Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion

[dl351]

Wow! This thread is like the Energizer Bunny! It just keeps going, and going, and going...

Anyway, I've stated before, education, not an indestructible knife is what is really going to save anyone in a survival situation. I've got enough 1/4"+ thick knives to last me more than a lifetime. I've recently purchased two 3/16" knives, one of which was rather expensive. Do I care that they might break from being pounded on with a hammer? Heck no. I don't ever, nor will I ever beat on a single knife that I own with a piece of hardened steel. Wood batons work more than fine for me. That's just my opinion, and anyone that disagrees with me can all have their own opinions.

Oh, and I agree with Jeff Randall about not being an idiot. He is quite credible, too, considering that he owns and runs a survival school. The funny thing is that I don't think he even carries a RAT most of the time.

 

[Guyon]

Does Gator97 speak for everyone at Bladeforums? I think not.

Again, the title of this thread is Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion.

 

[Gator97]

Since you asked to point out...

I object on two fronts: (a) TGHM isn't testing anything of value. How do I know? Scientists have good ideas of how toughness in steel can be measured. Hammer blows by hand is not one of them. Samples of 1 are not part of a valid test.

Delibarate, false accusation by stating the obvious implying the oppisite. Noss never said he was testing "toughness" as in determining charpy notch value, which is what you are implying here. If you are so concerned about sample of one, send him the other. You guys are really good at demanding from others to spend their money, do work and such, while sitting on the high horse and criticizing(mainly trashtalking).

(b) More importantly, TGHM has helped perpetuate a conception of survival knife quality that centers around it's unbreakable nature.

Deliberate, false accusation. You've been on BF since 2000 and posting very intensely, therefore you are very well aware that cold steel videos, and all the super tough, unbreakable knives promos existed long before Noss came to BF and started his tests.
Therefore, you know just as well, if anything, it was those promos that perpetuated Noss to start the tests, not the other way around. Yet you state the opposite and accuse Noss.

Again, the title of this thread is Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion.

He he he So, when it is your opinion you do care, how about the others? BTW, to clarify Gator spoke directly to you, on his very own behalf.
Also, unlike certain individuals Gator97 doesn't claim to be supreme expert neither in knife testing, nor even in metallurgy. And Gator97 doesn't feel people should be banned or burned at the stake because their test methods differ from his.

P.S. Just a reminder guyon, stating your opinion, especially on the public forum doesn't mean posting 300 msgs trashing the person, based solely on your differences.

 

[Guyon]

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

Clearly, Gator97 would prefer that any naysayers simply hush up so that "we" ("us" in the above passage) can have the definitive say on noss4. The irony is that he keeps accusing others of attempting to shout down the faithful.

Some folks here find value in TGHM's tests. I get it. They've said it over and over. I can read. But when I maintain that the tests have little value beyond some entertainment factor, I get a line-by-line rebuttal that attempts to "prove" the folly of my opinion. Then I'm accused of silencing tactics. Fascinating stuff. A sociological gold mine. :thumbup:

Delibarate, false accusation by stating the obvious implying the oppisite. Noss never said he was testing "toughness" as in determining charpy notch value, which is what you are implying here. If you are so concerned about sample of one, send him the other. You guys are really good at demanding from others to spend their money, do work and such, while sitting on the high horse and criticizing(mainly trashtalking).

I believe Gator97 was one of the folks claiming that noss4 was testing for toughness. Well, sort of. According to Gator97, noss4 is testing for a vague notion of toughness that is, best I can determine, whatever he wants to make it. Let's see... how did that go again?

Noss is testing whatever he sees as "toughness" of the knife. Which doesn't exactly translate into metallurgical definition of the toughness.

Oh that's right. "Toughness." Got it. Clear as a bell now. :thumbup:

Now, I don't recall asking anyone to spend any extra money. But there is someone here who asked another to spend his time doing calculations that were very likely going to amount to a straw man.

Deliberate, false accusation. You've been on BF since 2000 and posting very intensely, therefore you are very well aware that cold steel videos, and all the super tough, unbreakable knives promos existed long before Noss came to BF and started his tests.
Therefore, you know just as well, if anything, it was those promos that perpetuated Noss to start the tests, not the other way around.

I wonder what part of "helped perpetuate" is unclear.

Sure I've told folks to "beat" their Busse knives, but I meant with a wooden log. I don't think I've encouraged anyone to chop up a porcelain toilet or hack through a steel door. Cold Steel videos? Never seen one. I've heard they're funny. Sort of like a noss4 video.

