New testing session.

nozh2002 said:
I feel your pain - but once I have initially some unsuccessful tests I keep trying and in 4 years came pretty close to what I consider useful. You personal experience should not really be expanded on entire World and everybody, I just keep trying no matter what and came close and close.

For example sharpness measuring really work and allows me to learn how to sharpen, how to polish without rounding edge. As well as even with current presicion I found for myself Dozier as a direct result of this testing and happy to use it - it just hold edge unbelievably!

So of course this need to be thought through, evaluated, but your simple dismissal is just hard to accept - what should we just gave up take as granted whatever marketing drons will feed us with? No I do not think so.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...

No we should not take whatever the marketing drons feed us nor should we take whatever the backyard tester drons feed us either. I beleive the real problem with the backyard tester is when they start to think that their test is proof of some results and ignoring others results that don't agree with theirs. When you start to believe your test is better and more valid than others you've just became invalid.
 
db said:
No we should not take whatever the marketing drons feed us nor should we take whatever the backyard tester drons feed us either. I beleive the real problem with the backyard tester is when they start to think that their test is proof of some results and ignoring others results that don't agree with theirs. When you start to believe your test is better and more valid than others you've just became invalid.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we have only backyard testers - not other tests available so it is eathe us or none.

But I think I dissaggre with this name calling. I can understand some comments on procedure and I will appretiate any discussion on how to improve this and that. But name calling make no good - simple dismissal statement, and so how it make something better?

Also there is huge difference between marketing generating some misleading material to make better sales and what I am doing.

So to me there is no any positive in you post here - it seems you just dislike what I am doing (and I am OK with it) nothing more.

Thanks for you opinion, anyway. I am looking forward to see your test results, whenever you will have them. As I am looking forward to see any other test results. So far I saw results from Phil from Noss4. And did not actually think that mine is better or worse. Tests are test - they provide results and so far all those tests are testing different things.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
First of all I don't dislike what you are doing. I think what you do is interesting, intertaining, and provides many things to post about. I disagree that your test is any kind of proof of much that can be related to anything other than what you did at that time. Trying to do other wise is misleading and no better than what a marketing department does. Heck even you yourself have had differing results with the same knife. Secondly you are a backyard tester that isn't name calling that is just what you are. If you would like to see some of the knife use results I've done and posted about in the past you can easily search them out in my posts.
 
nozh2002 said:
So far I saw results from Phil from Noss4. And did not actually think that mine is better or worse. Tests are test - they provide results and so far all those tests are testing different things.

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...
I'm making this a different post because I think there is a large and important difference between what you are doing and what Phil Wilson does. I don't refer to Phil's work as testing like you are doing. I call it openly sharing his research and development of the knives he makes and how he tries to get the performance he is looking for, and why he makes the changes he does. That in my mind is alot different from what you are doing and what you post.
 
Sorry, I do not see anything but dislike. I do not see any discussion from you, any test results, any suggestions - just disagree statement. You point is taken - you disagree. Fine with me, but I see no use for this. What do you expect me to do with it - stop testing? Sorry, will not happen.

I just comment you disagreement that you are obviously did not read about this testing, did not see my comments on adaptation etc. So I do not think that you disagreement is based on some serious investigation, but brief look and fact that it did not match some of your expectations.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
2 Phil Willson,

One more request - can you measure weight not only at begining and end but in between after certain number of cuts as well - then we may see dynamic of edge degradation. I found that it is different for different steels.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
nozh2002 said:
can you measure weight not only at begining and end but in between after certain number of cuts as well
Click to expand...

If you will take the time to read his posts, and look at his results posted here, you will see that they do state the force to cut every 10-20 cuts, or the number of cuts to reach the next 5 lbs of force to cut.

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=480424
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4705759&postcount=94

Your test defines edge retention as the force to push-cut a thread versus number of slight slices into 1/2" manilla rope. There is no measurement for the force it takes to cut the rope, and the geometry and shape of the blade varies, and the thickness of the edge bevel varies. After looking, I am unsure how you get the tension on the thread the same for every push-cut test, but I do know that the force to cut the thread will be dependent on the tension in the thread.

Phil's test defines edge retention as the force required to cut (slice) 5/8" manilla rope versus number of cuts. Geometry, shape, and thickness at the bevel are the same, or the differences are identified going in.

I think the latter method is a pure definition of edge retention, whereas the former method is a contrived definition of edge retention that requires some unproven assumptions in order to make comparisons of steels.

With cutting manilla rope, does a 0.008" edge bevel wear the same, and at the same rate as a 0.035" edge bevel? You assume that the difference in thickness doesn't make any difference (because you often post steel comparisons based only on your results), but Wayne Goddard, Phil, and the BYU Professors think that the test should be done with equal edge thickness. That is why most of the technically bent folks here think equal blades are required in order to compare steels.
 
