Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.
phaserrifle said:
I fail to see the point in the Noss tests, outside of entertainment.
you can put most knives through all sorts of rough treatment before they break. you can break everything eventually, it just takes time (and the appropriate number of sledgehammer blows)
add to that the factor that half of the "destruction testing" he's doing isn't something you'd do with a knife anyway, and you end with something that might be a better test of a chisel than a knife. if we where talking a scientific test, with reproduceable, repeateable results, (so everything is done in exactly the same way) and producing quantitative data, rather than qualitative ("it broke after X pounds of pressure where applied", not "it broke when I tried to hammer it through the third cinder block") then it might have more use, as you could draw up a table comparing strength, weight, edge holding ect, to enable easier comparison of different knives to assist in the decision process. rather than this, which if you really wanted to, could be bent out of shape through how you interpret it, and doesn't include factors such as edge holding anyway.

and as a mora fanboy, yes, he probably has destroyed my favorite knife, but there you go, it doesn't supprise me that it didn't hold up as well as, say, a busse. but then I payed £10 for it rather than £200, so what do I expect.
Click to expand...

Hey, looky there.... another voice of reason.

And I agree that it is purely entertainment--that sort existing roughly on the same level as MTV's "Jackass."
 
Guyon said:
Why is it you can't seem to live with the fact that some folks think The Great Hockey Mask performs dumb stunts to the detriment of the knife community?
Click to expand...
I wanted to see if there were any real arguments to support the theory that he's damaging knife community somehow. Which is why I tried to get more info out of the theory supporters, but it didn't go too far.


Guyon said:
Can you not exist peaceably with such an opinion out there in the world?
Click to expand...
Funny you should ask that. Yes, I can. And I manage to express my opinion and position without personal insults and name calling. Also, I don't see the need to bring up arguments like "we know better".
 
Gator97 said:
I wanted to see if there were any real arguments to support the theory that he's damaging knife community somehow.
Click to expand...

One could argue that MTV's Jackass does nothing to dumb down the viewing public. Of course, you'd be wrong, but you could make that argument.
 
To those who have attempted to reason with the fools, let me remind you that these people have absolutely no critical thinking skills. Our educational system has done well.

“Dumbed down”, indeed.

Consider what we witness:

Using terminology involving true scientific methods will always fall on deaf ears when the ears have been indoctrinated by relativism. Those who have never been taught any truth at all cannot understand it, even when it is plainly presented.

Noss and Cliff are modern unscientific folk hero’s that masquerade as legitimate scientists.

No wonder socialism is a popular concept. Useful idiots abound.

Pointless destruction, (of anything), is no longer a shameful endeavor. It is something to be admired.

Harming legitimate knife makers through crass, unscientific methodology, while posing as legitimate, amounts to slander. Those who approve of such behavior are just as guilty.
(Reviews are not the same as tests. Don’t confuse them.)

Any modern Rambo that thinks these “tests” have any bearing on what constitutes a worthy knife have no clue what it takes to survive in the wilderness. They live in a dream world.

Knifetests.com does serve a very useful purpose. It is a canary in America’s coal mine, and the bird is dead.
 
I didn't read last 5 or 6 pages of the conversation, because I'm pretty sure that it just the same stuff as on the first 5 or so pages. Some like the videos, some don't, others stay in the middle. I think that there are a lot of people who are right in their own way.

I think that calling procedure" knife tests" is wrong. Even "toughness or durability test" name wouldn't really apply. Tough compared to what? Knives are built from different materials, have different designs, thickness, length etc... and they are scored on the same scale. Manufacturer can call the knife tough compared to their own offerings. And they are right. Their Knife-A is tough compared to Knife-B. They don't claim that their knife is tougher than a knife from other manufacturer. There is no need to prove them wrong, because they didn't make the statement in the first place. The quest to score each knife against the other is wrong.

On the other hand, I do see the value of the videos. For example, I can see how much a 1/8', 3/16" 1/4' (or whatever) metal piece of 1095, INFI, S30V (or whatever else) grinded, sharpened and heat treated can take. The reviewers actions and conclusions are probably not very consistent, but they give others at least an idea of what to expect. When I see a part of the knife being broken, I can evaluate very subjectively how much force it took to get it broken. For example, if I stuck in situation where I need to pry the door (or whatever else) open, I want to have an idea if I should even try to do the task with the knife I have on me, should I ask my 300 pound buddy to help me with his weight, etc. All this is very subjective, but I'd rather see Noss doing destruction, then check the limits myself.

What I really don't like is his scoring system and comparison of one knife to another solely based on this destruction. Even more I don't like him or others taking his opinion and declaring it as the only truth there is.

