Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

My recommendation would be that you use just one steel and compare the standard heat treat to the cwf heat treat.
Standardize the blade and grind for testing.
Make extra test blades and test them 4-6 weeks later and see how much loss in toughness develops. Heat treated steels lose some toughness with time.
Break all test blades and gauge toughness.
Prepare samples to be charpy tested.
Use certified test blocks to calibrate rockwell tester.
Prepare photo-micrographs and have a metallurgist look at them.
A2 would be my choice for testing because it is med alloy 1% carbon steel, kind of in the middle for a steel.
Have others try and duplicate your findings.

Hoss
 
Aust matrix can only holds Fe4C relation (4 Fe per 1 C in planar center). So, once temperature falls below ~1144C (although this is computational, it agreed quite well with my testing), MxCy precip really fast. Actually will pull some carbon from aust matrix as well <= I banged my head against this wall about 20 or 30 times trying to push higher aust. So now, you know how I came up with the answer to your previous "don't mind" question :cool:

NJBillK said:
Regarding AEB-L:
How does the chromium and carbide structure affect the stainlessness and character of the edge when it is heated to a higher aust temp?
I found the following and I was curious as to how you think it might work when it is used in conjunction with "CWT".

- Below the temperature of 1144 °C (2091 °F) the chromium-rich M7C3 primary carbides start to precipitate from the austenitic matrix, but when heated above the temperature of 1144 °C (2091 °F) the resulting martensitic microstructure will contain no primary carbides.

Paraphrased from this link:
http://www.calphad.com/AEB-L.html
Click to expand...
 
Devin, I really appreciate your inputs, so please don't construe my blunt answers more than just fact according to me (2 marbles bouncing around each other in my head).

I've though quite careful about matrix aging and of course time tested few a few KNIVES & KSOs - in my garage. It would be lousy to have an CWF ht IBeam or boom-lift or spanning cable goes soft/brittle/etc.. over time ;) If CWF stays as IP - 10 boat load of tests will be done & must be done in order to sell, sell, sell. So after many tests & examined microstrucutre with a metallurgical microscope (actually I can't see anything but blurrs with light microscope) and don't think BSED 60-100nm resolution is fine enough to see CWF microstructure, where I think resolution below 30nm is needed. Anyone have TEM & Atomic-probe I can borrow? :p

I will show CWF to the world as a path - please explore (and test the heck out of it per application) and use as appropriate or flush down...

DevinT said:
My recommendation would be that you use just one steel and compare the standard heat treat to the cwf heat treat.
Standardize the blade and grind for testing.
Make extra test blades and test them 4-6 weeks later and see how much loss in toughness develops. Heat treated steels lose some toughness with time.
Break all test blades and gauge toughness.
Prepare samples to be charpy tested.
Use certified test blocks to calibrate rockwell tester.
Prepare photo-micrographs and have a metallurgist look at them.
A2 would be my choice for testing because it is med alloy 1% carbon steel, kind of in the middle for a steel.
Have others try and duplicate your findings.

Hoss
Click to expand...

Edit to add: all typing - forgot to add about aging.
Typical aging is no more than settling of matrix defects - yes, symptoms of high dislocation (collision w/i microstructure) and incomplete conversion. I expect/project CWF matrix overall will in low potential energy state - aging rate will be order of magnitude less than conventional ht.
 
Last edited:
Asking your own questions and then giving the answers is not science. Speculation is not proof of something. Still looks like quackery to me.

Hoss
 
Look.... there in the sky - thousands of objects are streaking toward us. Landed. People open up cocooned objects - a blade inside each cocoon. Area51 tested material is 10V and untempered at 69rc. This blade is sharp and durable. A few knife makers found similar objects.

Scientific this :p
 
DevinT said:
Asking your own questions and then giving the answers is not science. Speculation is not proof of something. Still looks like quackery to me.

Hoss
Click to expand...