 

[Guyon]

So, why exactly do you think others need your guidance even if they're not asking for it, and especially when they openly say no thanks...

There goes Gator97 again, speaking for everyone on BFC. Maybe he's counting theonew and orthogonal1. Well, three is better than a sample of one, I guess.

 

[Gator97]

Here we go again

Clearly, Gator97 would prefer that any naysayers simply hush up so that "we"

False accusation. I stated numerous times that I am not against neither your nor anyone else's criticizm, of my work, Noss' work or whoever else. Same applies to knifemakers and manufacturers.
What I am against is the "hush and bash tactics" used by your camp to eliminate any opposing thought on BF.

The irony is that he keeps accusing others of attempting to shout down the faithful.

Spoken, errr, posted by a man who has 147 posts in this thread alone, vs my 77...

Some folks here find value in TGHM's tests. I get it.

Post #146 you get it

They've said it over and over. I can read. But when I maintain that the tests have little value beyond some entertainment factor, I get a line-by-line rebuttal that attempts to "prove" the folly of my opinion. Then I'm accused of silencing tactics.

Since you need repeated posts to get certain things, I'll try again. Stating and maintaining your opinion is very different from calling another person an idiot few times per post. I am very sorry you can't see any other way of expressing your strong feelings.
As for the hush tactics. Well, let's go by facts again. For you just in this thread we have : personal insults - check, namecalling - check, trashtalk - check, overwhelming number of posts - also check.
Now, considering this is a public forum, and we're in a virtual world, i.e. all we have here is out posts, how exactly am I shutting you up with the daily floods from you?
Another false accusation...

I believe Gator97 was one of the folks claiming that noss4 was testing for toughness.

False accusation and misinterpretation. Since I specifically stated several times the test wasn't for metal science definition of toughness. And I also quoted Noss' own definition of his tests.
I don't argue the validity of his tests here BTW, once again...

Let's see... how did that go again?

THe question is obviously pointless, since the goals and definitions of his tests are posted on knifetests.com and were quoted here numerous times. What is the point of citing it again, when it flies right by your head anyway.

Now, I don't recall asking anyone to spend any extra money.

False. When you demand, or trash other person in rather harsh manner for testing 1 sample, obviously you are implying he should test more than one. Otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

But there is someone here who asked another to spend his time doing calculations

Funny, I never denied I was expecting Noss' critics do to some calculations, because a) they're the ones trying to disprove his test methodology. b) according to their claims they have much better base knowledge in materials science. c) Slim specifically pointed out the fallacy of Noss' testing based on that particular comparison.
So, to help the cause I assumed critics would be interested in showing some data backed by science. What exactly is so strange in this. I didn't come here trying to convince you Noss' tests are valid, in which case you'd be absolutely right to ask me for something better than my words.

Sure I've told folks to "beat" their Busse knives, but I meant with a wooden log. I don't think I've encouraged anyone to chop up a porcelain toilet or hack through a steel door.

What's up with this I, I again? I think I was pretty clear stating that Noss was influenced by those companies, and not vice versa as you said.

Cold Steel videos? Never seen one. I've heard they're funny. Sort of like a noss4 video.

Then we can add blatant ignorance to your list of deeds And that in turn lowers your credibility of a knife testing high priest.
Therefore, before accusing Noss or someone else of perpetuating knife abusive behavior, check the facts.
Don't get me wrong, you absolutely didn't have to see CS video, but there is no way you missed all the unbreakable and super tough knives claims sitting on BF day and night. So, pretending that you had no idea those claims from various manufacturers were here long before noss is a misinformation...

Well, three is better than a sample of one, I guess.

Yes, it is better. However, what you don't really have for a show is the request(s) from the n00bs crying out for your and your pals help to protect them from evil Noss. So, in that regard you have big fat 0, not 1.

P.S. I understand you are working for your postcount more than anything else, but 2 msgs in a row, second is just one liner... That's too blatant Not that I tell you what to do, just an observation.

 

[orthogonal1]

...

Again, the title of this thread is Knifetests.com-whats YOUR opinion.

And again, you have put forth more than what constitutes "an opinion".

 

[Broos]

I suspect a lot of it will hard to correlate, and also, your unwillingness to provide/do some of those calculations doesn't help the issue either.


