certainly be more rigorous... but why do it? Again, you distrust the technician for objective reasons? You assume he has an agenda, that he is intentionally hitting some blades harder than others, or using harder materials for some than others, or perhaps the hammer for some knives is actually a rubber mallet painted to look like metal?
The mistake is applying a precise measurement to the technique (something Noss does NOT do) and then objecting to the technique when the data does not comply with hoped for results. If one had objective reasons for assuming that the hammer impacts performed by the technician on a variety of different knives did not average to similar amounts of stress, I can see where such measurement would be requested, but the integrity of the tests does not in itself require it, that level of precision just isn't called for. In my experiments on individual subjects (be they animals, cell cultures, etc.), many of the techniques employed for generating data involve subjective manipulation, e.g. trituration of cells in an enzymatic mixture, using an unknown/unspecified level of force. Why do I not measure this force? Because it has been demonstrated to be irrelevant to the procedure in that it cannot be measured every time with any degree of accuracy, and what truly matters is not knowing the level of force applied but rather the ability of the technician (myself, my predecessors, and those I teach the technique to) to accomplish the desired result. What is the desired result from Noss hitting the knife with a hammer? Well, when cutting into a medium such as wood, metal, or concrete, the desired result is indeed the cutting of said medium, it is NOT the failure of the knife (which is indeed the desired result when Noss finally puts a stubborn blade into a vise and performs side-impacts on the tang). And again, NOT every knife fails from this sort of (ab)use - again, for a variety of reasons which can be summarized into "design of the knife", some can handle this treatment better than others. Observe the video evidence for signs of unfair hammer impacts, or observe the medium being cut. Present these observations as data for discussion of how the knife performed at the task.

I could go into more detail regarding measurements and precision in regard to these tests but have already done so in other threads on the same topic. For my own purposes, which have yet to include hammering a knife blade through concrete, I do not require such precision and am surprised that anyone else would. I am more interested in precise measurement in comparisons of edge retention between steels (e.g. Jankerson's tests). But that is me.

On the issue of repeatability, namely the objection that Noss' tests are intrinsically unrepeatable... How so? What empirical evidence can be presented in this regard? Who has attempted to repeat these tests and can offer the same level of evidence? Okay, that is too rigorous, how about just a little bit of evidence, maybe a detailed write-up with accompanying photographs? Anyone? What about theoretical objections? Can no one else hit a knife with a hammer into wood, metal, and concrete?? If you are worried about performing the exact same techniques with exactly the same amounts of force, do not be so troubled, for it is not required! Indeed, Noss has repeated the procedure many times, and even includes repetition in each test (impact, impact, impact...). Are you concerned that unless you mimic his actions and forces exactly you will not achieve results validly comparable? Do not be so troubled, that level of precision is not required, and only through repetition of the experiment can the data generated truly be called into question.

In conclusion, Noss indeed performs "tests" (just as many others have), his tests have not been demonstrated as unrepeatable, they include sufficient measurement for rough comparative analyses between subject knives, and there is insufficient evidence to negate the integrity of the tests.

NOW, what OBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS can be drawn from the data Noss has taken such pains to generate (at no cost to us and no profit to himself)? If you discount his method entirely (even without objective reasons for doing so), no conclusions can be drawn. End of story. If you admit the methods and evidence presented, you can discuss what caused each knife to fail in the way it did when it did, be it steel type or heat treatment or stock thickness or edge grind (all encompassed by "knife design") or a bad knot in a piece of wood or an accidental strike on the vise. The ultimate conclusion that can be drawn from a test (avoiding bad hits) is how well the design of the knife handles this particular treatment of it. How you extrapolate its performance to your own potential situations is up to you, and indeed such extrapolations can be done quite easily. But if you conclude from a single test by ANYONE that ALL similar samples will fair similarly, you are jumping to conclusions. This is data, not proof of something.