I'd tried that approach already....nobody seemed to care. Apparently they still don't.
 
I'm having a realy hard time taking you seriously. It looks like self promotion. Still haven't seen any science yet.

Hoss
 
This thread will either be an epic scientific success or a complete fiasco.
No middle ground here.

People are saying that this new HT and Nathan's HT is better than Busses... The reality is that Busse has shown excellent edge stability good wear resistance and huge toughness (flex tests etc...) I still need to see the same level of all around awesomness from these other HT processes.
 
Revolverrodger said:
This thread will either be an epic scientific success or a complete fiasco.
No middle ground here.

People are saying that this new HT and Nathan's HT is better than Busses... The reality is that Busse has shown excellent edge stability good wear resistance and huge toughness (flex tests etc...) I still need to see the same level of all around awesomness from these other HT processes.
Click to expand...

Uh-oh, now my name has been drug into this.

For the record, I've never claimed to have a better heat treat than Jerry Busse. On the contrary, I have a Busse in Infi as one of my control standards I use when evaluating work because it is a gold standard in rough use edge retention.

I have claimed to get 3V where it equals the gross edge stability of Infi in rough use. And that is a significant achievement in my opinion. 3V has an advantage over Infi in abrasive wear, that's incontestable. So, for many applications a well optimized 3V can have superior edge retention. But, as I've said many times before, an extreme application (where the blade will take damage) Infi will take less damage than even the best 3V. They're both very tough, and they both hold an edge pretty well. Infi is tougher, 3V can have better edge retention.

I'm very confident in this, I've proven it to myself and others many times. But if any competent tester wants to put them side by side in a controlled and scientific test I'm happy to do so.

My concern in comparative tests is the lack of control in variables in folks that are really not properly setup to do controlled accurate testing. People often think they are, but frequently they aren't controlling all the variables as well as they think they are. When there is a large difference in the quality of the test samples it may be moot, but when they're close, and one sample is 18 DPS and the other is 20 DPS, and the tester doesn't know it, that's a problem. Or someone burns an edge preparing the samples. Or the media being cut or the technique aren't really identical. I'm sure Jerry doesn't like having his work compared to others when the folks doing the test don't have a good handle on this stuff, and I don't either.
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
Uh-oh, now my name has been drug into this.

For the record, I've never claimed to have a better heat treat than Jerry Busse. On the contrary, I have a Busse in Infi as one of my control standards I use when evaluating work because it is a gold standard in rough use edge retention.

I have claimed to get 3V where it equals the gross edge stability of Infi in rough use. And that is a significant achievement in my opinion. 3V has an advantage over Infi in abrasive wear, that's incontestable. So, for many applications a well optimized 3V can have superior edge retention. But, as I've said many times before, an extreme application (where the blade will take damage) Infi will take less damage than even the best 3V. They're both very tough, and they both hold an edge pretty well. Infi is tougher, 3V can have better edge retention.

I'm very confident in this, I've proven it to myself and others many times. But if any competent tester wants to put them side by side in a controlled and scientific test I'm happy to do so.

My concern in comparative tests is the lack of control in variables in folks that are really not properly setup to do controlled accurate testing. People often think they are, but frequently they aren't controlling all the variables as well as they think they are. When there is a large difference in the quality of the test samples it may be moot, but when they're close, and one sample is 18 DPS and the other is 20 DPS, and the tester doesn't know it, that's a problem. Or someone burns an edge preparing the samples. Or the media being cut or the technique aren't really identical. I'm sure Jerry doesn't like having his work compared to others when the folks doing the test don't have a good handle on this stuff, and I don't either.
Click to expand...

Is there an update on the test sample you were given by bluntcut?
 
craytab said:
Is there an update on the test sample you were given by bluntcut?
Click to expand...

Sure. He claimed it was HRC 65 plus. I measured it at HRC 65.5

The edge geometry is more obtuse than my test standards and needs to be adjusted for a meaningful evaluation. I'm processing my own orders right now but I should be able to re-profile it properly for evaluation tomorrow.

