Friend of mine found old Knifetest.com video/ THIS is the Joe X DESTRUCTION VIDEO Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright guys, greetings hogs
while we are waiting for my buddy to dig up the FBM vid, I got sth to comment on the style of joex testing
It’s imperatiive to clarify that spine wacking is not a scientific or productive means of evaluating a knife.Here is the explanation

Fundamental mechanism
I am going to make an analogy, think of wacking a stick on to a tree, a corner of a wall or anything it can bend and wrap around, what happens?
The stick creaks from opposite the percussion point, and the stick barely hangs together by remaining tissue.
This is due to the portion of the stick traveling with inertia, and the remaining momentum causes an Internal Torque(or Bending Moment) and the farthest point from the nuetral axis is where the internal torque is the highest due to the longest moment arm.
This is very similar to how a crack forms on a relatively strong knife which is able to sustain the initial impact, since knives that breaks at the percussion point immediately upon contact, instead of cracking at the point across the blade is simply not tough enough to resist impact.

Application on a blade
The major geometric difference between the cross-section of a blade and a stick is that a blade has an edge
The edge on the opposite side of the percussion point sustain the maximum internal torque, since the apex is very weak, the blade closer to the nuetral axis, but thicker, takes the major load. If the main bevel is not rigid enough, the maximum internal torque would tear the apex and the crack would rapidly form across the blade, resulting in gross blade failure.
A wider knife would benefit form higher rigidity under force parallel to the blade, and a lower saber grind(stock thickness extending further) blade would benefit form wider cross-section in the higher internal torque areas.
Thus, this testing tends to benefit wide, lower saber ground knives, mainly because they have an wedgier edge that resists elongation better.

The problem with this test
This test suffers from being unable to reflect performance under any circumstances, as whenever you chop or baton, it is the spine which is strong, that is elongated and handles such impacts. In push cutting or slicing, the edge is being elongated, however, the blade is moving forward, thus, no residual momentum is tearing the edge, while the cutting itself is a low stress task.
Thus, this testing is of no reflection of a PRACTICAL strength of a blade, as it is always the SPINE that takes the demanding internal torque

Comparison with a similar yet fundamentally different test
The batoning into concrete block(used by Noss and Cliff and some bladesmiths ) seemed to be an equivalent test, as the motion is relative. However, the major difference is that the blade in a concrete batoning test is supported.
The momentum of the sledge hammer is immediately transfered into the concrete, never really accelerating the blade to a higher speed under which the “tearing effect” due to inertia is significant enough to induce a crack.
The batoning into concrete block is a very scientific test of the performance under extreme conditons against fracture, deformation and wear as well as general strength In a PRACTICAL way.


Conclusion
The joe x style spine wacking test is not scientific nor productive.
He is of no compare to the scientific testing by Noss and Cliff, It’s better to trust the old material and your own experience.
 
Last edited:
Laurarium said:
Alright guys, greetings hogs
while we are waiting for my buddy to dig up the FBM vid, I got sth to comment on the style of joex testing
It’s imperatiive to clarify that spine wacking is not a scientific or productive means of evaluating a knife.Here is the explanation

Fundamental mechanism
I am going to make an analogy, think of wacking a stick on to a tree, a corner of a wall or anything it can bend and wrap around, what happens?
The stick creaks from opposite the percussion point, and the stick barely hangs together by remaining tissue.
This is due to the portion of the stick traveling with inertia, and the remaining momentum causes an Internal Torque(or Bending Moment) and the farthest point from the nuetral axis is where the internal torque is the highest due to the longest moment arm.
This is very similar to how a crack forms on a relatively strong knife which is able to sustain the initial impact, since knives that breaks at the percussion point immediately upon contact, instead of cracking at the point across the blade is simply not tough enough to resist impact.

Application on a blade
The major geometric difference between the cross-section of a blade and a stick is that a blade has an edge
The edge on the opposite side of the percussion point sustain the maximum internal torque, since the apex is very weak, the blade closer to the nuetral axis, but thicker, takes the major load. If the main bevel is not rigid enough, the maximum internal torque would tear the apex and the crack would rapidly form across the blade, resulting in gross blade failure.
A wider knife would benefit form higher rigidity under force parallel to the blade, and a lower saber grind(stock thickness extending further) blade would benefit form wider cross-section in the higher internal torque areas.
Thus, this testing tends to benefit wide, lower saber ground knives, mainly because they have an wedgier edge that resists elongation better.