 

[Dan57]

Any chance you could summarize all that in four sentences or less?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

It's nice that you enjoy these things, but that doesn't even make minimal sense. Firstly, you can't class a blade as a machete or not by profile. Secondly I never mentioned hardwoods... Assuming that hardwood (or better still hard wood, because some "hardwoods" are actually quite soft) is especially tough to clear is silly - all sorts of factors like density and thickness of branches factor in. Yes, some machetes do have have weight forward sections and will do better against the sort of undergrowth I talked about. But as will as a billhook, a design that was optimized over centuries for this task? In my experience, no. Not nearly.

Which has almost nothing to do with the real point, which is that your contention a knife can't cut be strong and cut extremely well is wrong. Admittedly one has to pay for this, and I'm not willing to, but there you go... To give one example, all the knives you sell probably have lateral strength indexes of something like a fifth to a tenth of their longitudinal ones (unless the factory misaligned the grain, in which case it will be the other way around - which does happen.) But INFI is a homgenous steel and its lateral and longitudinal strengths are the same - and its lateral strength is probably something like 2-5 times as high as one of your those of one of your knives. So given equal thickness and identical geometry, in at least one important index for strength will be 10 to 50 times ***at no cost to cutting ability.***

As a knife dealer, one would have hoped you understood stuff like this, at least a little. There is nothing wrong with the products you are selling (well, I'm sure you get the odd faulty 'un, but who doesn't?) But the idea that any knife substantially stronger than those you sell won't cut well is just silly.



Why not just send it to Noss? No one else's d-test would generate the same marketing benefit.

Dude--where the heck did I contend that knives can't be strong and cut well? I never EVER would make such a ridiculous claim. And tapangas are machetes. Have you ever seen one in person? Typical classic machete construction and thickness, heat treatment, etc. and are made by machete companies. If tapangas like the one I posted are not machetes, then I'm a platypus.

You seem to have some sort of bone to pick with me. This discussion has NOTHING to do with the products I sell or even those I choose to use. This is about edged tools in general and what can be learned from testing them to destruction. You're distorting my words, not to mention putting them in my mouth. This is incredibly silly.

 

[killgar]

If a person tourtures a knife and it doesn't break, does that mean that I can tourture another knife, same model, and it will be garunteed not to break? Of course not. Each knife is an individual entity onto itself, a seperate piece of metal with it's own individual molecular structure and potential for flaws.

If one particular knife can chop a 2x4 in half and still shave hair after, does that garuntee that another identical knife can do the same? Of course not. Because edge retention is very much a matter of heat treatment, and it's entirely possible for different batches of knives, or even knives from the same batch, to have slight differences in hardness.

And if one particular knife easily fails a tourture test, does that mean that the entire model line is crap? Of course not. Perhaps the individual knife that failed the tourture test was flawed.

I don't put any stock in tourture tests. If I use a knife to perform a task and it fails to do so, then I know that that individual knife wasn't cut out for that task.

 

[Bastid]

So here's the crux of my argument.

My theory of making is that if I'm going to make a blade, or offer one for testing, that I'd like to learn something from it that will allow me to advance my skill in design and crafting. Based on the above, I don't believe that Noss offers a maker, even one as novice as myself, the kind of information that would make it worth my while to have him test my designs or Darrin's heat treat. If I were going to have a destruction test done, I'd want it done by someone like Jerry Fisk, who is considered a National Living Treasure in the field of knifemaking. He could doubtless provide me with all kinds of useful information that would help me improve my own skill.

Seems pretty intelligent to me. That is the way a maker becomes a great maker. A lot of the guys on youtube would have a much larger and more rounded as well as "educated" audience, if they took the time to understand the ways a great maker critiques a knife to a maker who asks him to test his knife.

 

[Daft Slice 1986]

sorry if this was said before, i didn't have time to read each post ..but at the OP, why do you care what noss or anybody else that destroyes their knives does with them? it is not hurting your wallet. if you don't like the videos, don't watch.