Mad Dog Update 2: Forget your Xrays folks...

Spark

Spark

HPIC - Hatas gonna Hate
Staff member
Administrator
Super Mod
Moderator
Joined
Oct 2, 1998
Messages
15,236
<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/upload/maddog.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/upload/maddog_sm.jpg" align="right" border="0"></a>I've been thinking about this whole "notch means it's defective" story, and the plethora of people taking xrays of their knives with the notch not showing up.

<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/bladeandhandle.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/bladeandhandle_sm.jpg" align="left" border="0"></a>I knew the notch was there because I could see it myself. Yet, people were reporting that the knife xray showed no notch. Then I realized I wasn't thinking in 3 dimensions, I was thinking in 2!

<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/handlecloseup.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/handlecloseup_sm.jpg" align="right" border="0"></a>I realized that if the notch was put into the knife at any kind of angle, and only went partially into the tang instead of all the way through, it wouldn't show up in an xray! The Xray's would have to be taken at an angle instead of perpendicular to the blade itself to show these notches!

<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/closeup.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/closeup_sm.jpg" align="left" border="0"></a>So, we knocked the handle off the Mad Dog knife with a hammer, and lo and behold, the notch that makes the knife "defective" doesn't go all the way through the blade! Sorry everyone who took xrays by just laying the knife down on the machine, if you didn't take it at an angle, it wouldn't show the notch, period. Not only that, but there are notches on both sides of the blade, and it looks like they are there so that the knife can be fitted into something for machine work. By the way, it took about 6 good hits (at the finger cutout) with the hammer to break the bond between the knife and the handle, just in case anyone was wondering.

<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/reverseblade.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/reverseblade_sm.jpg" align="right" border="0"></a>So, here are some pictures of the tang with and without the handle in the same picture. Since there are notches on both sides of the blade, this leads me to believe that Allen Blade's account of the notchs being put there intentionally for glue purchase has that much more weight to it. And I find Mad Dog's story completely unbelieveable now.

Now, let's look at how this was handled.

We've tested knives before. We tested folding knives and found that Benchmade's Ascent (840) would fail the whack test every time, with every night. Mike had a huge falling out with Benchmade, but you didn't see allegations of bias there. Instead, Benchmade recognized the problem and now a few months later none of the 840's we have in stock fail the whack test.

Spyderco had problems with a few of their knives, and they fixed everything that came up.

Camillus did poorly in their 7" blade test, yet they are more than willing to fix the problem.

Yet Mad Dog's knife shows problems, and what do we hear? It was a defective knife. It was stolen. We're lying. We're biased. The tests are flawed. It's a conspiracy.

Well, the xray test's have to be redone now, so I look forward to hearing what happens.
What's the next explanation we'll hear? What else are we going to be called?

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here


[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 05 November 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 05 November 1999).]
 
I already knew that the handle on my ATAK will have to come off to prove the notch issue. I saw the notch on the one that I have tested at Wiley lab, but I could not prove it because the knife now belong to the Army Safety Center in Huntsville, AL.
 
Spark; I have been reading x-rays for over 25 years, and what you say has a little bit of truth in it. X-rays in at least two planes are necessary to rule out deformity, as if the deformity is in the initial plane of the x-ray it won't show up.

We are not talking deformity here. We are talking about a defect. Defects show up on a single view. The notch would have shown up as a shadow, as less of the x-ray beam gets absorbed by the metal, so exposes the x-ray film more, thus making it darker. X-rays are reverse images. What is dense is white, what is less dense is dark.

There aren't any notches. Sorry, but you are an amateur making statements in a field which lies in my professional pervue.

Both you and Mike have offered to do the testing over if the knife you used was proved to be bogus. Now, you claim that all the knives are bogus, but that this doesn't show up on x-ray? Sorry, my friend, but you have now assumed the burden of proof. YOU and Mike must prove to us all that there are a signigicant number of bogus knives out there, as you have recanted your offer based on your imperfect knowledge of radiology.

My offer stands. I will send you an ATAK2, you can remove the handle and prove it notchless before you proceed; you can certainly affix some sort of temporary handle to it for testing purposes.

It seems that my way of dealing with the situation is the easiest, simplest, and most definitive. If, I say IF, you are in the persuit of truth in this matter. Which I hope you are.

Sincerely, Walter Welch MD, Diplomate of the American Board of Emergency Medicine

[This message has been edited by Walt Welch (edited 05 November 1999).]
 
(puts on nomex for this one)

I just wish people would quit complaining about this or that. all of the tests were fair and complete! You don't see Lynn Thompson complaining or saying this or that because they were not number 1 or were beaten by Bussey! Hey it is your money so spend it on what you want, granted I still want a mad dog but I still think that they are too expensive than what they are worth (like microtech) but I don't complain about how unfair the tests were.

