Diamond powder infused blades

[DocJD]

can't KNOW

Nonsense ! We have numerous and very reliable ways to proof test weapons of almost any sort , short of combat .

Most sword failures were probably due to cumulative hard contact with other weapons and shields . Flesh is weak .

 

[Triton]

Nonsense ! We have numerous and very reliable ways to proof test weapons of almost any sort , short of combat .

Most sword failures were probably due to cumulative hard contact with other weapons and shields . Flesh is weak .

If proof testing was the sum total of what constitutes a good weapon you might be correct, but proof testing only only proves that you have an excellent weapon for proof testing.

Weapon durability against hard targets is also only proof that you have something that can be bashed into hard targets.

 

[DocJD]

If proof testing was the sum total of what constitutes a good weapon you might be correct, but proof testing only only proves that you have an excellent weapon for proof testing.

Weapon durability against hard targets is also only proof that you have something that can be bashed into hard targets.

I'm totally baffled by your thought process . But OK !

 

[not2sharp]

I'm totally baffled by your thought process . But OK !

Historical swords were a response to a long running arms race. They can’t be taken in isolation and they were much more that a long steel thing with an edge. It doesn’t matter how great your sword material is if your opponent can drive his weapon into you first. Factors like armor, techniques, shields, hand protection, pole arms and range weapons all impacted the form and function, as did the physical size, preference and skills of the user. There are a lot of people making sword like things and few or none of them understand the science behind the tool. Understanding the balance and flexibility required and then finding a way to provide the user with the right tool for the job was a real science.

N2s

 

[David Mary]

I'm trying to understand what Triton means by "we can't know" if a weapon material change is an improvement. The rigors a weapon would encounter during combat can be replicated with extreme precision in the testing that Doc was referring to, which suggests to me that we can know, by that testing, if certain material or other property changes are an improvement or not. Specifically I am not understanding how skill of opponents in actual combat is required to know if the physical properties of the weapon are improved from one version thereof to the next.

 

[Stacy E. Apelt - Bladesmith]

I'm trying to understand what Triton means by "we can't know" if a weapon material change is an improvement. The rigors a weapon would encounter during combat can be replicated with extreme precision in the testing that Doc was referring to, which suggests to me that we can know, by that testing, if certain material or other property changes are an improvement or not. Specifically I am not understanding how skill of opponents in actual combat is required to know if the physical properties of the weapon are improved from one version thereof to the next.

I can give an example of why proof testing can be useless in the context we are talking.

A sword is developed that passes every test known. It chops trees down, cuts through six bodies, and cuts an anvil in half. It is truly the ultimate sword by proof testing.

They outfit the entire army with these uber-swords and send them out to fight the enemy.

The news comes back that every last soldier was killed!!!

What wasn't knows by the proof testers was the enemy had cannons, rifles, and pistols.

 

[David Mary]

Come on Stacy you and I both know that with a sword like that, they can deflect bullets and cannonballs. They wouldn’t have lost a single soldier.

 

[DocJD]

Historical swords were a response to a long running arms race. They can’t be taken in isolation and they were much more that a long steel thing with an edge. It doesn’t matter how great your sword material is if your opponent can drive his weapon into you first. Factors like armor, techniques, shields, hand protection, pole arms and range weapons all impacted the form and function, as did the physical size, preference and skills of the user. There are a lot of people making sword like things and few or none of them understand the science behind the tool. Understanding the balance and flexibility required and then finding a way to provide the user with the right tool for the job was a real science.

N2s

Yes , of course .

But for a given design and build quality , all else being equal, except the materials used ;proper testing, short of actual combat , should be an accurate predictor of durability/ performance .

Why else would proof testing be done ?

I should think that sparring , drills , and other practice forms , would help evaluate a given sword .