The problem with this test
This test suffers from being unable to reflect performance under any circumstances, as whenever you chop or baton, it is the spine which is strong, that is elongated and handles such impacts. In push cutting or slicing, the edge is being elongated, however, the blade is moving forward, thus, no residual momentum is tearing the edge, while the cutting itself is a low stress task.
Thus, this testing is of no reflection of a PRACTICAL strength of a blade, as it is always the SPINE that takes the demanding internal torque

Comparison with a similar yet fundamentally different test
The batoning into concrete block(used by Noss and Cliff and some bladesmiths ) seemed to be an equivalent test, as the motion is relative. However, the major difference is that the blade in a concrete batoning test is supported.
The momentum of the sledge hammer is immediately transfered into the concrete, never really accelerating the blade to a higher speed under which the “tearing effect” due to inertia is significant enough to induce a crack.
The batoning into concrete block is a very scientific test of the performance under extreme conditons against fracture, deformation and wear as well as general strength In a PRACTICAL way.


Conclusion
The joe x style spine wacking test is not scientific nor productive.
He is of no compare to the scientific testing by Noss and Cliff, It’s better to trust the old material and your own experience.
Click to expand...
thoery is there, yet good blades are still gonna hold longer
 
Laurarium said:
Alright guys, greetings hogs
while we are waiting for my buddy to dig up the FBM vid, I got sth to comment on the style of joex testing
It’s imperatiive to clarify that spine wacking is not a scientific or productive means of evaluating a knife.Here is the explanation

Fundamental mechanism
I am going to make an analogy, think of wacking a stick on to a tree, a corner of a wall or anything it can bend and wrap around, what happens?
The stick creaks from opposite the percussion point, and the stick barely hangs together by remaining tissue.
This is due to the portion of the stick traveling with inertia, and the remaining momentum causes an Internal Torque(or Bending Moment) and the farthest point from the nuetral axis is where the internal torque is the highest due to the longest moment arm.
This is very similar to how a crack forms on a relatively strong knife which is able to sustain the initial impact, since knives that breaks at the percussion point immediately upon contact, instead of cracking at the point across the blade is simply not tough enough to resist impact.

Application on a blade
The major geometric difference between the cross-section of a blade and a stick is that a blade has an edge
The edge on the opposite side of the percussion point sustain the maximum internal torque, since the apex is very weak, the blade closer to the nuetral axis, but thicker, takes the major load. If the main bevel is not rigid enough, the maximum internal torque would tear the apex and the crack would rapidly form across the blade, resulting in gross blade failure.
A wider knife would benefit form higher rigidity under force parallel to the blade, and a lower saber grind(stock thickness extending further) blade would benefit form wider cross-section in the higher internal torque areas.
Thus, this testing tends to benefit wide, lower saber ground knives, mainly because they have an wedgier edge that resists elongation better.

The problem with this test
This test suffers from being unable to reflect performance under any circumstances, as whenever you chop or baton, it is the spine which is strong, that is elongated and handles such impacts. In push cutting or slicing, the edge is being elongated, however, the blade is moving forward, thus, no residual momentum is tearing the edge, while the cutting itself is a low stress task.
Thus, this testing is of no reflection of a PRACTICAL strength of a blade, as it is always the SPINE that takes the demanding internal torque

Comparison with a similar yet fundamentally different test
The batoning into concrete block(used by Noss and Cliff and some bladesmiths ) seemed to be an equivalent test, as the motion is relative. However, the major difference is that the blade in a concrete batoning test is supported.
The momentum of the sledge hammer is immediately transfered into the concrete, never really accelerating the blade to a higher speed under which the “tearing effect” due to inertia is significant enough to induce a crack.
The batoning into concrete block is a very scientific test of the performance under extreme conditons against fracture, deformation and wear as well as general strength In a PRACTICAL way.