You really want to abuse test a knife give it to a bunch of un supervised boy scouts (did it myself)

And once again I applaud spark and mike for talking a bunch of flak for this.
 
Ok Walt, I'll see your experience and raise you these pictures and Nam's having seen the notches as well.

Here's 3 pictures of the back of the tang.
<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang1_sm.jpg" border="0" align="right"></a>Now, I'm not an Xray technician, or an ER Doctor. I don't claim to be. I've used X ray equipment when I had the priviledge of working with a bomb disposal unit though, and I do realize that when you look at something from only one angle, you don't see the full picture.

<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang2_sm.jpg" border="0" align="left"></a> In these pictures, we can clearly see that the cuts or "defects" as you term them do not go all the way through the metal. In fact, I would estimate that they go through less than 25% of the blade, leaving a significant portion of the steel behind them. And you and I both know that if there is enough density, the X rays aren't going to go through. An easy way to check this would be to see if the Xray penetrate's the blade itself.

Why do I say this? Because there is as much metal behind these notches as there is on the bevels, if not more so. Heck, there's so much metal there that it's practically as thick as the tang.

<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang3_sm.jpg" border="0" align="right"></a>As a result of this, I'd hazard a guess that the Xray's just read the metal behind the notch, and didn't see the depressions themselves. Again, I'm not a professional at this, but with this much metal thickness, I could see how individual surface depressions might not be picked up.


<a href="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang4.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bladeforums.com/images/maddog/tang4_sm.jpg" border="0" align="left"></a>Here's a really close look at it. Please feel free to respond. Again feel free to re Xray your knives at an angle and see if notch shows up. I'm curious.

Spark


------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here


[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 05 November 1999).]
 
Walt, when are ya gonna send Mike the knife? I think Mike's test was very fair. I do not think he was in any way dishonest. Two points here, point one: I think Sparks explanation of the notch is very logical. Point two: Walt has been on these forums for years, from what I have read he is another one who can be trusted. It would seem that when it comes to reading x-rays that Walt is the one to do it. So, what we have here are three good, honest people (Mike, Spark, Walt). The only way to put this to rest is to hack open another Maddog or two. BTW Walt, it is very kind of you to sacrifice a several hundred dollar knife to help solve this issue. You want my opinion? I personally think that the notch will be there when they cut open walts knife. We shall see.
 
I am surprised that so many knife nuts have access to X-Ray machines. I would like to know what types of X-Ray machines are being used to check for "notches". Medical or Security? There are two important things needed in order to determine if there is a notch or not. A good X-Ray machine and a person trained in analyzing the image.

I am not familiar with medical X-Rays but I am familiar with Security type X-Rays. I estimate it would take an average person 3-4 days to learn his/her way around such a machine. The FAA gives them 5 working days (40 hours) IIRC. I estimate it takes about 30 days to become truly proficient at analyzing what is on the machine. I was an airport rent-a-cop for 14 months and consider myself an excellent operator of the machine. I was able to determine what brand and model of multi-tools I was looking at. I picked out a loaded handgun clip hidden in change. I found a fixed blade hunting knife on edge hidden in a stereo. I think I could find that notch only if I had all night to look at the image. But I could definitely miss it with a quick look.

My point is that those notches could or could not be in the X-Rays. Proper analysis needs to be done to make sure. Something that small needs to be scrutinized.

Walt,

I looked for metal objects for a living. And types of metal objects. It wasn't for 25 years or more but I was good at it. Please tell me about medical X-Ray machines. I think there are differing qualities in medical field and differing personnel. I believe the most important part of the X-Ray is the analysis. I think we have several people here with access to X-Ray machines but no training in analyzing what they are looking at.

------------------
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man"
-Nordic proverb

 
Just to chime in here in Walt's defense, Xray docs get lot's of experience in looking at Xrays to find problems. And if they can't figure something out, they go to a Radiologist who specializes in, guess what, Radioactive medicine including CAT Scans, MRI's, and yes, Xrays.

However, there's a big difference between Xraying Flesh & Bone and a big hunk of metal. Namely, the flesh and bone has a much lower density and is easier to shoot. Looking at a typical film you can pick out the organs, where a bone has cracked or broken, and IIRC you can even pick out bone bruises. This is because of the varying densities of everything involved. However, X raying a piece of steel is taking a shot of something with a uniform density, just different depths. As such, it can be easy to miss certain things unless a series is run with the Xray set at different levels / exposure.

