- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 11,409
Did you read the parts where he categorically puts down and insults every other testing method besides his own?
If not, please continue reading.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
New testing session.
- Thread starter nozh2002
- Start date
If not, please continue reading.
Ankerson
Knife and Computer Geek
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2002
- Messages
- 21,094
Some of us have tried to help him because there are a lot of results that just can't happen realistically in the real world if the variables are taken into count and cut down, that just isn't happening or the results would be completely different than they are.
They go against every single principle of metallurgy when doing wear resistant testing.
Some of us have also pointed out that ranking steels in order from best to last is pretty much impossible to do by hand because the percentages will never be small enough to do it.
The basic principles are as follows:
Alloy Content and Carbide content + Hardness = Wear resistance
So the more carbides in the steel + Hardness = better wear resistance
Most of the results don't fit into the above so the method of testing is flawed, nothing is perfect, but when the results make no since there is a real problem.
Telling people that D2 will outperform steels like S110V, 10V, S90V and those other steels in a wear resistant test is completely wrong and I don't care who HTed the D2 unless the other steels were all at 50 HRC and D2 was at 59-60 RC...
When the results don't make since there is something wrong...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 101
I swore I was never going to post in one of these never ending ping pong threads. But I've been wrong before and I guess I was this time too.
I've been following this since the beginning when nozh put his Game Warden through the rope and hit the wood behind and had to abandon the test when he was comparing INFI to 420HC. Without looking back, I'm just not prepared to put that much time into it, I also recall that the 420HC was comfortably in front of the INFI for a good part of the test run where its head start in initial sharpness dominated and it wasn't until something like 400 or 500 cuts where the 420HC started to get exponentially worse and the INFI just kept going at the same mediocre sharpness. This tallied perfectly with Cliff Stamp's results and attempts to develop a mathematical edge retention model which showed time after time that the real benefit of an outstanding steel was apparent not in the first few cuts, where circumstance dominated, but as the edge started to dull towards the sort of sharpness normal people are satisfied with. It also shows in Buck's published data on their Edge2000 decision comparing 420HC at 14 per side with BG42 at 14 and 20 per side.
It seems to me that nozh's tests are finishing these days at sharpness levels that are about the same or better than the out of the box levels he used to record for Spyderco's and the like. He is no idiot, although he may be a bit wear resistant himself. He has reproduced some of his results and has gone to laudable lengths to take a lot of variables out. Possibly to the extent that most people would not see the same result in their real world, because some impact or lateral loading would have interfered long before they got to the same place. It seems to me that nozh is measuring something for sure. Not the same thing that Ankerson is measuring and probably not the most relevant property to my particular usage, but interesting nonetheless if taken in context.
Ankerson's results are also very interesting to me and maybe a bit more like my own usage. I take an interest in and appreciate the efforts of everyone who takes the time to do some real work and share it; knarfeng, nathan the machinist and others. Thanks to you all.
I think we have got a bit distracted here by assuming that everyone is measuring the same property when they try to establish edge retention, but like a lot of things, it means different things to different people and measured in different ways gives different results. But that doesn't make the measurement meaningless; it just needs to be understood alongside the method for getting to the result to relate it to your intended usage.
OK, I'm done. I swear I will never post in one of these threads again.
I've been following this since the beginning when nozh put his Game Warden through the rope and hit the wood behind and had to abandon the test when he was comparing INFI to 420HC. Without looking back, I'm just not prepared to put that much time into it, I also recall that the 420HC was comfortably in front of the INFI for a good part of the test run where its head start in initial sharpness dominated and it wasn't until something like 400 or 500 cuts where the 420HC started to get exponentially worse and the INFI just kept going at the same mediocre sharpness. This tallied perfectly with Cliff Stamp's results and attempts to develop a mathematical edge retention model which showed time after time that the real benefit of an outstanding steel was apparent not in the first few cuts, where circumstance dominated, but as the edge started to dull towards the sort of sharpness normal people are satisfied with. It also shows in Buck's published data on their Edge2000 decision comparing 420HC at 14 per side with BG42 at 14 and 20 per side.
It seems to me that nozh's tests are finishing these days at sharpness levels that are about the same or better than the out of the box levels he used to record for Spyderco's and the like. He is no idiot, although he may be a bit wear resistant himself. He has reproduced some of his results and has gone to laudable lengths to take a lot of variables out. Possibly to the extent that most people would not see the same result in their real world, because some impact or lateral loading would have interfered long before they got to the same place. It seems to me that nozh is measuring something for sure. Not the same thing that Ankerson is measuring and probably not the most relevant property to my particular usage, but interesting nonetheless if taken in context.
Ankerson's results are also very interesting to me and maybe a bit more like my own usage. I take an interest in and appreciate the efforts of everyone who takes the time to do some real work and share it; knarfeng, nathan the machinist and others. Thanks to you all.
I think we have got a bit distracted here by assuming that everyone is measuring the same property when they try to establish edge retention, but like a lot of things, it means different things to different people and measured in different ways gives different results. But that doesn't make the measurement meaningless; it just needs to be understood alongside the method for getting to the result to relate it to your intended usage.
OK, I'm done. I swear I will never post in one of these threads again.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,207
Whenever Vassily posts I am always reminded of those people who walk around Times Square with a sandwich board reading The End of the World is Nigh! Except his would probably read: S30V is the devil's elixir! Entertainment of the highest order...
BG42EDGE
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 7,593
I didn't see him do that.....maybe you can provide the quote?
But I did see your statement where you said, "not one person here agrees with what you say, ever."
Read the thread.....he got many compliments and appreciations for his posts.
Take the log out of your own eye before you try to find one in the eye of another.
And really, guys......don't condemn somebody just because his tests don't agree with your pet and favored beliefs.
That's just silly. He may be getting the correct answers for the first time.
Opinions about tests and actual testing are two different things.
Last edited:
stabman
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 21,327
Except that he wasn't.
When your "test" results contradict the results of people in industry with far better equipment and methodology, it's a REALLY safe bet that your "tests" are inherently flawed.
Ankerson
Knife and Computer Geek
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2002
- Messages
- 21,094
That would be a very safe bet for sure..
Ankerson
Knife and Computer Geek
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2002
- Messages
- 21,094
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 11,601
Oh my.
I really do not think that is the reason that some of us condemn HIS METHODS.
Those of us that subscribe to the scientific method know better than to condemn somebody. When somebody starts condemning a person, it is not science
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 148
Vassily added something to the equation because he made people think. That is a good thing. Vassily subtracted from the equation when his attitude devolved from plain rudeness to evincing pathological mania. That was not a good thing. He'd pop up in other threads here at Blade Forums, usually when he'd worn out his welcome at the many other threads he'd helped disintegrate into high vitriol.
Same thing, different day. The mods tired of jumping in whenever he'd toss his inevitable can of gasoline on the fire, and to be perfectly honest, as 1st Amendment loving as I happen to be I would have long since tired of the act. At the end of the day, the gentlemen who run this place have better things to do.
Same thing, different day. The mods tired of jumping in whenever he'd toss his inevitable can of gasoline on the fire, and to be perfectly honest, as 1st Amendment loving as I happen to be I would have long since tired of the act. At the end of the day, the gentlemen who run this place have better things to do.