Conclusion
The joe x style spine wacking test is not scientific nor productive.
He is of no compare to the scientific testing by Noss and Cliff, It’s better to trust the old material and your own experience.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would imagine the difference between .210" & .250" to be worlds apart
But, I love the AFBM, she'll go thru wood like shit thru a cider mill 😎
......which, I would imagine was the whole crux/point of the birth of the Anorexic FBM, to do exactly that 😉
 
A fat version of the steel heart would obviously hold up considerably better. But thats the problem with these videos is all the variables arent taken into consideration. He doesnt even use the same testing medium when it comes to the car. Because different parts of the car are far more resilient than others. Something short and fat is obviously going to outperform something long and thin.. at least in a durability contest.
 
nerv102 said:
A fat version of the steel heart would obviously hold up considerably better. But thats the problem with these videos is all the variables arent taken into consideration. He doesnt even use the same testing medium when it comes to the car. Because different parts of the car are far more resilient than others. Something short and fat is obviously going to outperform something long and thin.. at least in a durability contest.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Jerry should make a super small and exclusive run of a knife made specifically to pass joes test lol. I bet they would sell.
 
Against my better judgment, I'm going to wade into the fray here, lol.

The results of that test were a bit surprising. But I'm not about to sell all my Busse knives off as they'll still do all the tasks I require of them without issue.

What's surprised me most about this test was the breakouts at the edge. I was really expecting to see more malleability in the steel where it bends and misaligns rather than breaking off like that. Granted, this is the anorexic version and made to be more of a performance cutter. It was quite a brutal test after all and it handled that car door quite nicely. Nothing to be ashamed of at all, just thought I'd see it bend and be misaligned more then break like that...... at least based on older pictures from brutal Busse tests I've seen in the past. Just stating my speculative assumptions as I have nowhere near lots of experience with INFI yet.

It seemed to do very similarly to the DT-12 but I'm going off memory there and will have to go back and watch it to be sure. Just thought I'd expect to see a greater difference in behavior than the SR-101.

Another example is the tip test where I was expecting to see the blade bend more before it broke. Again, a brutal test and I have no fear of my knives breaking since I'm not doing silly things like this, but still, I figured INFI would have more bending tolerance. Then again, it is approaching 60 Rockwell soooo, that's a lot to expect.

All that said, when Joe was complaining about how much he had to spend on this knife which was now broken in pieces, I felt it really unfortunate that the toughest part of a Busse wasn't mentioned..... no, not the INFI steel, the warranty! He's covered I imagine based on past statements I've seen and thus not really out a blade at all. That's pretty spectacular. (but I don't want to speak for Busse here so am more than willing to be corrected if I'm wrong there).

I hope one day we get to see Joe X test out the Free Reign in SR-3V. Would love to see that taken to the limit.

Looking forward to seeing how the ASH does.
 
nerv102 said:
Jerry should make a super small and exclusive run of a knife made specifically to pass joes test lol. I bet they would sell.
Click to expand...
they ll be useless steel blanks, he got you wrapped around his finger, subconsciusly developing a similar mindset, wrong one
 
Even though the tests aren't repeatable, there are takeaways from every test. One is how a steel fails. We all know steels fail. It's how that happens thats important. Also, one sample doesn't represent a line. Tell you the truth, I expected more from the knife. INFI is and should be tougher than 3v and many other steels. Considering its Rc'd to a low 58 59. Means it should hold up well even in failure. I would expect busse to want the pieces back for analysis and likely joex will get a replacement.
 
Alright guys, greetings hogs
while we are waiting for my buddy to dig up the FBM vid, I got sth to comment on the style of joex testing
It’s imperatiive to clarify that spine wacking is not a scientific or productive means of evaluating a knife.Here is the explanation

Fundamental mechanism
I am going to make an analogy, think of wacking a stick on to a tree, a corner of a wall or anything it can bend and wrap around, what happens?
The stick creaks from opposite the percussion point, and the stick barely hangs together by remaining tissue.
This is due to the portion of the stick traveling with inertia, and the remaining momentum causes an Internal Torque(or Bending Moment) and the farthest point from the nuetral axis is where the internal torque is the highest due to the longest moment arm.
This is very similar to how a crack forms on a relatively strong knife which is able to sustain the initial impact, since knives that breaks at the percussion point immediately upon contact, instead of cracking at the point across the blade is simply not tough enough to resist impact.