Vassili, I don't know if you're still doing this testing but if you are I would really like to see you retest the Benchmade D2. The reason being that in my experience with BM's D2, one 710 that is, it holds an edge better than all my other stainless steels as well as A2, O1, and INFI. When you originally tested the BM D2 it was early on before you became more proficient at it. You're results for this steel also show some bigger than average jumps in sharpness decline than what is seen in most other results. Though it does make sense along the lines of the claim that D2 suffers from carbide tear-out, but in my experience this hasn't been the case. Would love to see a re-test on this one :thumbup:
 
theonew said:
Vassili, I don't know if you're still doing this testing but if you are I would really like to see you retest the Benchmade D2. The reason being that in my experience with BM's D2, one 710 that is, it holds an edge better than all my other stainless steels as well as A2, O1, and INFI. When you originally tested the BM D2 it was early on before you became more proficient at it. You're results for this steel also show some bigger than average jumps in sharpness decline than what is seen in most other results. Though it does make sense along the lines of the claim that D2 suffers from carbide tear-out, but in my experience this hasn't been the case. Would love to see a re-test on this one :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Sure I will, this was unexpeced to me as well. But I do not know when I start testing again, really.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Not sure this is helpful but I like to help in any way.

Pal of mine is tailor and he told me long time ago that the same brand of string has different quality from time to time. Sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. I'm not sure what is this manila rope you used but I hope the variability/inconsistency in the rope quality/property does not affect your result.

Anyway, thanks for the info, appreciate the work done and sharing of results. Now I'm going to get me a Dozier D2 to admire and use...
 
Yes of course there is some variation in rope or thread quality as well as many other factors anyone can imagine. Not too much however make real difference - like once I left one piece of rope (I cut them in about 2' pieces for convinience) outside and it soak some humidity from air - knife start cutting it like butter, possible due to less friction.

With all this many factors it is impossible and unreliable to make conclusion on one single test, results are difference and mostly due to random nature of changes happened on the edge - this is major contributor to all this variations. Fresh sharpened edge shows more stable results then used one.

But on number of tests you may start noticing certain pattern and this pattern is related to state of edge. Now if this pattern stable and show same results "A" all the time for one edge "A" and also same results "B" for another edge "B" - we may say that only edge state contributing to this difference. Without going into full scale troubles to eliminate all factors (we may imagine) will influence results.

For example: if statistic results is same for full moon and for half moon - no reason to bother and do testing only when moon is half size raising.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
I agree when you go to the extent of 200 cuts per knife I suppose you will definitely see a pattern arising.

Here is a question, I remember you saying the thread is just for load and you need something like consistent thread tension right (or words to similar effect)?

But what about the thread not being tight? What I mean to say is that if you allow the thread to be slack (say 3 inch long rope over 2 inch gap) then you eliminate the need to tightly tie the thread. If the threads are all set in a predetermined slackness (maybe by measurement of length) then it's easier on your hands and it will also give some reasonable results.

Anyway keep up the interesting work. Thanks.

PS: not saying your method is wrong, I'm just offering suggestion of not tight threads to make your hands easier.
 
May be I missed it somewhere, but I don't see neither than angle at which those test blades were sharpened, nor the final grit used.
Hair whittling can be achieved anywhere from 2000-3000 grit, some can make that even with 1200-1500. That's 15 -8 mic. Compare that to 0.25mic edges one can get using diamond spray. Basically, hair whittling as a criteria is too vague in this case.

As for the angles. Unless they were identical, the results can't really be used to compare steel A to Steel B.

Same for the blade grind to some extent.

Just my 0.02$.
 
Cotherion said:
I agree when you go to the extent of 200 cuts per knife I suppose you will definitely see a pattern arising.

Here is a question, I remember you saying the thread is just for load and you need something like consistent thread tension right (or words to similar effect)?

But what about the thread not being tight? What I mean to say is that if you allow the thread to be slack (say 3 inch long rope over 2 inch gap) then you eliminate the need to tightly tie the thread. If the threads are all set in a predetermined slackness (maybe by measurement of length) then it's easier on your hands and it will also give some reasonable results.

Anyway keep up the interesting work. Thanks.

PS: not saying your method is wrong, I'm just offering suggestion of not tight threads to make your hands easier.
Click to expand...

I did try free hanging thread - no tension at all. It turns out I need much more force to cut and it beyond my current scale. Also variations were much bugger. And in general much harder to do single test. So I return to thread under tension.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
If I may make a suggestion- and I know these tests are time consuming- but what if you tested the same knife, same steel, several different times? Not just once or twice, but 15-20 times? If your results are all generally the same, then it will throw some more credibility at the tests in my opinion. But let's say you're off on a few of the trials, it might show you and us that the individual tests could be very wrong. For example let's say you test Kershaw 13C26 and your end weights are: 70-80-75-70-80-120-70-85-75-80-30-75-80 Then you would have to at least realize that even a small mistake can throw your tests off drastically even with the same exact knife. Especially if you get results like:
70-80-20-125-65-90-35-200-75-90-110-60

I like your testing method and it seems refined. But there could be one thing that is throwing the whole thing off, and you can't find that out until you try the same knife not once, twice, or thrice, but multiple, multiple times.