All of that said: preliminary observations look promising, and I did chop through some 2X4s without incident. Chopping with a HRC 65+ chopper was a little scary, but it did just fine.
 
Yesterday, I told a friend in Israel - I'll mostly offline the rest of the week. That will start in a few hrs...

Isn't evidence the strongest scientific proof of existence? Is evidence useful/good? This hunter ain't going to cook the food 1000's ways and scientifically prove that it tastes good in your mouth.

bluntcut said:
Look.... there in the sky - thousands of objects are streaking toward us. Landed. People open up cocooned objects - a blade inside each cocoon. Area51 tested material is 10V and untempered at 69rc. This blade is sharp and durable. A few knife makers found similar objects.

Scientific this :p
Click to expand...
 
True, but a hunter who tries his whole life but only bags one prey animal isn't a "hunter", he just got lucky once in his lifetime.

;)
Mind you, sometimes all we need is a little luck.
-------
I haven't kept up on this thread. I will be trying to catch up on what I missed and see if I have any questions or ideas that spring to mind.
 
NJBillK said:
True, but a hunter who tries his whole life but only bags one prey animal isn't a "hunter", he just got lucky once in his lifetime.

;)
Mind you, sometimes all we need is a little luck.
-------
I haven't kept up on this thread. I will be trying to catch up on what I missed and see if I have any questions or ideas that spring to mind.
Click to expand...
Well if he takes a lifetime to take down some bunny I'd agree.
If however he takes a lifetime to bag the elusive Bigfoot, which nobody else was able to, he might be the best hunter known to mankind. :-)
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
Sure. He claimed it was HRC 65 plus. I measured it at HRC 65.5

The edge geometry is more obtuse than my test standards and needs to be adjusted for a meaningful evaluation. I'm processing my own orders right now but I should be able to re-profile it properly for evaluation tomorrow.

All of that said: preliminary observations look promising, and I did chop through some 2X4s without incident. Chopping with a HRC 65+ chopper was a little scary, but it did just fine.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine a 2" wide flat grind chef's knife at 65+ Rc? It should hold an edge for a LONG time - provided the edge doesn't chip!!! I'm sure looking forward to trying this new HT method with AEB-L :)

Ken H>
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
Sure. He claimed it was HRC 65 plus. I measured it at HRC 65.5

The edge geometry is more obtuse than my test standards and needs to be adjusted for a meaningful evaluation. I'm processing my own orders right now but I should be able to re-profile it properly for evaluation tomorrow.

All of that said: preliminary observations look promising, and I did chop through some 2X4s without incident. Chopping with a HRC 65+ chopper was a little scary, but it did just fine.
Click to expand...

Cool! I look forward to your results. What are you going to test? Are you going to run two identical samples to the same hardness but with different HTs and see which HT performs better?

Ultimately that is what I'd love to see.
 
marcinek said:
Cool! I look forward to your results. What are you going to test? Are you going to run two identical samples to the same hardness but with different HTs and see which HT performs better?

Ultimately that is what I'd love to see.
Click to expand...

I would like to do that, but it's not in the cards at the moment.

My standard protocol when evaluating a tweak to a heat treat is comparative in nature, meaning it doesn't generate a numerical value. It's not totally scientific because there are aspects that are subjective and there are components of the test itself that, by their nature, are difficult to remove a human element. But, it's a useful approach when comparing heat treat samples and determining if a change is "good" or "bad" because the tests closely simulate real use, whereas things like CATRA testing and impact numbers don't always correlate well to real use. I've developed these tests for my own development work, they were never intended to prove anything to other people, but they are repeatable and they are predictive, so it may be of some use. To me the biggest problem is I'll be comparing the provided knife to other good performing 3V standards, but not to another HRC 65.5 3V standard. So, while I'll be able to say yes it works well in the tests, or no it doesn't, I won't be able to say the new processes is demonstrably better than the old process because I have no "old process" for 65.5 3V. But, drawing on experience and common sense I think a good outcome could be viewed as a positive development simply because extremely high hardness steel in general lacks the toughness to hold an edge well in rough use. So, unfortunately it may not be as scientific as we'd all like, but it may still be informative.

