infi development... is there a story??

[Geoff]

Part of this is true. Unfortunately, the spectral testing which I had done does not detect nitrogen. Nor did the testing done by the forum member who originally figured out INFI's original formula. So we do not know if nitrogen is still in INFI or not. There is another missing element from modern INFI but it was also missing in M-INFI.

Cobalt,

What type of analysis did you do?

Just curious.

I have access to a couple of Rigaku XRFs

 

[The Last Confederate]

Part of this is true. Unfortunately, the spectral testing which I had done does not detect nitrogen. Nor did the testing done by the forum member who originally figured out INFI's original formula. So we do not know if nitrogen is still in INFI or not. There is another missing element from modern INFI but it was also missing in M-INFI.

The other element being cobalt...no offense! M-Infi (modern infi) was cheaper / easier to produce and found to be just about as good, which is why they didn't just offer regular INFI in the basic line. Keep in mind, all the busse knife proof tests were done with a basic 9 and m-infi, though I think the success of the cutting challenge (cutting hemp rope for so long) had more to do with the edge geometry at the time (asymmetrical) than the steel per say. Not that infi isn't a great steel, but it isn't known for the best edge retention, 52100 is much better than it in that regard for example.

About the origins of INFI, one of the original Busse articles / reviews from the late 90's made mention of how with "modern computer technology", different steel formulas can be conceived, tested, and created without all the trial, error, and expense of physically mixing properties and testing. So maybe that had something to do with it, it would be much easier if a CAD software could help one theorize different properties for a hypothetical steel than trying to have steel companies physically experiment with mixing and smelting different alloys. I'll see if I can find the article that mentioned it.

 

[hexenjager]

About when was the changeover from original infi to modern infi? Also, does one have any advantage over the other?

 

[JohnTheTexican]

The other element being cobalt...no offense! M-Infi (modern infi) was cheaper / easier to produce and found to be just about as good, which is why they didn't just offer regular INFI in the basic line.....

If I remember the old ads correctly, the "m" in the original Basic line was for "modified," not "modern." And as I recall, "modified INFI" was advertised as being nearly as good as regular INFI, but more affordable. I'm pretty sure that it isn't the same as the current formulation of INFI, as "modern INFI" seems to suggest. Jerry has pretty adamant that the current formulation of INFI is every bit as good as the original version--better even--and that they have never changed the composition because of cost.

 

[The Last Confederate]

If I remember the old ads correctly, the "m" in the original Basic line was for "modified," not "modern." And as I recall, "modified INFI" was advertised as being nearly as good as regular INFI, but more affordable. I'm pretty sure that it isn't the same as the current formulation of INFI, as "modern INFI" seems to suggest. Jerry has pretty adamant that the current formulation of INFI is every bit as good as the original version--better even--and that they have never changed the composition because of cost.

You realize that the thread you link pretty much proves my point, right? I know that M-infi originally stood for Modified Infi, but I am calling it modern INFI because that's exactly what it is. The current (or modern) INFI formula is the same as M-infi. Here are some posts from Cobalt from that thread that you referenced.

Good guess. Both nickel and cobalt are expensive. And making a formulation for limited production like Busse was/is expensive. The new formula being closer to mod A8 is certainly much more economical and probably offers the same level of toughness at the reduced cost. Nickel adds toughness and Cobalt adds resistance to heat and increases strength. Both add corrosion resistance. You can attain higher hardness with slight additions of Cobalt. Nickel gives you added toughness. Thus the old INFI liked to live at 60-62 instead of todays INFI living at 58-60. If you look at the performance of old INFI it never chipped, not even at a higher hardness than modern infi.

Quote Originally Posted by Robdude View Post
"So are you saying the current INFI falls below the performance level of the original? an is the scenario you pointed out something you know to have happened? Just curious what leads you to believe it lacks in performance in comparison to the early INFI..? You mentioned tests that showed a difference in its composition..but what leads you to believe its performance suffered due to the change? Just curious?"

Based on the toughness I have seen out of modern INFI and the original Basics(same thing) I would say that in the toughness department, no. Based on my own experience with corrosion resistance and edge holding was definitely on the side of the cobalt/nickel INFI formula and higher hardness. Anyone who has used the INFI in the old Steel hearts and BM's knows how that edge just seemed to go on forever.

