Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

[Guyon]

People have regularly come to correct conclusions without the use of "sound methods", whatever these may be at any given time.

Don't we just call this lucky? Should folks put their trust into someone's "results" (a term I'm using loosely here) just because he may have gotten it right?

Earlier today, I correctly concluded that Mark Ingram was going to win the Heisman, and it turned out to be a lucky guess. I don't think you would have wanted to lay down any cash on my "conclusion." I looked at a few stats here and there, and I thought about how Heisman polling has worked in the past, but I didn't have much of a system. To speak metaphorically, I was just sort of pounding on things with hammers.

 

[orthogonal1]

Don't we just call this lucky? Should folks put their trust into someone's "results" (a term I'm using loosely here) just because he may have gotten it right?

Earlier today, I correctly concluded that Mark Ingram was going to win the Heisman, and it turned out to be a lucky guess. I don't think you would have wanted to lay down any cash on my "conclusion." I looked at a few stats here and there, and I thought about how Heisman polling has worked in the past, but I didn't have much of a system. To speak metaphorically, I was just sort of pounding on things with hammers.

No, you purposely redirect the discussion to an area of statistical analysis to determine a probability. To speak correctly, one could look up the toughness of the various metals at the reported hardness of the knives NOSS4 experimented with and draw conclusions - that may be right or wrong with is seen in actual use.

NOSS4 performed tasks to the knives to come to a conclusion - what did you do? Nothing.


Should folks put their trust into your "results" (a term I'm using very loosely here since all you do is make statements) just because you say NOSS4 is wrong?


Take the time and build some testing machines that will provide the repeatable results you espouse you desire and perform a test or two on the same models as NOSS4 did and prove him wrong.

ASA - I always wondered what tests the Romans did to determine that adding the blood of animals to concrete made it stronger - or did they just observe that it did?

 

[Guyon]

It tickles me when folks rant on and on in the vein of "You should break your own knives and prove noss4 wrong! Put up or shut up!"

Part of the point is that folks don't have to beat on knives with hammers to know that they are good, workable, even (dare I say it) durable "survival" knives. Consumer histories and company reputations provide plenty of fodder here.

By the above logic, we should all be crashing our cars into walls because we just don't quite trust those yahoos over at G.M.

 

[Guyon]

By the same token, I guess I could argue that all the true believers here need to replicate TGHM's efforts in order to prove him right.

Break some knives, gentlemen! DO something.

 

[orthogonal1]

It tickles me when folks rant on and on in the vein of "That is not statistacally proper, ergo the results are wrong!"

Part of the point is that folks don't have to beat on knives with hammers to know that they are good, workable, even durable "survival" knives, we have people that actually go out and use them and put them through perdition for us. NOSS4 simply provides some proof of such capability and lack of same.

Consumers cannot wholly trust histories and company reputations to provide plenty of fodder here for proof, since as shown some products just don't hold up in comparison to others - no matter the maker. This is nothing new, either.

By this logic, we should let the government crash examples of our cars into walls because we just don't quite trust those "yahoos" over at G.M. or other makers, for that matter. Someone is crash testing our cars and we are glad of it.

By the same token, you should stop making unsubstatiated allegations that have no factual basis, since you yourself go on and on about the need for some "real" facts.

I don't know who these "true believers" are. Perhaps you should put some effort beyound name calling to prove NOSS4 wrong. That'll show these mysterious "true belivers" you were right all along.

Remember not to "grandstand" should by some chance you do prove anything.

 

[Guyon]

I do wonder: what exactly has orthogonal1 *done* to prove TGHM's tests have substance?

I hope he has an approach that is on a par with folks who crash test cars for a living.

Otherwise, beating on things without valid methods would just be kind of silly.

Maybe he could add to the silliness by wearing a halloween mask. :thumbup:

 

[Guyon]

Golly. Looks like neither I nor orthogonal1 have really *done* anything.

I know! Let's draw on someone knowledgeable who HAS actually done both laboratory and field trials. :thumbup:

"Testing" your "first knife", is really just learning and while providing opinion, isn't very credible. Testing only one knife as a sample of the species is also not a very good sampling, in my opinion.

 

[orthogonal1]

I do wonder: what exactly has orthogonal1 *done* to prove TGHM's tests have substance?

I hope he has an approach that is on a par with folks who crash test cars for a living.

Otherwise, beating on things without valid methods would just be kind of silly.

Maybe he could add to the silliness by wearing a halloween mask. :thumbup:

I do wonder what Guyon has done to prove NOSS4's tests have no substance.

I hope he has an approach that is on a par with folks who crash test cars for a living and must provide some factual basis to make a statement, whether "yea" or "nay".

Ohterwise, he has no proof that the results are any different than some imagined method he seems incapable of performing.

And, as many have pointed out - what does ones garb have to do with the validity of the results? I guess if Einstein walked around with a mohawk haircut wearing nothing but a g-string his theories would not have been reasonably accurate.