Let's look at your loaded magazine example. When you found it, you picked up on the shapes, right? You could pick out the spring, the walls, the cartridges, etc because of the varying densities of them, and how they all put together a recognizable shape. Now surround that magazine with some lead and what do you see? A big block of lead. Or, if you set it right, you can go through the first wall, into the space inside and see that, but you'll lose everything that's outside that first wall of lead, right?

I'll let Walt speak more on this....

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here


[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 05 November 1999).]
 
Wow!....really nice, uniform notches for a defective blade!

At least we've gotten a clue to the pricing of these knives:

If a defective blade has this much care put into these notches, think of the time spent on a *good* blade!
smile.gif


-Michael
 
Spark,

I wasn't attacking Walt. I want his input on medical X-Rays and analysis of images. I'm glad you're defending someone who is taking you to task. It shows you're after the truth and not your version of the story.

I'm proud of that gun magazine find because it was behind a lot of change. That much change is an automatic bag check but I was able to tell the bag checker what to look for and where. An analogy would be trying to find a full grown bull moose in the Alaska bush. They bigger than a sports car but you could be 10 ft away and not know unless you are experienced in looking for them. Bullets stick out like sore thumb on an X-Ray but they can be missed. I have another story about a policman and a single .25acp bullet. But that is another post.

Yes your point is correct. I was able to find the gun magazine with varying densities of the metal objects. And I believe your point is valid in that the notches are not large enough in the tang to stick out on X-Rays enough to be seen easily. I suggest you take the known notched blade to an X-Ray machine and see how it looks. You know the notches are there, you can see them with your eyes because that handle is off. But can you see them on a X-Ray machine?

If X-Rays were perfect we wouldn't need MRI's and CAT Scans. Bones are easy to pick out and contusions of the bone can be found. But soft tissue like nerves need help by injecting radioactive material. Looking at metal objects in X-Rays is completely different than flesh. But I concede Walt has 25+ years of analyzing X-Rays no matter what the subject is. You could probably add medical schooling and internship if he is not counting that already. My 14 months pales in comparison even if it was more relavent.

I would like to reiterate my previous questions: What type of X-Ray machines are being used to X-Ray these Mad Dogs? Who is looking at the X-Rays of the Mad Dogs and what training do they have in analyzing the images?

------------------
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man"
-Nordic proverb

 
Ha, haaaa! Brilliant. Ya, if I'm in the ER with a potentially broken bone, I'm gonna' tell the attendant MD, forget you, I want Spark to read my X-ray! Ha, haaaa!

The report comes back: Bad news Mr. Harvey, Spark says there is a bomb in your leg. He heeee!

Well, I guess all those dental X-rays I've been given to show the decay in my teeth have been a waste of ions.

 
I guess one other question would be on how x-ray transparent the adhesive used to bond the handle and blade is.

 
Steve Harvey, I don't understand your previous post. I think you are going off the topic. If you know something else or more than Spark does on the subject I am more than happy to listen.
 
Using Steve Harvey's logic:

Police Chief: Mayor we found the bomb but we don't no if it is conventional or nuclear. We don't know if is safe to move or not because our bomb squad is unavailable. But since we need a decision now there is a doctor over there maybe he can look at it for us.

Mayor: Come here doc and look at this bomb through the X-Ray.

Doc: But I'm not on the bomb squad.

Mayor: It's ok you have several years of college and many more of on the job experience with X-Rays.

Doc: OK. I guess. It is conventional and safe to move. Go right ahead...

------------------
"A knifeless man is a lifeless man"
-Nordic proverb



[This message has been edited by David Williams (edited 05 November 1999).]
 
I wonder if I am the only one who feels a little emotionally over-invested in all of this. I cannot explain why I feel the way I do, but all the passion surrounding the tests has started to obsess me a little. I am uneasy and a little tense. It is like I am dissecting a car wreck, trying to figure out where things went wrong. Perhaps I need a new hobby. This one is getting a little overwhelming.

I know what this reminds me of, it’s the same feeling I had when my parents used to fight when I was a kid. Two people I respected, arguing over something I did not really understand. Yep, it’s time for me to take a step back and relax.

I hope you all find the truth, or at least satisfaction.
 
Thanks for your comment's Steve. Nice to see your point of view here.

Just to put this out before someone raises this issue. I was not a bomb disposal technician, it was not my military MOS, nor did I get any sort of training other than On The Job (OJT) when I was attached to the 18th EOD detachment on Ft. Bragg.

I also worked in a hospital for a few years, and my father is a physician, but I am not formerly trained in medicine.

However, you don't have to be an ER doctor or bomb disposal technician to have an understanding of elementary concepts of shape and density. Furthermore, just because I don't have formal training, that doesn't mean that I can't recognize things I see in a picture. You may not be a photographer, but I'll be that you can recognize a bad photo when you see one.

