Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

CWF HT aeb-l (as an example) - Step 0 to 7

s0: aust blade at 1950-1975F for 10 minutes

s1: quench blade to 450-465F oil bath, slice around for 10 seconds, then stir around for 1 minutes

s2: Cover the oil bath with a lid or aluminum foil.

s3: 1 hr later - remove lid/cover.

s4: When oil temperature falls below 200-180F (take around 2-3 hrs depend on oil volume), air cool the blade to near room temp (~70-90F)

s5: Wash/clean blade. Straightening if needed and easy because the blade is still highly ductile(very high RA%) at this point

s6: Cryo (subzero should be ok for many steels) for 3-4 minutes, take out, wash

s7: Soak blade in 275F oil for 5 minutes. Take out & wash.

Done.
Natlek said:
Sorry, but I've read several times that and now I understand less :confused:
That s way I ask you to write in simple sequence your HT process .
Click to expand...
 
I am very much looking forward to seeing what others achieve via these methods, and also to grain-level imaging at different steps so that folk (including bluntcut himself) can see if his theories of why/how it works for him match the reality of what is going on. Somebody out there have access to SEM and EBSD?

Larrin calls the theory nonsense, but the evidence (independently confirmed hardness tests, independently confirmed durability tests, all informal as it may be) suggests that SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT is going on, no? What's up with this HT protocol, huh?
 
chiral.grolim said:
I am very much looking forward to seeing what others achieve via these methods, and also to grain-level imaging at different steps so that folk (including bluntcut himself) can see if his theories of why/how it works for him match the reality of what is going on. Somebody out there have access to SEM and EBSD?

Larrin calls the theory nonsense, but the evidence (independently confirmed hardness tests, independently confirmed durability tests, all informal as it may be) suggests that SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT is going on, no? What's up with this HT protocol, huh?
Click to expand...

I understand only the basic concepts and procedures for HT , but to say that something is nonsense you must know what is wrong .On the other hand the bluntcut results that you already mention say something else ........... interesting
 
We all see that there is some good potential here. The problem is when Luong claims to know what is going on with the structure within the steel. No one has ever looked at a photo-micrograph of this, yet he claims to know what is going on.

He uses terms that are made up and don't make sense. He uses some correct terms but in the wrong ways.

We have a couple of PhD's in metallurgy commenting and others with no engineering back ground what so ever saying that they don't know what they are talking about.

You don't need to know what the structure is, just the results.

In order to determine if this is a superior heat treat or not, someone needs to use just one steel, maybe O1 or A2, do one control standard HT, one with a standard mar-quench, one one with Luongs improved interrupted quench. Then send them out for charpy testing.

Arguing about whether or not Luong understands the metallurgy or not, has nothing to do with the superiority of the HT.

Much respect to Luong for disclosing his heat treat methods. It is obvious that he has given this a lot of thought.

Hoss
 
chiral.grolim said:
I am very much looking forward to seeing what others achieve via these methods, and also to grain-level imaging at different steps so that folk (including bluntcut himself) can see if his theories of why/how it works for him match the reality of what is going on. Somebody out there have access to SEM and EBSD?

Larrin calls the theory nonsense, but the evidence (independently confirmed hardness tests, independently confirmed durability tests, all informal as it may be) suggests that SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT is going on, no? What's up with this HT protocol, huh?
Click to expand...


Results do not indicate that the theory is correct, they indicate that he is getting some good results.

Larrin has a PhD in metallurgy. He studied heat treating for his thesis. He is not challenging the heat treat, just some of the gibberish.

Hoss
 
bluntcut said:
Larrin, I appreciate of your input/comments. Per OP - I generated good (ok maybe not magical) results, now finally shared the 'how' to replicate. I envisioned/hypothesized/conjectured 'why' it worked but would be delighted for someone to show us reality of metallurgical 'why' it works.
Click to expand...

DevinT said:
Results do not indicate that the theory is correct, they indicate that he is getting some good results.

Larrin has a PhD in metallurgy. He studied heat treating for his thesis. He is not challenging the heat treat, just some of the gibberish.

Hoss
Click to expand...

I would present that I have never seen results like those he has been getting. Have you? WHY is he getting these results? He has proposed, without photo-micrographs (which have been around for.. how long?) what he calls "hand-waving-metallurgy" theory to explain why he is getting these results, but is happy to have it explained to him as he states multiple times including the recent post#244 and:

As I stated before - it could be that I got good result for wrong reasons (thus lucky me). Hopefully my concept panned out because I see easy evolution of it for everybody to work on.
Click to expand...

and again post #255

...I envisioned/hypothesized/conjectured 'why' it worked but would be delighted for someone to show us reality of metallurgical 'why' it works...
Click to expand...

Larrin objects that the theory is literal nonsense:

...There is no "outer structure" of martensite. Martensite laths or plates grow from boundary to boundary, not around boundaries...

...I believe what you are saying is that the later martensite will have a different "lattice orientation" than that initially formed. But there is not reason to think that. Martensite forms with specific orientation relationships to the parent austensite.
Click to expand...

It sounds like "gibberish" and the lack of a metallurgy PhD in Luong are not the issues at all. To quote Larrin's post#254:

... you've hypothesized a theoretically impossible microstructure ...
Click to expand...

