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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I offered this on another thread about knife testing. http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/918015-What-do-you-learn-from-destruction-tests/page9 I haven’t changed my mind.


Raymond1000 said:
There is a difference between mature science and primitive science.

Geology began with amateurs wandering around hillsides. Their scientific equipment was a hammer. Maybe a bottle of acid. Were they geologists? No, the term hadn’t been invented yet. They weren’t even scientists, since that term hadn’t been invented either. They certainly weren’t modern geologists, using satellite images and deep sea core samples to trace plate tectonics. But without these amateurs and their clumsy research, modern geology would never have developed.

Early psychiatry involved high flown theory supported by anecdotes from therapy sessions. (e.g., Freud’s Rat Man.) Session transcripts—if any existed—were kept private. To my knowledge the first man who made scientific studies of the psychotherapeutic process was Carl Rogers. He not only published transcripts of sessions for critical evaluation. He also tested the effectiveness of his work. He refined his system as a result of those findings. Later generations scorned Rogers for those tests. Too primitive. Not really scientific. Not up to modern standards. Didn’t achieve sufficient rigor. Imperfect control samples. So what? Naturally his efforts were crude. He was doing something nobody had ever done before.

Crude methods may not attain scientific rigor, but they work. Medieval tinkerers invented wind mills. Water wheels powering grist mills and trip hammers. Mechanical clocks. Caravel’s to explore the world. All before the scientific revolution. Indeed those tools helped make the scientific revolution possible.

If you insist on modern scientific testing knives… Hire an engineer specializing in materials testing. Give him a tenth of what the Large Hadron Collider costs. He can buy and make testing equipment, and score a hundred of each knife to be tested. Let him report his work in peer reviewed journals. To make it really scientific, give matching funds and the same assignment to another engineer so he can replicate the tests. As soon as those results are in, get back to us.

It is an imperfect world. We do what we can with what we have. Some information is better than no information. Imperfect knowledge is better than no knowledge.
Click to expand...
 
Dan57 said:
If a knife is advertised as being a virtually indestructible sharpened prybar, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to see if the knife actually is a virtually indestructible sharpened prybar. Almost all the knives Noss tests are being advertised as virtually indestructible sharpened prybars, so I don't see a problem with him verifying or debunking a manufacturer's claim. That being said, I'd never buy a virtually indestructible sharpened prybar, (VISP?), because such knives have very limited uses. (Read: they're useless.)
Click to expand...


This post tells more then the rest of the thread.




Big Mike
 
I think that ultimately this discussion should have next to nothing to do with personal preferences. It's all about isolating one (or just a few) aspects of performance and testing them in as meaningful a manner as possible. Toughness is one of the most difficult aspects to reliably measure since it involves many sub-aspects such as steel, heat treatment, cross-sectional geometry, class of applied force, singular or repeated strain, edge imparted force vs. lateral or spine imparted, harmonics, nodal points of rotation, and many other factors.
 
The toughest knives I own spend most of their time sitting in a drawer while my lowly thin bladed stick tang kitchen knivs slice food for meals and my small folders are used to cut all kinds of stuff. Nothing wrong with destruction tests if you are looking for a knife to stab a car with. Myself, if I'm mad at a car, I will leave the knife home and shoot through the engine block with my .375 H&h mag. Those 300 grain solids are great at that sort of thing.
 
demoteamone said:
That include the Bravo1 too, just an observation........
Click to expand...


That's probably why I don't own one (though I have owned and tested several).


I see no reason for a 4" blade being that thick, but I must say they slice very well for such a thick blade.



Back on topic.


I own lots of big blades and use them hard, but I still value cutting performance over ultimate toughness.

If a cutting tool trades efficiency for the ability to withstand crazy abuse, then it's no longer an efficient cutting tool and will ultimately get left in the heap of tools that did not really perform.

I could put a very obtuse edge on my axe just in case I hit a rock, of course I would spend all day pounding through the fibers of the wood is was trying to cut instead of the axe cutting them; just sayin'.




Big Mike
 
To me, a knife is primarily a cutting tool. I can, however, imagine myself in a 'survival' situation (however unlikely) where my tool selection is limited and my knife must be used for things otherwise considered as extreme, unsafe, or downright stupid. At this point, it is important to note that in a survival situation, risk-taking is unwise and best avoided whenever possible--but if forced to make a decision, I'd much rather take a calculated risk than a blind leap-of-faith (which mere marketing can promote.)

I am unable to process many of the charts, stats and data several members have posted as proof, for or against, the strength of a blade. I am learning, but it is a slow-go. Watching a knife be pummelled into ruin is something I can immediately extrapolate on. Scientific? No... but it is, shall we say, readily accessible? :o

Just my 2¢...

ETA: I used to think that destruction tests only served to destroy a perfectly good knife... still partly true, imo, as I have neither the inclination nor the resources to do such things to my own knives.
 
Last edited:
demoteamone said:
It is outrageous how people who dislike Noss test also dislike Cliff stamp test. And, it seems you're 1 of those
Click to expand...

Odd how one may be mistaken.

I was under the impression that I was supporting the Noss tests and that I enjoyed Cliff’s reviews.

I am desolated to discover otherwise. :eek:
 
Dan57 said:
Can%27t-tell-if-serious-or-just-sarcastic.jpg


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.
Click to expand...

It was as a compliment not sarcastic.

