Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

Bill - you chopped with this chopper before ... this time it only bit 2/5 into the flattened aluminum rod = couldn't see much with naked eyes, however under 22x loupe, I see a few tiny ripples on this 2K watertone edge.
Bill1170 said:
How did the edge fare where it contacted the metal object that was under the pod?
Click to expand...
 
bluntcut said:
Bill - you chopped with this chopper before ... this time it only bit 2/5 into the flattened aluminum rod = couldn't see much with naked eyes, however under 22x loupe, I see a few tiny ripples on this 2K watertone edge.
Click to expand...
I recognized the knife alright. I’m glad the rod was aluminum. Might want a more obtuse final bevel for ferrous metal!
 
Bill1170 said:
I recognized the knife alright. I’m glad the rod was aluminum. Might want a more obtuse final bevel for ferrous metal!
Click to expand...

I will be ridiculous here and demand "less acute" for your suggestion, not "more obtuse" unless you mean to indicate that the initial edge was sharpened at >45' dps! "Obtuse" implies >90' and anything less than or equal to 90' can never be properly described as more or less "obtuse". For any angle <90', it can only be described as more or less acute. That is all, and apologies for the interruption.

Good stuff here :thumbsup::)
 
chiral.grolim said:
I will be ridiculous here and demand "less acute" for your suggestion, not "more obtuse" unless you mean to indicate that the initial edge was sharpened at >45' dps! "Obtuse" implies >90' and anything less than or equal to 90' can never be properly described as more or less "obtuse". For any angle <90', it can only be described as more or less acute. That is all, and apologies for the interruption.

Good stuff here :thumbsup::)
Click to expand...
Not ridiculous at all. I’m happy to be corrected. I had somehow got the idea that acute and obtuse could indicate directions along the continuum from 0 to 180 degrees, but this is not the case. Thank you for pointing that out.
 
Acute & Obtuse terminologies should match common sense: Narrow & Wide. Oh well, 'obtuse' probably deep rooted in math eon ago.
chiral.grolim said:
I will be ridiculous here and demand "less acute" for your suggestion, not "more obtuse" unless you mean to indicate that the initial edge was sharpened at >45' dps! "Obtuse" implies >90' and anything less than or equal to 90' can never be properly described as more or less "obtuse". For any angle <90', it can only be described as more or less acute. That is all, and apologies for the interruption.

Good stuff here :thumbsup::)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was fun to chop this palm pod and video captured at 960fps.
Chris "Anagarika" said:
Luong,

Nice video! Looks like those katana chopping and totally enjoyable! :thumbsup: :p
Click to expand...

I've done this quite a few times before and probably doom to repeat :oops:
Bill1170 said:
Not ridiculous at all. I’m happy to be corrected. I had somehow got the idea that acute and obtuse could indicate directions along the continuum from 0 to 180 degrees, but this is not the case. Thank you for pointing that out.
Click to expand...

This weekend - maybe - I will ht vanax & s690 aim for peak hrc 64 & 67 respectively. Then temper 200C target hrc to 62.5rc & 64.5-65rc.
 
HT 2.51 - Blades currently at peak & tempered HRC.

vanax blade 62rc - low aust temp for abusive tests. 61rc/350F.

*previous vanax blade 62rc/390F tempered.

15v 70+rc, 69rc/350F, 68rc/390F

s125v 67.5+rc, 67rc/350F, 66rc/390F

s690/m4 chopper 68+rc, 66.5rc/425F, 66.5rc/450F.
 
Last edited:
Test pressure cut 16D nail. I want hardness of this chopper be around 64rc at temper temperature at 450F but oh well, 66.5rc so be it.

Sorry about a little fuzzy video because the camera helper stayed a bit too far away.


Edge afterward
KcaoEWV.jpg
 
bluntcut said:
*** Notice - video/topic is quite abstract, thus guarantee boredom for most of you ***

Somewhere in this thread, I mentioned CWF is an applied narrow field from my much broader quest of Physics Fundamental. The video below is just a perspective/state on current Physics, hence it isn't my main endeavor. Nevertheless, it is applicable to Metallurgy (eventually).


Non-electromagnetic model should correctly consists of Right and Left Handed/twisted fields. RH field flows from North to South pole. LH field flows from South to North pole.

Correct vs current incomplete model of magnetic field
https://i.imgur.com/f97vtvJ.png

Wikipedia image of standard/existing magnetic field model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#/media/File:VFPt_magnets_BHM.svg

Rene' Descarte Mag Field - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Descartes_magnetic_field.jpg

Vector Field: https://i.imgur.com/O0eabFb.png

2 magnets opposing fields - 70 degrees V configuration: https://i.imgur.com/PhPwDek.png

Hex config - North opposing poles: https://i.imgur.com/CCe467a.jpg

Zoom-in result of 2 South free poles from hex config: https://i.imgur.com/eb7ULUm.jpg

Sun Corona magnetic flux RH & LH twisted field with current flow triggered plasma discharge
https://i.imgur.com/O2LtDxu.png

NASA - Fiery Looping Rain on the Sun -

**==============**
Consider in context of this video *** With only RH field, magnet would lose its energy quickly and accelerate in certain direction due to asymmetrical field momentum ***

27–2Energy conservation and electromagnetism
27–6 Field momentum - http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_27.html

Current (incomplete) Physics Magnetic field lines (vectors) - flows from N to S in this image: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f27-06/f27-06_tc_big.svgz

To be publish: ***** Motion Theory *****
Energy structure (matter) persistent field state. Field structures correspond to motion of object - 2nd level fundamental force. Interactions (tensor field) between objects.