THAT RIGHT THERE is the sticking point. Luong has achieved something, he knows not what but THINKS it might be this. He does not see how he can prove whether or not his theory is correct except by publishing the HT strategy so others can replicate it and maybe discover the truth. NOW cannot the theory be tested? It matters what is going on - it matters to Luong or he would not have presented it, it matters to Larrin or he would not have called it nonsense.

I work in a different scientific field. We experiment with compounds as potential therapeutic agents. I recently observed a novel and repeatable phenomenon... but i lack the resources to uncover the precise mechanism by which it occurs. It requires further research, probably by someone other than me, but the means to achieving the results must be published before someone else can elucidate the mechanism. NO researcher that i know EVER publishes such results without adding a theory to explain them. MANY researchers publish results along with explanations that they THINK they have tested but are later proved wrong. *shrug*

In Luong's instance, he seems to have developed the hypothesis ("hand-waving-metallurgy") but lacks the means to test it via EBSD, all he has to go on are the results. He already has the results and they are great :thumbup: i think (based on his NUMEROUS posts stating as much) that he will be happy with a clear, proven explanation even if his "nonsense" theory is wrong.

But demeaning his theory before even testing it when it CAN be tested... what's with that? Metallurgy isn't magic, so why are his results what they are?
 
I think you misunderstand what I've said. Luong is saying, "Legos are electric atomic sunshine rays with light speed unit cells" and I'm saying, "That doesn't make any sense."
 
@CG
You seem to be very determined to argue about this.

There are some videos showing the results. The one I watched showed a blade made from 8670 chip when struck against a steel frame. I wasn't that impressed.

You are certainly entitled to believe his theory. There are a couple of members here with metallurgy back grounds that say it doesn't make sense.

Hoss
 
Pardon my senior moment but I can't seem to recalled making such statement ;) Joking aside, please cease destructive statement next to my name:thumbdn:

I am not happy with this type of poisoning search engines with untrue/lunatic statement next to my name.
Larrin said:
I think you misunderstand what I've said. **** is saying, "Legos are electric atomic sunshine rays with light speed unit cells" and I'm saying, "That doesn't make any sense."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DevinT said:
@CG
You seem to be very determined to argue about this.

There are some videos showing the results. The one I watched showed a blade made from 8670 chip when struck against a steel frame. I wasn't that impressed.

You are certainly entitled to believe his theory. There are a couple of members here with metallurgy back grounds that say it doesn't make sense.

Hoss
Click to expand...

I'm almost completely sure that this topic is open specially for bluntcut . . . http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1411476-Search-for-the-Magic-Heat-Treatment I apologize if I'm wrong .But what about the tests, what about the results that have been achieved ?? So , what members with metallurgy back grounds have to say about that ? What about Rockwell hardness bluntcut achieved in many steel ?
Can you DevinT achieve these numbers with regular HT ?

1084 HT that gets Rc68, AEBL blades at Rc65
 
Rc hardness is no guarantee of a good HT.

There are 2 different things here.

One, Luongs heat treatment which may be a good one.

Two, Luongs theory which doesn't make sense.

High hardness is not difficult, high hardness with good toughness is.

Hoss
 
The only quantitative testing that has been done is Rockwell testing. The hardness numbers are not unreasonable. They can be achieved with "regular" heat treatment. Anyone who has done any heat treating knows the values published in data sheets are not absolute maximums.
 
Larrin said:
The only quantitative testing that has been done is Rockwell testing. The hardness numbers are not unreasonable. They can be achieved with "regular" heat treatment. Anyone who has done any heat treating knows the values published in data sheets are not absolute maximums.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see that , and whether they have edge stability at this hardness like this from bluntcut :thumbup:
 
Can anyone out there using conventional ht to produce 69rc for cpm-m4 & 10v? If no, why not. It doesn't matter if this sample decay in 1 second after hrc test. Follow up assertion usually - does 69rc m4 useful at all? It doesn't matter because you wouldn't know due to lacked of knowledge & experience.
 
Natlek said:
I'd love to see that , and whether they have edge stability at this hardness like this from bluntcut :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Roman Landes has done edge stability tests on AEB-L with 65 Rc from a "regular" heat treatment.
 
Hopefully, Landes has some videos or published articles on aebl 65rc edge chops 2x4 or some woods. If no conventional ht 65rc aeb-l edge can do that, then why not?

Larrin said:
Roman Landes has done edge stability tests on AEB-L with 65 Rc from a "regular" heat treatment.
Click to expand...
 
Hopefully this thread soon be showers with metallurgical insights on cwf ht microstructure (beside my hand-waving via limited BSED/SEM + metallurgical light microscope + rusty math + rusty computer science + dangerous little metallurgy skills + a big pile of mangled steels).
 
Luong,

You get result from following the steps. This should be replicable by others.
You offered your 'hand waving' explanation on why you think the steps produced the result at each phase. I don't understand even 1% of it :) :o
In any case, thank you for sharing your result of 3 years (?) tinkering with this, while you have conducted tests on your own (and cost). :thumbup:

I'll be glad if the scientists amongst members can explain what happened on each step and why / how it is the same or different from conventional HT.
Then hopefully someone with the resources can provide the required images of the structure to see if the hypothesis is correct. This is the only logical next steps IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top