I have no idea what video are you talking about, but assuming he said something bad about you, and you have there right to call him out. Except based your post, I figure it happened once, the video incident. Comparing your post count, only those including "calling him out" exceeds that very significantly. At some point that does become counterproductive, no? And considering all the bashing he gets here and he's still a kid(according to you)...
If you want to match potential number of the viewers of the said video, that's somewhere 1-2 mil I guess.

Before I spend an hour relearning how to calculate the strength of a steel beam, maybe you can enlighten me as to how sample calcs for the strength of a rectangular beam will relate to either good testing or noss videos? How much time did you spend trying to figure it out?

Doing that sample calculation for strength of a beam will not take anyone closer to understanding how to test. Now if you want to test for the strength of the beam, what is essential is understanding, or at least recognizing, the variables that influence that equation. If you do not even understand which variables affect your results, or if you have 2 or 3 or 4 variables that change in a random fashion on every test trial you do, you will never figure out very much from a test.

My point has always been that it is not scientifically sound to make comparisons or any substantiative conclusions about strength or toughness from randomly beating on a knife with a hammer and taking a video of it - I never would have suspected that posting some easily confirmed science about materials testing and good engineering would be so upsetting to some.

And I am starting to think you are his lawyer with those other comments. I laughed at your critique of me giving a little back to him, and you ought to know enough that it is number of hits that is the correct gauge for indignation on the internet! If I don't get too bored, or too depressed about the sorry a$$ state of technical education in this country (clearly evidenced by these threads), I might just post a little actual science until we're even.

 

[Broos]

As usual, there is much talk of calculating forces, deformation, etc. But as any second year ME student knows, calculated data must be verified with physical testing.

I think that any talk of theory and noss in the same thread is woefully ill-informed. There is no theory going on there, folks.

Do you realize that if you used noss test methods to verify any theory, you would never be able to verify it?

I think you meant to say "theorized equation", not "calculated data" - you can only check calculated data for mathematical accuracy. You test to prove a theorized relationship - it's called a hypothesis.

Can you can tell me what theory noss is trying to validate?

 

[orthogonal1]

I think that any talk of theory and noss in the same thread is woefully ill-informed. There is no theory going on there, folks.

Do you realize that if you used noss test methods to verify any theory, you would never be able to verify it?

I think you meant to say "theorized equation", not "calculated data" - you can only check calculated data for mathematical accuracy. You test to prove a theorized relationship - it's called a hypothesis.

Can you can tell me what theory noss is trying to validate?

No, I meant "calculated data" and I see no theories being positited by NOSS4.

As such, your remarks, as usual, are simply just so much garbage that has no pertinence.

 

[Broos]

And so shall we "complain" when idiots continue to deride others by merely alluding to some "scientific testing" that would indicate someone else's conclusions are incorrect by using nothing more than misinterpretations and name calling antics, merely alluding to "proper statistical analysis" and other such non-substantive arguments of little pertinence.

Are you noss4 - your little hissy fits, that barely make sense, against having science interfere with your opinions sounded strangely familiar in a comical way.

I previously asked you to point out any "misinterpretations" I may have, but you never have.

I guess it's a lot easier to call me an idiot then actually try to point out where I am wrong, which you obviously are not capable of doing.

 

[orthogonal1]

Are you noss4 - your little hissy fits, that barely make sense, against having science interfere with your opinions sounded strangely familiar in a comical way.

I previously asked you to point out any "misinterpretations" I may have, but you never have.

I guess it's a lot easier to call me an idiot then actually try to point out where I am wrong, which you obviously are not capable of doing.

When you put forth an agument that is germane to the issue at hand, I'll take such seriously.

As for "little hissy fits", etc., perhaps you can empathize with NOSS4 for a while.

 

[Broos]

No, I meant "calculated data" and I see no theories being positited by NOSS4.

I am not expecting any new theories from noss4 or his devotees, that is for sure.

What do you call a theory from a guy who doesn't have a clue of what a hypothesis is?

A miracle!

(that is a science joke, btw)

 

[Gator97]

Before I spend an hour relearning how to calculate the strength of a steel beam, maybe you can enlighten me as to how sample calcs for the strength of a rectangular beam will relate to either good testing or noss videos?

Pardon, I had no idea you had to relearn. I was under impression you did it routinely, as your field of work was somehow related to all that.
As for the reason why I wanted to calculate, at least roughly, because Slim had very strong feelings about longer blade breaking and short one not. I thought it might've helped to clear things up a bit.