When it comes to bone and tissue xray's, I'll take Walt's judgement over mine any day of the week. I'm not going to attempt to diagnose an injury, nor render a medical opinion, just like I wouldn't try to render safe any explosive device that I haven't been trained on or how to handle. Heck, for that matter, I wouldn't render safe anything these days, I'd run in the opposite direction.

Anyhow, all I am saying is that Xraying metal is different from Xraying tissue and bone. For something like this, you need a shot from an angle, not a perpendicular shot. It's that simple.

This isn't rocket science. It's about on the level of shadow puppets.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
I have worked in the pipe welding industry for 23 years! I have looked at 1000's of radiographs. I am not an expert film interpreter but I have had the task of looking at laying out and repairing 100's of defective pipe welds. As I originally believed the notch was completely through the knife, on a cursory look It would have been impossible to miss, after seeing the knife with just the 2 grinds I would look closely at the film, with a 25% reduction in the material and if the correct penatrometer was used for the material and thickness, the defect/discontinuity would be an obvious dark area in the film! If the defect/discontinuity was discovered an angled shot would be required to measure the depth or the grind. But from my experience it should have showed.
 
So far we are doing the wrong things here.

X-raying other knives doesn't proof anything for the knife in question. It is not a material test of any sort. All you might get from those pictures is that there a knives with a notch and knives without. It says nothing about the quality of the blade. To test if the notch is really an indicator for a bad blade is to proof that the blade with the notch is faulty and the ones without are not.

The only way to do that is to show that the knife in question received a bad heat treatment. A good way to do this is using a Rockwell machine. If the result is indeed a RC 62 at the edge and something around RC 54-55 at the spine then blade should be considered as good.

In general I would like to know how Kevin (or anybody else for that matter) determines that the blades are not up to standard without doing some RC testing? I can't see any RC marks on the blades.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited 05 November 1999).]
 
There is NO such thing as a completely unbiased test. There is always going to be some sort of tester bias. This does not mean that I think that Mike is biased, it just means that we are all human. We are not precise, we get tired, we get blisters etc. That is why replication is so important in scientific testing. Until something is repeated over and over again by different people, but using the same methods a test can not be conclusive. I think Mike was as unbiased as a person can be, and completely honest (bias and honesty are not the same). We need to see different people repeat the same tests with the same model knives. If I could afford to make the trip right now I would gladly volunteer.

Nobody here has said that Mad Dog makes crappy knives. It has been repeated over and over again that they are good, even great knives. They just aren't perfect. I don't think there is a perfect knife. The drama here seems to center around the hype. Mad Dog has been hyping his knives from the beginning. Nothing can live up to the hype. If Mad Dog would just make his excellent knives and stop denying that there are ever any problems, we wouldn't be going round and round on this.

I wanted to buy a Mad Dog knife for a long time. I've handled quite a few (approximately a dozen). I have played with 4 different ones, and used them a little. This by no means constituted a test. They were all sharp, well balanced, and comfortable. They were all also JUST knives. Everything has it's limitations. The reason that I haven't bought a MD now is because of his forum. If someone can't admit they can make mistakes I am immediately leary. The TUSK fiasco nailed the lid on that box. I have played with a TUSK too BTW. It was very nice but not a $900 knife, in my opinion. I can think of many other knives that cost much less that I would still stake my life on.

As far as the factory edge vs. sharpening issue goes, I think that testing the factory edge is the way to go. If you are car shopping you don't want to drive a specially tuned up, customized version of the car, you want to drive the one that you will be buying. It might be fair to test the factory edge and then reprofile all of the knives to the same angle and then repeat the tests. The problem there is that different knives with different steels were designed to have different angles. I suppose a tester could reproduce the factory edge bevel angle and give it 25 strokes on a medium "stone" and then 25 more on a fine "stone" and then retest.

More testing is definitely going to be needed. If that means Xrays, scanning electron microscopes, or whatever so be it. I applaud Mike for trying to offer consumers a realistic test.

I would also like to see posted a picture of the chipping on the edge of the ATAK. It may be posted in the test, I'm going to go and reread the test now.

------------------
Paul Davidson

Them:"What's that clipped to your pocket, a beeper?"
Me:"Uuh....yeah, something like that."


 
Way to go Spark!!! Mike!!! No matter what the truth, I appreciate the length you guys go to, to get the absolute truth. Thanks guys! -AR

------------------
- AKTI Member ID# A000322

- Intelligent men, unfortunately, learn from fools, more often than fools learn from intelligent men.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top