Most of these discrepancies are already somewhat ruled out because your weight constantly goes up, and usually it goes up gradually. It all seems pretty consistent, yet you do the tests consecutively with the same knife. For ex:
INFI 420 ATS FF LAU S60 S30 BG INFI
000 040 030 040 020 020 020 020 020 020
001 060 050 060 030 020 040 030 020 030
002 070 050 070 040 030 040 030 030 040
003 070 060 070 040 030 040 030 040 040
004 080 050 070 040 040 040 040 040 050
005 080 060 070 040 040 050 050 040 060
006 080 060 070 040 050 060 050 040 050
007 --- 070 080 040 050 060 060 040 050
008 080 080 080 040 050 060 060 040 060
009 --- 070 080 050 050 060 060 040 050
010 070 070 080 040 050 060 060 040 050
012 080 070 080 050 050 060 060 040 050
015 080 080 090 050 050 060 060 050 060
020 080 070 090 050 050 060 060 050 XXX
025 080 080 090 050 050 060 060 060
030 090 080 090 050 060 060 060 060
035 090 080 090 050 060 060 070 060
040 090 090 090 060 060 060 070 070
045 090 070 090 060 060 060 070 070
050 080 080 090 060 060 060 070 070
060 090 070 090 060 060 070 080 070
070 --- 080 090 060 060 060 080 070
080 100 080 090 070 070 060 080 070
090 110 080 --- 070 070 060 080 070
100 110 080 090 070 070 060 080 080
110 110 080 090 070 070 060 080 080
120 110 090 090 080 070 060 080 080
130 110 090 090 070 070 070 080 080
140 100 080 090 080 070 060 080 080
150 110 090 100 090 070 060 080 080
160 110 100 100 100 080 060 080 080
170 120 110 100 090 080 060 080 080
180 120 110 100 080 080 060 080 080
190 120 110 100 080 080 060 080 080
200 130 100 100 090 080 060 080 090
210 120 110 100 090 080 060 080 090
220 130 110 110 080 080 060 080 090
230 110 --- 110 090 080 060 080 090
240 110 130 110 090 080 070 080 090
250 110 130 110 100 080 060 080 090
260 110 130 110 100 090 070 080 090
270 110 140 110 100 090 070 080 090
280 110 130 110 100 090 070 090 090
300 110 140 110 090 090 070 090 090
320 110 140 120 100 090 070 090 090
340 120 150 120 100 100 070 090 090
360 120 140 120 110 100 070 090 090
380 120 140 120 110 100 070 090 090
400 120 140 130 110 100 070 090 090
420 110 140 130 110 100 070 090 090
440 110 140 130 110 100 070 090 090
460 110 150 130 110 100 070 090 100
480 110 160 130 110 100 070 090 100
500 110 170 130 110 100 080 090 100
520 120 170 130 110 110 070 090 100
540 120 170 130 110 110 080 090 100
560 120 180 140 110 110 080 090 100
580 120 190 140 110 110 080 090 100
600 120 200 140 110 110
650 130 230 140 110 110
700 130 260 140 120 110
750 130 --- 150 120 110
800 130 --- 150 120 110

All your values go up gradually. That proves the indivdual test itself is mostly consistent. But you always test the same knife consistently on the same day. If you tested one knife over a span of a week, you might find out things like humidity, temperature, and cutting medium inconsistencies can all affect your results greatly. Plus, we won't really argue if we see you did the same knife over and over about inconsistencies in the knife.
 
CATRA is perfect for wear resistance tests, but I doubt any of us can match CATRA in real life. So, IMHO that's just one aspect of overall knife performance.
 
Friend of my told me story, which I guess demonstrates difference between physics and math.

"Traveling through Australia on train biologist, physic and mathematician saw white sheep from the train window.

Biologist - Look white sheep!
Physics - All sheeps in Australia are white.
Mathematician - No there is one sheep in Australia which has one side white!"

This story demonstrate difference between mathematicaly true statement and whatever experimental physics dealing with.

Most members here I may suspect experience science only in school (studying it not practicing) and mostly as a math. Even Physics in school is presented as a set of laws - which is math as well. In result this is what people think how it should be - "Oh no! This is not math! We can not accept it..."

But before it became formula it was some experiments, and of course they became clean only in time, but even then it is always far from ideal math results.

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Physicists, when they try to compare certain property of materials create equal testing conditions, which you do not. Blade thickness, geometry and initial edge sharpness vary wildly in those tests.

If we do the math(using physics formulas), applied to your own test data, ALL the differences in cutting force on 1th and 100th are even less than the difference caused by unequal initial edges and their sharpness.

So, going to biology, one could say that you're comparing apples to oranges and then speculating which is a better apple...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top