I can see how a novice can claim that his sharpened 1/4" barely grinded pry bar is overall better than some other 1/8" ZDP-189 knife based on the scores of those destruction tests. I can see how manufacturers can shift their production more to the pry bar side, if that novice demand is high enough. In theory this might be a problem. But in real life, I think, there are a lot more people who understand the difference.

In the end, if someone would've asked me "Destruction or no-Destruction ?". I would choose to have the videos. I also wish for refined and standardized procedure.
 
Gator97 said:
Then it would be a formal fallacy to apply machine testing results to humans... At least not until we all have bionic hands.
Click to expand...

That assumes that the nature of the wear is different when a human cuts with a knife versus having a machine provide the cutting force equally every time. I don't believe that, and no one has ever proved it as far as I am aware. I think it is repeated because stamp used to say it all the time from interpeting some stuff about razor edges from a a German metallurgist. really I would be interested to see any confirmation of this. Even if lateral forces proved to be important to the nature of wear on a knife edge, I don't think it would be difficult to design a machine that provided a repeatable lateral force to each cut.

Are you trying to say that just because humans act in an unrepeatable fashion, that you can't scientifically test a machine to find out how well it works or how safe it is for humans? I don't think that is true.

Gator97 said:
M2 steel is routinely hardened to 66HRC and used to cut steel for few months... Very repeatable, very accurate result. Everything is fixed, angles, forces, metal(s), etc. Very scientific and accurate.

Now take that same M2 knife, and give it to a human, let's see how much metal he will cut. I suspect it'll break withing first 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

If you are expecting for it to get hit with a steel hammer in the first 5 minutes, I agree! I've seen M2 listed around 63-65 HRc for industrial cutting appls. Some guys send their M2 knives off to get this hard you know.
 
Broos said:
That assumes that the nature of the wear is different when a human cuts with a knife versus having a machine provide the cutting force equally every time.
Click to expand...
Well, depends what we call the nature of wear. if the human was able to hold perfectly consistent angle and apply perfectly equal force then it'd be equal. Otherwise, it is not. Metal properties don't change, but the loads applied by human are not even, there are lateral loads, much greater compared to machines. Even 1lbs lateral load for a very thin strip of the metal is a very significant force. hence the edge deformation to much greater extent.

Broos said:
I don't think it would be difficult to design a machine that provided a repeatable lateral force to each cut.
Click to expand...
Which is what no human can reproduce :)

Broos said:
Are you trying to say that just because humans act in an unrepeatable fashion, that you can't scientifically test a machine to find out how well it works or how safe it is for humans?
Click to expand...
For one, I was referring to human inconsistency, unpredictability is another issue, but we can settle for common sense. However, the machine to mimic humans, let alone to replicate them is quite far in the future. At least given the current state of robotics.

Broos said:
If you are expecting for it to get hit with a steel hammer in the first 5 minutes, I agree!
Click to expand...
Uhmm, I specifically mentioned that 66HRC M2 knives are used to cut metal. So, given the same knife you would need to apply very significant force to make the same cut. What is your suggestion in that case? It doesn't matter hammer or something else, as long as the force is applied freehand it'll fail.

Broos said:
I've seen M2 listed around 63-65 HRc for industrial cutting appls. Some guys send their M2 knives off to get this hard you know.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not only I've seen, but I have sent several of my knives for rehardening :) That includes M2, CPM 110V, 154CM. Although my M2 is 64HRC, I have no intention of cutting metal bars with it, even though I know for sure machine can do that with the same blade.

P.S. BTW, don't get me wrong, I don't disregard neither machine testing, not the use of various gadgets to make more consistent and predictable tests. Just, relying on pure, 100% machine tests you can only learn/test so much.
 
Last edited:
You still have not provided anything to substantiate your claim that an edge wears inherently differently when a human cuts with it versus a machine cutting with it.

Just because people are unpredictable when using a tool does not mean that you can't test the tool using standard and accepted test method. You will not find out much if you can not repeat the test uniformly every trial. Can you mention any real testing done that uses unrepeatable forces to simulate use? I would be willing to bet there are none.
 
Broos said:
You still have not provided anything to substantiate your claim that an edge wears inherently differently when a human cuts with it versus a machine cutting with it.
Click to expand...
Exactly what "thing" do you require for the argument anyway? It is very simple physics after all. The edge is extremely thin, thus lateral loads are more likely to damage/dull sharp edge than other types.
I am curious, do you seriously argue that human being, you or someone else can hold the knife as steady as the machine can?

I can ask you the reverse, do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim, that human cuts are the same as machine cuts? Given the number of cutting machines and devices to hold materials steady that is very unlikely...

Going back to our previous post, can you suggest a method I can use freehand to cut metal bar with 64HRC M2 blade? That test or task is perfectly repeatable on a machine.