 

[cj65]

Einstein could have walked around in a red mohawk and gold sequined g string. His theories are accurate and repeatable. Physical science, wow it really can be a science if it is repeatable. Who is this Sal Glesser character and what does he know about testing knives anyways. (Sarcasm)

Noss does his own "tests" on knives, he has a following. Others criticize his methods. We should put this to bed, and stop beating a dead knife, I mean...... horse..

Observe youtube sight
Bangs away, steel on steel
It is not what is right,
It is how it may feel

Compression and tension
metal and mind fatigue
Thread expansion
because test minor league

 

[DrivebyTrucker]

=Also I know without a doubt that any knife that did get a good rating from Knifetests.com is an excellent knife to withstand so much.

I have my doubts.

 

[demoteamone]

I have my doubts.

I don't.

 

[Guyon]

Imitation, they say, is the sincerest form of flattery. orthogonal1, I do appreciate the compliments.

But c'mon. Einstein? TGHM? Are you freakin' kidding me?

Now I will grant one thing. You've already got Hammers of Truth, Swords of Doom, a oddly clad cult figure, and some feats of strength. Throw in a story line or two and some graphic art, and you might have yourself a pretty passable comic book. But genius? No way. The dude can barely spell.

 

[Broos]

You know, I don't mean this at all in an argumentative way, but Slim to None has an interesting point. A knife that is slightly thicker, but longer, and also wider, broke easier than the smaller one of the same steel. It just seems like something to think about. I know geometries are different, but a bigger cross section is a bigger cross section. Perhaps the larger blade made for larger torque applied to the blade during various "tests." I'm just not sure about this one.

If you want to do a test of strength, one of the first criteria is that you test using equal moments (or torques). If the force and the moment distance are both unmeasured, you won't be able to make any comparisons regarding strength either.

 

[Gator97]

It tickles me when folks rant on and on in the vein of "You should break your own knives and prove noss4 wrong! Put up or shut up!"

No,you are getting tickled for the wrong reason. You don't have to break your knives, just do your own "sound and scientific" testing or at least explain the methodology instead of attacking other testers personality.

By the above logic, we should all be crashing our cars into walls because we just don't quite trust those yahoos over at G.M.

Or buying cutco knives for few hundred $, because we fully trust those yahoos at cutco...

I do wonder: what exactly has orthogonal1 *done* to prove TGHM's tests have substance?

You're mistaken about reasoning again. Some of us believe Noss' tests have their merit, whether it's entertainment, actual knife limits testing or whatever else. And let me point out for you again, as it was stated numerous times in this very thread, nobody wants you to share the same views, nobody really cares if you do or do not. It's just about letting it go. You and your buddies did state your opinion more than 100 times.
It is you who is trying to convince others Noss' tests are invalid, i.e.change opinion of others, therefore that'd be you who needs to come up with some convincing evidence, something better than namecalling and personal insults.

I know! Let's draw on someone knowledgeable who HAS actually done both laboratory and field trials. :thumbup:

Strange that most of what Mr. Glasser posted somehow didn't really register with you For one he clearly didn't discourage anyone from testing their knives. Second, he stated that field tests are as necessary as lab tests. That is something that you call "navel gazing" in this post.

But c'mon. Einstein? TGHM?

Well, if you can spot a genius in a second you must be very talented Einstein for example, was constantly failing math grades, wasn't good at his job as an accountant and it took quite some time before he became the "real Einstein".
BTW, if it wasn't clear, nobody implied that Noss is Einstein, although who knows he might as well become one in the future. Point was that judging test results by his mask is not a very good idea.

...oddly clad cult figure,

If you haven't noticed, then I can tell you that, it is you, and several Noss hatred preachers in this thread, who exhibit typical cult like behavior. Going from thread to thread, bunching up on anyone who disagrees with your ideas or "proper knife testing" beliefs and trying to bury them alive(in a virtual world), or at best shut him up, to prevent the wrong ideas from spreading and polluting innocent n00bs heads.

But genius? No way. The dude can barely spell.

I bet 100$ that Einsteins math teacher said exactly the same thing, may be the term "dude" wasn't available to him at that time, but the rest is spot on And now if anyone ever knows that guys name, only because he happened to be Einstein's teacher...That's all.

 

[Guyon]

Einstein for example, was constantly failing math grades, wasn't good at his job as an accountant and it took quite some time before he became the "real Einstein".

...

I bet 100$ that Einsteins math teacher said exactly the same thing, may be the term "dude" wasn't available to him at that time, but the rest is spot on And now if anyone ever knows that guys name, only because he happened to be Einstein's teacher...That's all.

Thanks for playing. :thumbup:

http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/3.html

I wonder... if I PM my PayPal address to Gator, will he actually send me $100?

Who knows though? Maybe old noss4 will solve that whole Grand Unified Theory thingamabob. Could I get some odds on that?

.

 

[Broos]

I merely point out that the other extreme, doing perfectly calibrated and repeated tests gives us very little knowledge of how the object will interact with a human being.

I disagree - A good edge retention test will give us a good idea of how steels will dull with human use. A good test for strength will tell us how strong a knife is when a person is using it in a similar manner. A good test for lock strength will tell us something for how a human should depend on a lock. A good test for batoning would give us an idea of how a knife will fare when being batoned by a person. A good test for force to cut rope will absolutely give us an idea of which knife will cut rope for a person the easiest.