The tests compares a specimen to a control and a group of known standards. Specific cuts are made in specific media and the edge is observed under bright light and magnification. The edge geometry is tightly controlled, and the standards generally go through the media side-by-side to reduce effects of changes to the media from test to test. This is very time consuming to setup so I won't be doing all the cardboard and leather cuts I often do, but I'll go directly to the cuts that look at edge stability and durability. Those are 2X4 cuts, carving up seasoned pressure treated lumber, carving up Osage orange, chopping Osage orange, carving slivers from a nail, and finally nail cuts.

It's impossible to take a human element from these tests, so I acknowledge they're not perfect. But I do two side by side and repeatably is generally good, so I take the information I see from this as having value.

I don't know, because I haven't tried it, but I think full hard untempered 3V sharpened at 18 DPS would normally do badly in many of these cuts. Unfortunately I don't have a full hard sample to run though as a control. But, if the provided test blade does well at this I would see that as evidence that something that Luong is doing is novel. At least to me.

I don't expect the outcome of this to be a definitive outcome. But, if it compares well to other known good samples, and untempered 3V would generally not be expected to do so, that would tell me his process warrants a closer look.
 
Nathan the Machinist said:
I would like to do that, but it's not in the cards at the moment.

My standard protocol when evaluating a tweak to a heat treat is comparative in nature, meaning it doesn't generate a numerical value. It's not totally scientific because there are aspects that are subjective and there are components of the test itself that, by their nature, are difficult to remove a human element. But, it's a useful approach when comparing heat treat samples and determining if a change is "good" or "bad" because the tests closely simulate real use, whereas things like CATRA testing and impact numbers don't always correlate well to real use. I've developed these tests for my own development work, they were never intended to prove anything to other people, but they are repeatable and they are predictive, so it may be of some use. To me the biggest problem is I'll be comparing the provided knife to other good performing 3V standards, but not to another HRC 65.5 3V standard. So, while I'll be able to say yes it works well in the tests, or no it doesn't, I won't be able to say the new processes is demonstrably better than the old process because I have no "old process" for 65.5 3V. But, drawing on experience and common sense I think a good outcome could be viewed as a positive development simply because extremely high hardness steel in general lacks the toughness to hold an edge well in rough use. So, unfortunately it may not be as scientific as we'd all like, but it may still be informative.

The tests compares a specimen to a control and a group of known standards. Specific cuts are made in specific media and the edge is observed under bright light and magnification. The edge geometry is tightly controlled, and the standards generally go through the media side-by-side to reduce effects of changes to the media from test to test. This is very time consuming to setup so I won't be doing all the cardboard and leather cuts I often do, but I'll go directly to the cuts that look at edge stability and durability. Those are 2X4 cuts, carving up seasoned pressure treated lumber, carving up Osage orange, chopping Osage orange, carving slivers from a nail, and finally nail cuts.

It's impossible to take a human element from these tests, so I acknowledge they're not perfect. But I do two side by side and repeatably is generally good, so I take the information I see from this as having value.

I don't know, because I haven't tried it, but I think full hard untempered 3V sharpened at 18 DPS would normally do badly in many of these cuts. Unfortunately I don't have a full hard sample to run though as a control. But, if the provided test blade does well at this I would see that as evidence that something that Luong is doing is novel. At least to me.

I don't expect the outcome of this to be a definitive outcome. But, if it compares well to other known good samples, and untempered 3V would generally not be expected to do so, that would tell me his process warrants a closer look.
Click to expand...

Very well said and easy to understand. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top