Application on a blade
The major geometric difference between the cross-section of a blade and a stick is that a blade has an edge
The edge on the opposite side of the percussion point sustain the maximum internal torque, since the apex is very weak, the blade closer to the nuetral axis, but thicker, takes the major load. If the main bevel is not rigid enough, the maximum internal torque would tear the apex and the crack would rapidly form across the blade, resulting in gross blade failure.
A wider knife would benefit form higher rigidity under force parallel to the blade, and a lower saber grind(stock thickness extending further) blade would benefit form wider cross-section in the higher internal torque areas.
Thus, this testing tends to benefit wide, lower saber ground knives, mainly because they have an wedgier edge that resists elongation better.

The problem with this test
This test suffers from being unable to reflect performance under any circumstances, as whenever you chop or baton, it is the spine which is strong, that is elongated and handles such impacts. In push cutting or slicing, the edge is being elongated, however, the blade is moving forward, thus, no residual momentum is tearing the edge, while the cutting itself is a low stress task.
Thus, this testing is of no reflection of a PRACTICAL strength of a blade, as it is always the SPINE that takes the demanding internal torque

Comparison with a similar yet fundamentally different test
The batoning into concrete block(used by Noss and Cliff and some bladesmiths ) seemed to be an equivalent test, as the motion is relative. However, the major difference is that the blade in a concrete batoning test is supported.
The momentum of the sledge hammer is immediately transfered into the concrete, never really accelerating the blade to a higher speed under which the “tearing effect” due to inertia is significant enough to induce a crack.
The batoning into concrete block is a very scientific test of the performance under extreme conditons against fracture, deformation and wear as well as general strength In a PRACTICAL way.


Conclusion
The joe x style spine wacking test is not scientific nor productive.
He is of no compare to the scientific testing by Noss and Cliff, It’s better to trust the old material and your own experience.
 
Laurarium said:
Alright guys, greetings hogs
while we are waiting for my buddy to dig up the FBM vid, I got sth to comment on the style of joex testing
It’s imperatiive to clarify that spine wacking is not a scientific or productive means of evaluating a knife.Here is the explanation

Fundamental mechanism
I am going to make an analogy, think of wacking a stick on to a tree, a corner of a wall or anything it can bend and wrap around, what happens?
The stick creaks from opposite the percussion point, and the stick barely hangs together by remaining tissue.
This is due to the portion of the stick traveling with inertia, and the remaining momentum causes an Internal Torque(or Bending Moment) and the farthest point from the nuetral axis is where the internal torque is the highest due to the longest moment arm.
This is very similar to how a crack forms on a relatively strong knife which is able to sustain the initial impact, since knives that breaks at the percussion point immediately upon contact, instead of cracking at the point across the blade is simply not tough enough to resist impact.

Application on a blade
The major geometric difference between the cross-section of a blade and a stick is that a blade has an edge
The edge on the opposite side of the percussion point sustain the maximum internal torque, since the apex is very weak, the blade closer to the nuetral axis, but thicker, takes the major load. If the main bevel is not rigid enough, the maximum internal torque would tear the apex and the crack would rapidly form across the blade, resulting in gross blade failure.
A wider knife would benefit form higher rigidity under force parallel to the blade, and a lower saber grind(stock thickness extending further) blade would benefit form wider cross-section in the higher internal torque areas.
Thus, this testing tends to benefit wide, lower saber ground knives, mainly because they have an wedgier edge that resists elongation better.

The problem with this test
This test suffers from being unable to reflect performance under any circumstances, as whenever you chop or baton, it is the spine which is strong, that is elongated and handles such impacts. In push cutting or slicing, the edge is being elongated, however, the blade is moving forward, thus, no residual momentum is tearing the edge, while the cutting itself is a low stress task.
Thus, this testing is of no reflection of a PRACTICAL strength of a blade, as it is always the SPINE that takes the demanding internal torque

Comparison with a similar yet fundamentally different test
The batoning into concrete block(used by Noss and Cliff and some bladesmiths ) seemed to be an equivalent test, as the motion is relative. However, the major difference is that the blade in a concrete batoning test is supported.
The momentum of the sledge hammer is immediately transfered into the concrete, never really accelerating the blade to a higher speed under which the “tearing effect” due to inertia is significant enough to induce a crack.
The batoning into concrete block is a very scientific test of the performance under extreme conditons against fracture, deformation and wear as well as general strength In a PRACTICAL way.


Conclusion
The joe x style spine wacking test is not scientific nor productive.
He is of no compare to the scientific testing by Noss and Cliff, It’s better to trust the old material and your own experience.
Click to expand...
why it says the original post needs an moderator approval???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top