Dan
 
People seem to make the mistake of thinking Noss's tests actually test the knife. In actuality they test more the inherent limitation of the particular steel used and because of the testing methods used any incidental info about the knife is negiligible and lost in relation to that fact.
Steel manufacturers already do fracture/breakage tests scientifically and with actual measurement figures ( usually published) which pretty much negates and relegates his primtive testing to the realm of entertainment.
 
Karda said:
Steel manufacturers already do fracture/breakage tests scientifically and with actual measurement figures ( usually published) which pretty much negates and relegates his primtive testing to the realm of entertainment.
Click to expand...




Very well stated my friend. :thumbup: :eek: :thumbup:




Big Mike
 
Dan Keffeler said:
It was as a compliment not sarcastic.

Dan
Click to expand...

Oh. Well... thanks! I'm just kind of surprised, since I know that at least one of your knives falls into the VISP (I like that acronym) class of knives.

Karda said:
People seem to make the mistake of thinking Noss's tests actually test the knife. In actuality they test more the inherent limitation of the particular steel used and because of the testing methods used any incidental info about the knife is negiligible and lost in relation to that fact.
Steel manufacturers already do fracture/breakage tests scientifically and with actual measurement figures ( usually published) which pretty much negates and relegates his primtive testing to the realm of entertainment.
Click to expand...

There's a lot that happens between steel companies producing a certain material, and it then being made into a knife. Although the kind of testing they do has value, it doesn't take into account grind lines/stress risers, heat treat, overall design, handle material and the way that material's attached to the knife, e.t.c. Although it's a matter of opinion, I, as a consumer, actually get a lot more knowledge seeing the knife in use. Since VISPs are designed to be used as VISPs, Noss' videos show the knives in use. I think the studies you mentioned are more for the manufacturer's benefit than the user's.
 
Dan57 said:
There's a lot that happens between steel companies producing a certain material, and it then being made into a knife. Although the kind of testing they do has value, it doesn't take into account grind lines/stress risers, heat treat, overall design, handle material and the way that material's attached to the knife, e.t.c.
Click to expand...

Neither do Noss4's tests, at least in any kind of real world valuable way.
The other mistake people make is overthinking and implying that the manufacturers state that their knives are virtually indestructible.
Manufacturers do realise that nothing in this world is indestructible
Most warrantys state normal usage and that their coverage stops beyond normal usage, wear and tear and manufacturing/quality problems, which again makes the tests primitive methods negligible and almost purely entertainment. It also makes his claims of one knife is better or worse than others subjective rather than truly selective and as such not worth basing a purchase on.
 
Busse and kin don't care about "normal use"

if you break it doing ANYTHING other than intentionally trying to break it... new knife

that warranty tells me as much as Noss's tests
 
BePrepared said:
Busse and kin don't care about "normal use"

if you break it doing ANYTHING other than intentionally trying to break it... new knife

that warranty tells me as much as Noss's tests
Click to expand...

Well of course:D
And you pay for that kind of coverage, which gets you a new knife.
Evvabuddy happy.
 
Karda said:
Steel manufacturers already do fracture/breakage tests scientifically and with actual measurement figures ( usually published) which pretty much negates and relegates his primtive testing to the realm of entertainment.
Click to expand...


Steel manufacturers have little to do with knife making And there's a huge difference between Steel manufacturers & Knife manufacturers.
Knife manufacturers won't tell me "Not even Rockwell scale precisely"...just to mention one default.
 
demoteamone said:
Steel manufacturers have little to do with knife making And there's a huge difference between Steel manufacturers & Knife manufacturers.
Knife manufacturers won't tell me "Not even Rockwell scale precisely"...just to mention one default.
Click to expand...

Except that knives are made from steel and it's inherent properties do not change magically because a knifemaker touched it.
Which brings us back to the same old argument of reasonable/realistic expectations of knife usage and proper usage of product as intended, the same arguments here that have been beat to death in the myriads of past destruction test threads. No matter how you slice it, the supposed "tests" only benefit is to show how a blade will perform if you senselessly and unreliably beat it to its death (thru things it normally would never see from anyone with respect for their blades) with a 3lb maul.

As a kid i broke many of my toys that were supposedly child proof items. Does that mean the manufacturer is at fault for his claims.... no.
It only means that i was determined to break them and accomplished the task for my entertainment... which is pretty much all the Noss4 testing is.

Nothing really new here in this thread that hasnt been discussed previously. The only thing thats kept this thread open is because it is being discussed politely.
 
Last edited:
Karda said:
Neither do Noss4's tests, at least in any kind of real world valuable way.

Sure they do. They tell you where and when a specific knife will break when pushed to it's absolute limit. They're not perfect, but to be perfect would cost millions.

The other mistake people make is overthinking and implying that the manufacturers state that their knives are virtually indestructible.
Manufacturers do realise that nothing in this world is indestructible

To clarify the meaning of "virtually indestructible", the way I use it: "Able to survive everything and anything you could throw at it." That is, it's implied that you won't be able to break the knife without the use of power tools. There are plenty of manufacturers who advertise this way. So, there's a reason I put "virtually" in front of "indestructible". Obviously, no manufacturer would ever advertise a knife as being completely impervious to all forms of harm.

Most warrantys state normal usage and that their coverage stops beyond normal usage, wear and tear and manufacturing/quality problems,*

This is a fact...

which again makes the tests primitive methods negligible and almost purely entertainment.

... but I don't see how it relates to this.

It also makes his claims of one knife is better or worse than others subjective rather than truly selective and as such not worth basing a purchase on.

I don't think there are many people who would disagree with this. The tests are just one source of information.
Click to expand...

Colors are nice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top