 

[DocJD]

Historical swords were a response to a long running arms race. They can’t be taken in isolation and they were much more that a long steel thing with an edge. It doesn’t matter how great your sword material is if your opponent can drive his weapon into you first. Factors like armor, techniques, shields, hand protection, pole arms and range weapons all impacted the form and function, as did the physical size, preference and skills of the user. There are a lot of people making sword like things and few or none of them understand the science behind the tool. Understanding the balance and flexibility required and then finding a way to provide the user with the right tool for the job was a real science.

N2s

Yes , of course .

But for a given design and build quality , all else being equal, except the materials used ;proper testing, short of actual combat , should be an accurate predictor of durability/ performance .

Why else would proof testing be done ?

I should think that sparring , drills , and other practice forms , would help evaluate a given sword .

 

[SharpBits]

Many failed weapons systems passed all the tests, but failed in combat. Combat is where all the shortcomings are discovered. Hopefully, they get corrected later.

 

[DocJD]

Obviously , if you want to predict a given weapon's performance in battle , your tests must be well designed to mimic those conditions .

And your tests should follow proper scientific principles for experiments .

 

[Maximumbob54]

I think the enemy would die laughing at your sparkle swords. They would at least be blinded.

 

[SharpBits]

Obviously , if you want to predict a given weapon's performance in battle , your tests must be well designed to mimic those conditions .

And your tests should follow proper scientific principles for experiments .

Look at weapons development from every participant Nation. Almost every change\modification was due to lessons learned in combat, despite the warring nations having plenty of experience and testing based on that experience.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Look at weapons development from every participant Nation. Almost every change\modification was due to lessons learned in combat, despite the warring nations having plenty of experience and testing based on that experience.

Are you talking like how they kept up with making rifles single fire select instead of feeding from the magazine until directed? I've always thought that sounded odd.

 

[SharpBits]

Are you talking like how they kept up with making rifles single fire select instead of feeding from the magazine until directed? I've always thought that sounded odd.

That was more of doctrine issue combined with an attempt at cost savings. Bad idea all around, however.

 

[DocJD]

Look at weapons development from every participant Nation. Almost every change\modification was due to lessons learned in combat, despite the warring nations having plenty of experience and testing based on that experience.

Yes but , weapons procurement is very often dictated by political and financial interests , rather than actual proper testing .

Most medical drugs / vaccines that create vast problems , once released upon the public , were already known by makers and regulators , to be unsafe .

Covered up and misrepresented , for greed and power .

 

[David Mary]

Well, we're talking about swords, and their material, and whether they are an improvement. That parameter in itself itself is indepependant of other evolutions in the theatre of war. Let's say kinetic shields are invented that no material can breach. Swords of any material would be useless. But a sword made from steel would still be an improvement over a sword made from Jello.

 

[Maximumbob54]

weapons procurement is very often dictated by political and financial interests , rather than actual proper testing .

I've seen a few videos showing the original AR10 in .308 with chromed parts and how it functioned in testing only to see how drastically they forced the design to change which initially made the AR15 a terrible battle rifle. Much like how the requirement to make the M14 select fire made it so hard to control. If we set all the specs from the start and don't make wild mods through the process that Swiss cheese the end result then we would be better off. We do plenty good testing. Then we choose to ignore that testing and la la la I'm not listening make it cheaper or include this or you don't get the contract.

 

[SimplyMinded]

I can give an example of why proof testing can be useless in the context we are talking.

A sword is developed that passes every test known. It chops trees down, cuts through six bodies, and cuts an anvil in half. It is truly the ultimate sword by proof testing.

They outfit the entire army with these uber-swords and send them out to fight the enemy.

The news comes back that every last soldier was killed!!!

What wasn't knows by the proof testers was the enemy had cannons, rifles, and pistols.

"I'm saddened to report they used Alchrmist's Powder, mi'lord. Great flashes and smoke like the very pits of Hell itself."

 

[me2]

You know silicone caulking is Polymerized silicon. The Si in our steel can soft and pliable. We need to just connect different areas of science

Silicone caulk is pretty far from pure silicon. It’s a silicon and oxygen based polymer like most other polymers are hydrocarbon based. Saying that is like saying Teflon is polymerized graphite. Thats not really how it works.