Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

Is Luong another scientist that makes knives? Or does he just make knives?

Would he need to the science behind the process in in experiments with HT? Theoretical versus experimental probability without the theory?

I just try to understand what I can. All very interesting, discussion, mystery and all.
 
There surely does seem to be something to this CWF stuff - Luong's tests shown on video sure are amazing, and Nathan has confirmed his tests showing there's something here that does work. I don't "need" to understand the science behind all this CWF, just the process steps so perhaps I might get similar results. AEB-L at 65 Rc with an edge that doesn't chip - going to be an amazing kitchen knife :)

Ken H>
 
bluntcut said:
My assertion/claim with CWF ht:
1. martensite orientation are 360*, where directional change depend on resolution/granularity of mart cell size.
2. because of 1. RA can be reduce to drastically lower than any conventional ht (at untempered state). Will explain conceptual reason for this when CWF 'how' is disclose.
Click to expand...

I mean no offense, but it takes me a little effort to understand your English. If I may rephrase what you, you're saying that with your CWF treatment you're able to avoid orientational relationships between the austenite and martensite, forming a completely randomly oriented martensitic structure. And in so doing, you also reduce the retained austenite fraction (I assume by reducing the strain energy penalty). So your "weave" essentially refers to a randomly oriented martensite matrix. Am I correct?

I am not familiar with combinatorial optimisation, so unfortunately I can't comment on that.

And to marcinek, perhaps I have oversold myself. I am a Masters' student in materials science, not one with decades of industry experience in steels, so please do not take me as an expert of any form! I am merely able to understand most of the technical terms, that's all.
 
Yes. I prefer "weave" in thinking mart cell as count (like thread count) where adjacent cell has different orientation (i.e. changes/weave) <= while "random" implies chaotic, even worse structure than plate mart where orientation matched aust orientation.

SPNKr said:
I mean no offense, but it takes me a little effort to understand your English. If I may rephrase what you, you're saying that with your CWF treatment you're able to avoid orientational relationships between the austenite and martensite, forming a completely randomly oriented martensitic structure. And in so doing, you also reduce the retained austenite fraction (I assume by reducing the strain energy penalty). So your "weave" essentially refers to a randomly oriented martensite matrix. Am I correct?

I am not familiar with combinatorial optimisation, so unfortunately I can't comment on that.

And to marcinek, perhaps I have oversold myself. I am a Masters' student in materials science, not one with decades of industry experience in steels, so please do not take me as an expert of any form! I am merely able to understand most of the technical terms, that's all.
Click to expand...

Steels from AKS arrived. Hopefully I can blank & profile new test blades tomorrow. I've quite a few profiled blanks in other steels as well.

IMG_0002.jpg
 
bluntcut said:
Yes. I prefer "weave" in thinking mart cell as count (like thread count) where adjacent cell has different orientation (i.e. changes/weave) <= while "random" implies chaotic, even worse structure than plate mart where orientation matched aust orientation.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Sounds to me like it might be some sort of cooperative growth mechanism, like widmanstatten ferrite but completely diffusionless. I imagine the next steps for you, as you have said as well, is to get micrographs and EBSD maps in an SEM. Unfortunately I can't help you there even if I have access to such equipment, as I don't work on steels, but I hope you find someone who can.

Good luck with your work and I hope you have indeed made a new discovery!
 
I am bogged down by work, hence no CWF ht testing. Posting this to tickle some brains (at least 1 - I know for sure :))

Alloys, add more and more alloys is the main mode of metallurgical field approach in improving ht - in the last many decades. So, basically solving Two-dimensional-defects while either ignore or compromise zero+1+3 dimensional defects.

CWF solves for an optima addressing combined all dimensional defects. 'not the global optima' because there are other optimas, which are to be discover. CWF is a/an path/approach.

DQRD6oe.jpg


bluntcut said:
...
From post#86 - conceptual model is simply a Combinatorial Optimization Graph representing 1 grain of aust matrix, which only involve Aust & Mart crystal structure. Hence, NO: ferrite; carbide; free elements and even grain boundary.

Optimization Goal:
1. optimize for highest number of edges from 1N to 2N (can't get to 2N because of volume skin/outer surface). Strength & toughness components.
2. least increase in volume radius. This is spatial/dimension component, which affect inter-grain.