Broos said:
You will not find out much if you can not repeat the test uniformly every trial.
Click to expand...
Agree. However, if the use implies non repeatable, non uniform behavior, your repeatable/uniform testing will give skewed picture.

Broos said:
Can you mention any real testing done that uses unrepeatable forces to simulate use? I would be willing to bet there are none.
Click to expand...
In the knife world? Nothing official, but any user test is an example.
In a computer world, there is plenty. All to predict/mimic/anticipate human behavior.
Even something as simple as a text box in the input form, needs testing/validation for invalid/malicious input data. Otherwise your app is a toast on very first field trail.

There are tons of examples when devices, equipment, apparatus work perfectly well in the lab condition and fail miserably in the field. Although, I suspect you are very well aware of that.
 
So Noss4 is harming the cutlery industry by promoting irresponsible behavior and fostering unrealistic expectations of what should be expected of a knife, right? Isn't that one of the criticisms that is frequently used to dismiss his destruction of perfectly good knives?

So what is this well-respected fellow promoting? http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3953373&postcount=54

Mind you, I'm not claiming the two are equivalent. I'm just asking a question. Why do I suspect I've just been added to a list somewhere for even daring to bring it up?
 
elkins45 said:
So Noss4 is harming the cutlery industry by promoting irresponsible behavior and fostering unrealistic expectations of what should be expected of a knife, right? Isn't that one of the criticisms that is frequently used to dismiss his destruction of perfectly good knives?

So what is this well-respected fellow promoting? http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3953373&postcount=54

Mind you, I'm not claiming the two are equivalent. I'm just asking a question. Why do I suspect I've just been added to a list somewhere for even daring to bring it up?
Click to expand...

You're only guilty of laziness. That's the problem with threads this long. No one wants to read the whole thing. Your "revelation" has already been addressed more than once.

Guyon said:
We'll have to disagree on degree, though I will fully acknowledge that Busse's marketing has played some role in the spread of the thick/tough knife mentality. As Karda points out, however, Busse is trying to sell knives to people who seek those qualities--not suggest that "tough" knives are the only game in the knife world. Jerry is well respected in the knife-making community because he knows knife design, but also because he's very respectful of other people's work. And he tries to grow the community rather than tear it down.
Click to expand...
 
Guyon said:
You're only guilty of laziness. That's the problem with threads this long. No one wants to read the whole thing. Your "revelation" has already been addressed more than once.
Click to expand...

Oops. I prefer to think of it as 'good time management'.

My bad. Carry on.
:o
 
I think the website should be renamed to kniveabuse.com

They don't test knives. They abuse them until they break.

I don't care for them.
 
Gator97 said:
The edge is extremely thin, thus lateral loads are more likely to damage/dull sharp edge than other types.
Click to expand...

Your argument makes two assumptions I think are incorrect.

First, you are assuming that there are no lateral forces in machine tests - or that machines only exert the (much greater in magnitude) downwards force that actually does the cutting with both machine cuts and hand cuts.

Unless all sideways motion during the cut are eliminated, there will be some lateral forces with any cut, human or machine. I would guess there is some play (or you could put some play) in the linkages of a CATRA machine that result in some sideways motion of the knife, which would result in lateral forces at the edge. So I disagree that this lateral force would only exist with cuts made by hand. You could easily introduce them with a machine.

Second, you also assume that this lateral force is very important in how an edge dulls during cutting, even though it is very small compared to the cutting force. The downwards cutting force causes a pressure on an edge that can exceed the compressive strength of the steel (deformation results), or in the best case just causes wear of the edge. Any lateral forces will be smaller in magnitude, with the force spread out over a much greater area (the side of the blade and edge are in contact with the material being cut), with the resulting pressure being MUCH smaller than the vertical pressure that is doing cutting by exceeding the yield strength of the material being cut. So to me it makes sense that this lateral force would not affect edge retention test results materially.

My previous question was, has anyone ever done any tests or taken any pictures of edges to substantiate that this small lateral force is a major factor in the dulling of an edge from cutting? It may be simple physics to say the force exists, but it isn't simple physics to show it is a major force in how fast an edge dulls during cutting. It would just take simple observation of edges during cutting to show it is true, so it is curious why no one has done this, despite the contention being posted here over the years many times.

Looking back, I see that the affect of this lateral force was discussed before in a thread you & I both posted in. Note Wayne G. and one of the BYU ME Professor's thoughts on it (pg 11 & 12).

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=478537&page=11

Adding any factors of unpredictability and unrepeatability to a test is something to be avoided, especially when you may be experiencing the same force with a machine test, or better yet you could add the same force, but in a repeatable manner, with a machine.

I know many think these discussions are of no use or are not applicable for the average guy who wants to do a "test", but if you want to come up with a good practical hand test method, you first need to understand how to make an unpractical yet theoretically sound test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top