Hmm, I was trying to convince you that hand cutting and machine cutting are not the same as you stated several times(with me), and that humans have inherit imprecision built it.

But this doesn't make any difference in what method one should use to test a knife.

Actually Broos, I am defending not the kid, and I suspect he ain't no kid, but the right to test/post freely w/o being bashed and called names based on the fact that someone else's rating criteria are different.

And after his little hissy fit on his video (the one where he did not know how to pronounce broos ), I have every right to call him out. And he tests and acts just as I have described. If anyone places scientific value on these videos, then they do not understand the basic principles about material testing. I have tried to point out some of them, but in the end anyone can believe them or not - the principles remain the same regardless of who believes them or who understands them.

We are going in circles.. And honestly, I already said, I am having hard time understanding your position. In the arguments with me, you did say few times machine cutting is the same as human, and I don't see how it is the same when neither me nor you can replicate a machine. At the same time, you position out that Noss' tests are invalid because he's doing them by hand and not by machines... A != B even if A == B?

It was Wayne G. (who has been testing edge retention by cutting rope for decades), who said it was not very hard to cut a piece of rope straight and doubted lateral forces had much to do with testing edge retention. And I don't recall saying that a hand test was invalid - though that point was commented on by one of the BYU Prof's in one of those threads I linked to earlier. What I said was that you don't learn much at all from an unrepeatable test - and this is one of those basics of testing.

Nice poem, CJ65!

 

[Gator97]

If you want to do a test of strength, one of the first criteria is that you test using equal moments (or torques). If the force and the moment distance are both unmeasured, you won't be able to make any comparisons regarding strength either.

Why your answers are always on the negative side anyway...

Ok, going back the the Slim's problem.
Let's say we have a metal (0170-6C) rectangular bar, uniformly hardened to 58HRC exactly.
Case 1) - Bar width is 30mm, thickness is 4mm and the length is 150mm. Bar is fixed in a vise, let's say at 50mm mark.
Case 2) Exactly same as above, except bar thickness is 4.4mm and length is 200mm.
The nature of the force applied to the bar is the same (i.e. both are impacts, or both are constantly applied), and so is the moment distance.

Now, can you calculate or estimate how much mire force would be needed to break or bend the shorter bar?

Yeah, I understand that's not what Noss does, etc. Just try to forget Noss for a while and concentrate on this particular problem.
And if the input data is not sufficient, we can model, or simplify further it further to make it suitable for your calculations.

I am assuming this is enough data for the guys with the knowledge of materials science and/or engineering in the related field to make at least some calculations.
So, feel free to chime in.

After all those talks about science we can try to solve a small problem.

 

[Broos]

By this logic, we should let the government crash examples of our cars into walls because we just don't quite trust those "yahoos" over at G.M. or other makers, for that matter. Someone is crash testing our cars and we are glad of it.

The IIHS (Insurance Institute for highway Safety) does auto crash testing with cars provided by the mfgs. I can tell you that the mfgs do test them - before sending them off for IIHS testing. And they both go to great pains to keep the impact speed and the point of impact the same for every test, and to calibrate the load cells and accelerometers used in the testing. And they do not test damaged cars, or crash them a second time (that is a point of how having any test continue with accumulated damage also will reduce the scope of any conclusion you can make from it).

 

[Guyon]

Broos, some of these guys really don't care if the IIHS tests cars within laser calibrated limits. They just want any negative talk of TGHM's stunts to go away so that TGHM can reign supreme over the knife testing world. Goodness knows why. I think it has something to do with Einstein.

Now, how about you let us decide what is the value of Noss' testing and this whole thread can become to an end.

However, I had a dream in which I was told that, for every 100 posts I make in this thread, one of the knives that TGHM has killed gets its wings in knife heaven.

 

[Gator97]

Thanks for playing. :thumbup:

I admit I was wrong on math part, which proves again, not to trust everything you read here and there.

However... Since you were on that time page, did you miss that #1 page was about him being slow learner, especially the part where, and I'm quoting your source: which led one headmaster to expel him and another to amuse history by saying that he would never amount to much.
Does that sound familiar?

Or page 8 where it said he had to work as a third-class examiner, because he failed his doctoral dissertation?

I wonder... if I PM my PayPal address to Gator, will he actually send me $100?

Not so fast sheriff... Based on the link You provided, it is you who'd need my paypal So, I have it ready whenever U have funds...

BTW, judging from your response, I figure you agree with the rest of the points in my post, correct?

They just want any negative talk of TGHM's stunts to go away so that TGHM can reign supreme over the knife testing world.

For one, you're being too soft on yourself Most of what was in this thread isn't neither "negative talk" nor criticism, it's plain trash talk. And yes, I believe we could benefit from reduction of that. There's couple sub-forums here where you can vent if you have to.
Also, I am not sure how does my "you let us decide" translates into "Noss reign supreme" anyway? My main concern is that "proper knife testing moralista policy" doesn't reign supreme and succeed in their attempts to push their agenda/ideas onto us, unsuspecting n00bs.