Post #61 - Ideal structure in my mind = weaved lattice. Thus orientation/vector(i.e. has direction) must change but most likely be orthogonal.

Conventional ht - Martensite orientation in a grain is predominantly matched austensite prior to transformation.

My assertion/claim with CWF ht:
1. martensite orientation are 360*, where directional change depend on resolution/granularity of mart cell size.
2. because of 1. RA can be reduce to drastically lower than any conventional ht (at untempered state). Will explain conceptual reason for this when CWF 'how' is disclose.

...
Click to expand...
 
I like the idea of 14C28N, but it's hard to get in thin materials for kitchen type blades. Be sure to let us know when you're ready to share the technique required for this CWF so we can try it also.

Ken H>
 
I've picked a CWF ht resolution toward chop capable edge. Of course that include support crazy kitchen uses (chop 'em bones) along with keen edge for boring cuts.

https://www.alphaknifesupply.com/zdata-bladesteelS-14C28N.htm

14C28N good aust about 2000-2025F, about working 1rc higher than aebl. Aebl 1975F+ will yield about 64rc working hardness but actually stronger and tougher than aebl aust below 1960F (yields 65rc) because higher temp = smaller carbide but not high enough to bloat grain and excess RA.

Time, time only if I can steal it from somewhere... :grumpy:

Ken H> said:
I like the idea of 14C28N, but it's hard to get in thin materials for kitchen type blades. Be sure to let us know when you're ready to share the technique required for this CWF so we can try it also.

Ken H>
Click to expand...
 
Yep, Alpha Knife Supply is where I purchased all my 14C28N steel, a few months ago when they mentioned they were dropping Sandvick steels I purchased a good supply. I think the only thing they had left was some .098" thickness.

Hey, I got "catching Shrimp with bare hands" - I'll be reading it over the next few days. It's sure got GOOD reviews on Amazon.

Ken H>
 
If you want to prepare for CWF. When ht-ing multiple blades, use more than 1 can is ideal...

USGI 20mm AMMO CAN M548 1500 ROUNDS 7.62 METAL LARGE AMMO
USGI 40mm AMMO CAN BA 20 100% STEEL LARGE AMMO

um... I just ordered a few more for myself.

I stole an hr to lousy-profiled 14c28N & 1080+/80CrV2 test blades. Maybe, I will CWF ht them with mid-night oil :D
 
OK, These ammo cans are for quenching? I'm using AEB-L and 14C28N steels with plate quench - do I still need ammo cans for oil quench?
 
I've plate, super-quench tank, p50 tank , 12 seconds oil tank, etc... and I use them as well. I should refer to those ammo can as weaverers :D

Of course, you can use other containers to weave but ammo can is high in cost & operational effectiveness.
 
Luong, are the ammo cans required for weaving AEB-L and 14C28N steels? OR - will good aluminum quench plates work just fine for AEB-L and 14C28N steels?
 
Ammo can (or equivalent) is required for CWF. Plate/P50/etc uses in conjunction with the ammo can. There will be more equipment needed but you can get them locally.

edit to add: mid-night oil ht without recall my earlier statement aust temp for steel with Nitrogen added... 14C28N got 63rc, only tiny bit better than a reference conventional ht 62rc. FAILED. aust too high at 2025F. Brittle edge failed to whittle my usually suite (African Blackwood, bone,..).
 
Last edited:
OK, I've got a good square quenching tank about 6" ID, and 20" deep I use for carbon steel quenching. Never used it for SS, but if it's required for weaving AEB-L and 14C28N - I've got it covered and aluminum quench plates also.
 
CWF ht test data is trickling in. It's boring to most of you, so I will let this thread zzz until CWF ht disclosure however I will response to comments. Google bluntcutmetalworks if you like to READ my cwf ht log.
 
Thanks Luong, I will be seeing what pops up on there too.
 
I broke A2 67rc test blade (sheer + torsional baton thin metal [ beam) - surprised to see thermal mass and or spatial issues for this high alloy steel. LOL - kind of fun that you can clearly see affect of weaved and not well-weaved matrix. I ran into this problem with 0.25" & 0.325" thick W2 chopper a while back.

JyQiPqR.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top