Here goes. I did test an ergo and I did test an old basic. And yes, Modern INFI is modified INFI from the original basics(at least according to my tests and in my opinion). The ergo BM I tested lacked cobalt and nickel as well, so you see, the modern INFI has been around since, oh lets say 1999 ish. It was a more economical alternative to the more expensive original INFI.

So all this talk about INFI changing in modern times is not the case. The current formula of INFI has been around since nearly the beginning. Nothing has changed since there was two formulas for INFI. Get it....

What gave me the hint was my FBMLE. I tested that one first. Then I knew something was up.

Edited to add, that since I have only tested a few knives nothing is truly conclusive, just like any other kind of testing, it is with many samples that you get a good idea of what is going on. Also, the testing method I used does not detect Nitrogen or Carbon. The presumption is that those have not changed.

Here is a pic of the test results Cobalt did of the steel from an original SHBM and a FBM

 

[Cobalt]

If I remember the old ads correctly, the "m" in the original Basic line was for "modified," not "modern." And as I recall, "modified INFI" was advertised as being nearly as good as regular INFI, but more affordable. I'm pretty sure that it isn't the same as the current formulation of INFI, as "modern INFI" seems to suggest. Jerry has pretty adamant that the current formulation of INFI is every bit as good as the original version--better even--and that they have never changed the composition because of cost.

I am sure it is. In fact, I would not be surprised if the current formula for INFI(same as m-INFI) might actually be tougher than the original INFI. Pure speculation of course. I do believe the old INFI held a better edge, but I believe that it was because most of those original INFI blades were Rc of 61 vs 59 of today.

Cobalt,

What type of analysis did you do?

Just curious.

I have access to a couple of Rigaku XRFs

Niton XL2 I believe.

 

[Cobalt]

The other element being cobalt...no offense! M-Infi (modern infi) was cheaper / easier to produce and found to be just about as good, which is why they didn't just offer regular INFI in the basic line. Keep in mind, all the busse knife proof tests were done with a basic 9 and m-infi, though I think the success of the cutting challenge (cutting hemp rope for so long) had more to do with the edge geometry at the time (asymmetrical) than the steel per say. Not that infi isn't a great steel, but it isn't known for the best edge retention, 52100 is much better than it in that regard for example.

About the origins of INFI, one of the original Busse articles / reviews from the late 90's made mention of how with "modern computer technology", different steel formulas can be conceived, tested, and created without all the trial, error, and expense of physically mixing properties and testing. So maybe that had something to do with it, it would be much easier if a CAD software could help one theorize different properties for a hypothetical steel than trying to have steel companies physically experiment with mixing and smelting different alloys. I'll see if I can find the article that mentioned it.

I always thought Cobalt was the most important element in INFI

Jerry did proof tests with both INFI and m-INFI.

 

[papathud]

Several really Good Stories, bu those are Jerry's Stories to tell.

Excitement,

Innovation,

Tragedy,

Fear,

Repeatability ?

Success,

Marketing,

And Yes, Romance!

 

[Blain]

I am sure it is. In fact, I would not be surprised if the current formula for INFI(same as m-INFI) might actually be tougher than the original INFI. Pure speculation of course. I do believe the old INFI held a better edge, but I believe that it was because most of those original INFI blades were Rc of 61 vs 59 of today.

The current infi / m-infi might indeed be tougher, but only because it is at a lower rockwell than the original infi. Put both at 59 Rc, and the old formula may indeed prove to be tougher still!

Nevertheless, if the toughness at 59 is comparable, but the original infi kept a better edge, was more chip resistant, and more corrosion resistant, I would still give the nod to the original formula. Too bad Jerry doesn't do a run of the original steel and call it "infi-classic"!

 

[Cobalt]

Can't argue with that. Who knows.

 

[unklfranco]

When asked what INFI was I answered "I've No F#+!?n Idea." My Busse knives have never chipped and that includes a scrapmax 340 I use for food prep. Even my OKC RAT 1 has never chipped so I guess QC and the.geometries are the "$ecret formula". Works for me

P.S. OP2WKS suggestion is DSF.