Ed Fowler

Daniel: U.S. Steel patented a multiple quench process years before I stumbled on to it. The reason they do not use it is because it is not economical. That level of quality costs to much, industry simply buys a new part.

We (Rex and I) do not ignore science, I do the experiments he goes to work in the lab to explain what happened. We tried to put a $ cost to our work and Rex came up with an east $75,000 in the past 16 years. But we know what, why and how. We continue to learn and will continue to share in simple language that is easily understood and can be applied by the basic blade smith if he wants to try it.

There is only one way to evaluate a knife and that is through controlled comparison testing doing what that knife is designed to do. Testing using materials available to every blade smith in his shop. Opinions of other metallurgists are just that opinions, I have found that most only regurgitate what they read in the books.
 
Ed,

Obviously I don't understand what happens after the first heat and quench cycle. I must have missed that in your writings.

A few questions:

· I assume you are still using 52-100
· What heat source do you use prior to your quench
· How do you quench
· What happens to enhance the steel after the first cycle

I don’t mind spending/charging extra money if the cost is justified.

Daniel
 
2knife said:
Daniel, i appreciate the honesty of your remarks. And thank you for obliging to answer my questions. I will not hamper the conversation further..

Roger,
You truly can't stop yourself? I'm not surprised. Please refer to post #167 and #169, as many times as you feel necessary.
David
Click to expand...

I'm avoiding sophistry. Trolls, on the other hand, I am always happy to confront.

Roger
 
I'm not a mod here... but I suggest David and Roger throw insults at eachother, elsewhere.
 
Tai Goo said:
We're not doing science,... we're making knives.

Performance is subjective, and has more to do with personal preferences, tastes and opinions than science.

I think science has been abused,... and used more for "shameless self promotion" than any thing else.

A good knife speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

I have three Goo knives all of which outperform in one way or another any of the other knives I own. I know this because I like to use my knives, and I keep coming back to the Goos.

If Tai imbues each knife with sacred smoke, that's fine by me, because his knives perform. If Tai were to use 'science' to make his knives, that's fine by me too. To me, the consumer, the resulting performance of a knife made to perform is all that matters.

If one calls the testing of knives 'science', then great. It can be called anything, but if the knives aren't being tested for performance, then I won't buy them. In fact I prefer that the actual knife that I'm about to buy gets put through the paces by its maker.
 
Ed Fowler said:
There is only one way to evaluate a knife and that is through controlled comparison testing doing what that knife is designed to do. Testing using materials available to every blade smith in his shop. Opinions of other metallurgists are just that opinions, I have found that most only regurgitate what they read in the books.
Click to expand...

Yep. I agree!

... If we are going to call it science, then let's also call baking chocolate chip cookies a science.
 
Tai Goo said:
. .......If we are going to call it science, then let's also call baking chocolate chip cookies a science.
Click to expand...

It is! Ask my Mother!

"any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice."
 
If the cookies come out tasty every time, the process may become predictable. That must be good science. True knifemaking can't be science, there's simply no reliable way of predicting how a knife will turn out.
 
Daniel
I risk a simple explanation which can easily be misunderstood.
Heat source - Oxy Acet torch, 3X flame.
Edge Quench in Texaco Type A oil, @165 f. about lower 1/2 of blade in the oil, top third is never hot enough to harden, left magnetic, bottom third to non-magnetic.

Each hardening cycle reduces retained austenite in the martensite and refines grain.
The result is no measurable retained austenite in the hardened portion of the blade.
Also no measurable carbon loss from the parent virgin 52100 stock that started out as a 5 1/2 inch round bar.

The great benefit is very fine grained steel, ASTM 14 and finer which exceeds the theoretical limit for 52100 as it was defined when we started.

If you like we have developed two DVD's that explain the entire process - what for and why - in simple terms easily understood and how to test for what we want in the steel.
The set sells for $55.00, + 5.00 postage etc. or the one with Rex and I explaining and demonstrating is $20 + $5.00 postage. All the information is duplicatable in your shop and backed up by Rex in his Lab.
 
cdent said:
If the cookies come out tasty every time, the process may become predictable. That must be good science. True knifemaking can't be science, there's simply no reliable way of predicting how a knife will turn out.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.
 
I can "predict" that if I put a pot of water on the stove and turn the heat on, it will boil,... but does that make it science?... or better yet, I can put an egg in and make a hard boiled egg. :D
 
Last edited:
Tai Goo said:
I can "predict" that if I put a pot of water on the stove and turn the heat on, it will boil,... but does that make it science?...
Click to expand...

Yep, but can you predict at what temperature the pot of water will boil when the same stove is placed at different altitudes????

Some "science" might just have to come into play to do that.........

Just a thought... :thumbup:
 
There's a shocking lack of understanding of what basic science is on this thread.
 
cdent said:
If the corkies come out tasty every time, the process may become predickable. That must be goo science.
Click to expand...


You know, on second thought, there is probably some truth that.



:D



I think this could stand repeating:

Jared P said:
Ignore me, I'm a total newb...however I greatly respect Tai Goo's work as well as Kevin Cashen, Daniel Winkler and many of the other "ABS side" guys on this thread. I can't help but ask though as I'm reading all of these replies if the "science guys" and the "art guys" are just not talking past each other about different aspects of this craft.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top