In the spirit of the original question- I know of no laboratory studies ever being done, nor any knifemakers who have studied it enough to determine if a fully pearlitic 1084 hunting knife blade
wont cut as well as a hardened one, what does this tell us as to the merits of simply eliminating the heat treatment altogether?
Thank you to everyone that posted. Thanks for bringing the tone of this thread back into line. It strikes me as odd that people get so riled up when asked to present scientifically based data for the effectiveness of various quenches. Not just this thread. There is almost a religious fervor surrounding the commercial quenches.
...
People tend to get irritated when asked by flat Earthers to produce proof we live on a sphere. We spend a few years to develop the bull dozer and then are a wee bit perplexed when somebody asks us to provide laboratory studies as to why it works any better than a wooden shovel.
Believe me after witnessing first hand the other side of this to a FAR greater extent I can safely assure you that the quench oil users have
nothing on the improvised quench crowd when it comes to
blind religious fever!
Religion is a matter of faith that negates the need for any scientific evidence or proof for the true believer. In fact to accurately represent what I have seen I could replace the word "religion" temporally with "cult". In a cult the only need of proof is often the mere words of the cult leader, couple this with a few sensationalistic demonstrations of the miraculous power of true belief and you have yourself a group of people that will not only need no true analysis for their belief, they will become instantly hostile at the attempt to refute the word of their heros. Now tell me which side of this rift most closely fits that description? I have and will publicly challenge anybody who even attempts the argument "because Kevin says so!", yet the only evidence many need is a word from the magazine contributor of the week.
My gut feelings about how "objective" the motives of these questions are now proving true. I still like you Alden, but I may have to reconsider my assessment of your debating prowess if hammering the same weak points as if the other side has said nothing is the most you have. The majority of this exercise seems to consist of merely turning the tables by either transferring the behavior of one side onto the other, or simply ignoring the points provided by the other side. The burden of proof has been well exceeded by the rest of the modern world on properly formulated quenchants. I have not only pointed you to a mere starting point for the endless documentation of the research and development of these products in their evolution from some of the "alternatives" in question, I have pointed out my own studies (exactly what you asked for) that guided me through my evolution in choosing the best mediums for this application. Yet here we are back to the same assertions as if none of them had been addressed.
In sincerely hope, and would certainly discourage anybody coming to my defense here, in fact I think you misinterpret what is being defended. We have worked hard here to establish a rather lonely and unique outpost here where sound data can finally trump the blind following of traditional bladesmithing wisdom. When it is so easy for so many to just to take what is written a magazine as worthy of unquestioning belief, the mere suggestion of us steeping backwards towards that, is rather threatening. So I am certain I can offer a little insight into the perceived "riled up" nature of the reaction many of us have to this topic. We are here to share the best info we can and to help others in the craft, some topics and trouble areas come up
far more often than others. Perhaps one of the most common conversations involves an inquiry on what went wrong with a heat treatment that too often includes a quench into "interesting" choices in quench medium. We point out all the mechanisms of and reactions in the quenching process and what mediums would best meet these demands only to have the same vapid arguments hurled at us like arrows by either the questioner or some lurker who cannot tolerate having a belief threatened. We offer data and explanations for our advise and get challenges to do the other sides homework for them, in hopes that we may not have
all the answers for both sides.
And that is exactly why I
threw away a portion of my weekend, entertaining a flat Earth debate here, there are folks out there capable of thinking that if you simply ignore a flat earth theory, that it is proof that they may be right, and that you could not refute them, as opposed to having a million better things to do than even try.
Since it has been some time since we had a detailed, and objective, discussion just on the quenching process, in order to show how foolish I really can be I think I will start another thread that covers many of the points in the book that I referenced. I won't include any product recommendations, but may point out some features that would allow certain materials to meet or not meet the demands discussed. No lard wars, just a step by step on how quenching works, and when the information is presented allow readers to make their own informed opinions.
.
.