Configurations of motion(fundamental force) equivalent to Strong, Electroweak and Gravity Forces.
Click to expand...


Luong, don't waste your time with the standard (incorrect) ideas of magnetic field models. Check this out, just one of a series that shows what's REALLY going on! :O

 
Thanks. I speed watched the video. If you like this one, perhaps should check out ThunderBolts Project (the actual Electric Universe Group) - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

My next video will be here in a couple days - showing an experiment (everyone can replicate and getting same result) proved pull/attract/bond force direction doesn't exists. i.e. nature only force direction is push. I am doing a top-down debut of my Motion Theory.

Mecha said:
Luong, don't waste your time with the standard (incorrect) ideas of magnetic field models. Check this out, just one of a series that shows what's REALLY going on! :O

...
Click to expand...
 
bluntcut said:
Thanks. I speed watched the video. If you like this one, perhaps should check out ThunderBolts Project (the actual Electric Universe Group) - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

My next video will be here in a couple days - showing an experiment (everyone can replicate and getting same result) proved pull/attract/bond force direction doesn't exists. i.e. nature only force direction is push. I am doing a top-down debut of my Motion Theory.
Click to expand...

Seen 'em all (what I meant by 'a series'), and some time you should slow-watch that one if you get the time. X] Sounds like a cool video you're making, I'd like to see it.
 
If you like this series (I scanned a couple more - slow), might consider Sky Scholar channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL7QIOZteWPpBWBOl8i0e-g
There are way too many ideas/concepts out there however less than a handful would dare to touch 'gravity' in complexity. At any rate, let's done with external OT links. I am.

Mecha said:
Seen 'em all (what I meant by 'a series'), and some time you should slow-watch that one if you get the time. X] Sounds like a cool video you're making, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...
 
Nitro-V (Consider as: aebl plus 0.1%V, 0.1%N)
0.165" thick, 11" blade, 16.5" OAL
63rc@390F tempered, HT S2.5

Chop materials: 2x4, electrical wire, bamboo, oak, pork rib bone, 16Ga annealed wire.

Video: 92 seconds

 
bluntcut said:
Nitro-V (Consider as: aebl plus 0.1%V, 0.1%N)
0.165" thick, 11" blade, 16.5" OAL
63rc@390F tempered, HT S2.5

Chop materials: 2x4, electrical wire, bamboo, oak, pork rib bone, 16Ga annealed wire.

Video: 92 seconds

Click to expand...
Just to be clear, that wire wrapped around the branch and chopped is annealed steel wire, correct?
 
Mecha said:
Luong, don't waste your time with the standard (incorrect) ideas of magnetic field models. Check this out, just one of a series that shows what's REALLY going on! :O

Click to expand...


Mecha, this electric universe thing has been debunked by 99%+ of physicists...

http://www.everythingselectric.com/electric-universe-debunked/

I'm not sure if you offered this video as a sarcastic comment to bluntcut or if you're saying you really think the electric universe has merit?

at a very basic level - neutrinos from the sun are clearly observed, but according to eu theory, they should not exist

I'm curious about what you really think?
 
I made the post below about gravity recently.

Motion Theory - Gravity consists of:
1. Ambient Energy gradient
2. Coherent Push Field
3. Decoherent/elemental Field Stream

NewtonGravity avg-curve fitted (2. + 3.) gravity points for eyeball size system. MOND - impromptu curve fitting.

GeneralRelativity warped space + NewtonG via mathematic conveniences. Warped Space was revolutionary thought 100 years ago, which barely describe the affect/behavior of 1. Not even attempted to describe - what it is - we end up with magical spatial warping. *philosophically - I feel sad for human generations(includes a bit of me) wasted brain on SpaceTime.

DipoleElectroGravity - Covers 2 quite well in spite using 'Attract' force. It compute #s for gravity influence almost matched reality, especially for a system involves high coherent fields. Discrepancies readily apparent in situations: photon/EM refract/bend, gravity between 2 charge-neutral (neutrino?) masses, responding force vector direction lag behind, ..

We need to understand (or come up with reality-based congruent guesses): What is energy. What energy does. Mechanism of energy motion. Structures of energy. Mechanism of object(energy structure with detectable volume surface) motion. Then derive a gravity model that make reality sense and not full of holes.

Energy is physical, few order of magnitude smaller than our ability to observe. *please avoid extra mythical dimensions - by String Theory.
​
Edit - back to CWF: This week, I will ht 440C for the first time. From testing, I couldn't tell the perf different between S125V 66rc and S110V 65.5rc. 15V 68rc is definitely tougher than both of S1xxV.

Edit2: I need to circle back to nano-grain 64+rc Cfv/W2/O1 reference choppers. Also time to applies MT Physics to achieve a new advancement toward ht 3.0.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top