How much time did you spend trying to figure it out?

I hadn't planned initially, as I was counting on you, may be dl or anyone else who claimed experience in the "related field". After you refused I marked in my todo list. Currently I am reworking steel chart/database and working on the separate smaller project to make some sense of steel standards(for my non metallurgist self), making a mini guide/help file for the said database. Thus, that one takes a little lesser priority.

If you do not even understand which variables affect your results, or if you have 2 or 3 or 4 variables that change in a random fashion on every test trial you do, you will never figure out very much from a test.

I thought I simplified problem conditions sufficiently to eliminate all the variables. And I specifically asked if it wasn't enough to point out what was the variables to eliminate.

My point has always been that it is not scientifically sound to make comparisons or any substantiative conclusions about strength or toughness from randomly beating on a knife with a hammer

And I agree about field testing not being scientific enough, but lab tests alone can't tell the whole picture, at least for the human beings. And I can bring you enough examples of equipment failing field trails miserably after excellent test lab results.

And I am starting to think you are his lawyer with those other comments.

No, just a humble programmer.

I laughed at your critique of me giving a little back to him

Well, scientifically and quantitatively it was it was quite a a bit more than a little, but that's ok. At any rate, I am glad you laughed, and your mood was up.
From my point of view, you accuse Noss of something, and then do the same repeatedly and claim you're much superior somehow, that is in terms of childishness. The argument - he started first

If I don't get too bored, or too depressed about the sorry a$$ state of technical education in this country (clearly evidenced by these threads),

That was spoken from a very high horse though. And yes, I am aware of your scientific credentials. I hope you don't get too bored and depressed and get to the science part soon.

I might just post a little actual science until we're even.

You are more than welcome. Again, I think, it will be a lot more constructive than the witch hunt...

 

[orthogonal1]

I am not expecting any new theories from noss4 or his devotees, that is for sure.

What do you call a theory from a guy who doesn't have a clue of what a hypothesis is?

A miracle!

(that is a science joke, btw)

Yet another comment that is not germane to the issue at hand and is just another one of your usual derogatory statements.

Congrats! That'll show NOSS4.

 

[Gator97]

Can you can tell me what theory noss is trying to validate?

He is not "validating" any theory. He is just testing his knives, in his own way, and then posts videos. I am sorry you became part of it somehow.
However, I see no point in debating and arguing nonexistent.
Again and again you come in with the same argument that his tests aren't scientific. Yes, they're not and nobody is arguing that they are?
BTW, worth noting he started using some gauges and scales, i.e. at least some parts are improving, and he made additional(to knife testing/breaking) efforts to refine his testing.

 

[Guyon]

He is not "validating" any theory. He is just testing his knives, in his own way, and then posts videos.

Not quite. He's not just testing them as individual knives. He's also comparing/contrasting/ranking knives around some ill-defined notion. There lies the real rub--those Swords of Doom. The moment you start ranking things, it suggests that you have some reliable way for doing so. Broos naturally defaults to the most reliable method he knows--scientific method--and recognizes that old noss4 has little basis for comparative rankings.

Even Jeff Randall, whom I was surprised to see on board with these so-called tests, correctly notes the following ideas in bold:

As an edit to this post, I just read the post by ShooterMcgavin and I have to say I agree with him. If the tests were going to be truly objective (instead of subjective) then it would have to be set up with certain parameters that were repeatable. Obviously Noss's tests are not. With that said, I still think the tests have some merit for the overall toughness of a knife as long as the viewers take into account the types of steel, thicknesses, etc of individual knives. For example, when he says the RC-4 is not a good chopper, well, it wasn't meant to be. If he takes a 1/8" thick RC-3 and stands on it and it breaks while a 1/4" RC-5 doesn't break, well, what else would you expect. So my point is the tests he performs have merits as long as they are looked at on an individual basis and not as a comparison test against other knives with different physical makeup.

The middle part of the quotation is really about just applying common sense around a layman usage of "tough," and frankly, I don't agree with the claim about merit here. Of course a 1/4" knife in the same steel/heat treatment is bound to hold up better to hammer blows and/or lateral stress than a 1/8" version. I would ask: Does a knowledgeable person really need to see that principle demonstrated? Where's the great merit in that?

More importantly though, Jeff properly recognizes that the comparative portion of noss4's tests have no merit. By creating those rankings, noss4 implies that some knives are better than other knives, but he doesn't have much of a basis for doing it. It's more than a bit disingenuous to say that he's just testing knives and then posting videos. I've seen quite a few people put stock in those ratings, including the OP of this thread:

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.

 

[orthogonal1]

Not quite. He's not just testing them as individual knives. He's also comparing/contrasting/ranking knives around some ill-defined notion. There lies the real rub--those Swords of Doom. The moment you start ranking things, it suggests that you have some reliable way for doing so.

Oh, now you back pedal to merely having umbrage due to the rankings. How much further can you walk backwards.

The middle part of the quotation is really about just applying common sense around a layman usage of "tough," and frankly, I don't agree with the claim about merit here. Of course a 1/4" knife in the same steel/heat treatment is bound to hold up better to hammer blows and/or lateral stress than a 1/8" version. I would ask: Does a knowledgeable person really need to see that principle demonstrated? Where's the great merit in that?

So, now you merely think that showing how the thickness of the metal stock can affect "toughness" is a waste of time. So, you do believe that "toughness" is being illustrated.

More importantly though, Jeff properly recognizes that the comparative portion of noss4's tests have no merit. By creating those rankings, noss4 implies that some knives are better than other knives, but he doesn't have much of a basis for doing it. It's more than a bit disingenuous to say that he's just testing knives and then posting videos. I've seen quite a few people put stock in those ratings, including the OP of this thread:

His "basis" is how well the individual knives perform. Whether you believe the rankings have merit is your choice.

And who are these "quite a few people put stock in those ratings"? Is the "quite a few people" enough to affect sales positively or negatively? Is the "quite a few people" enough to affect the reputation of a firm?

And if so, who cares?

Products stand or fall on there own, no matter what anyones "tests" may indicate.

 

[Guyon]

I finally got someone to interpret all the stuff that orthogonal1 posts as rebuttals.

The translator was able to distill it down to a single imagistic frame, seen below. :thumbup:

 

[Gator97]

Uh Welcome back.

Not quite. He's not just testing them as individual knives. He's also comparing/contrasting/ranking knives around some ill-defined notion.

It's very tiring to repeat the same thing to ad nauseum. Those are ill defined for you, and many others, and that is absolutely fine. What you have trouble accepting is that there are some people who think his tests are ok.

There lies the real rub--those Swords of Doom.

And to me there is no rub, and those are just sword icons and I couldn't care less if he used burning skulls or steel thumbs instead. Who cares or why?

The moment you start ranking things,

Nothing changes, absolutely... You are still the same Guyon, and you are still free to disregard and ignore his rankings and testings just as well before the moment he assigned those rankings. Nothing changes in this universe because Noss hung another two swords on the webpage, few bytes of data in the virtual space, that's all. it's up to you to make it important or not. one can base his knife selection on that, another can argue till turning blue on this forum... But it's a personal choice.

it suggests that you have some reliable way for doing so.

No, "it" doesn't. All it tells me that he wants to somehow express his opinion how well the knife performed in his own tests. After all, give him that, he's beating the hell out of a knife, spending money and lots of energy and he can't even say his word what he feels about it?

Broos naturally defaults to the most reliable method he knows--scientific method--and recognizes that old noss4 has little basis for comparative rankings.

Let's leave Broos out of this one ok He's in a bad mood and as far as I can tell, currently he's much more concerned calling out Noss on his video stint that any scientific discussion. I dunno how many times he has to do it, hopefully eventually he'll get back to us with science data.

I would ask: Does a knowledgeable person really need to see that principle demonstrated? Where's the great merit in that?

And this is the only thing in this world done by a human being that has no merit. Again, as long as some of the knife and non knife people see value and obtain something useful or even entertaining in his tests it has some merit.
What do you want to do? There are guys who build pumpkin throwing machines or rebuild 14th century weaponry or whatever else, bash them too?

More importantly though, Jeff properly recognizes that the comparative portion of noss4's tests have no merit.

Fine, so Jeff will ignore noss' testing for comparative portion. He still sees some value in those tests though. So, by denying Noss' right to test that merit would be lost.

By creating those rankings, noss4 implies that some knives are better than other knives, but he doesn't have much of a basis for doing it.

And you are absolutely free to ignore those ratings...

I've seen quite a few people put stock in those ratings, including the OP of this thread:

So what? Are you jealous? OP of this thread never thanked you for what you did in this thread, even if I am wrong(which I doubt), and you truly care about OP and other n00bs.