Off Topic Plate quench as an oil alternative?

[Justin Schmidt]

Sounds like the long way around the barn to me. I'll just keep oil quenching and grinding off what little decarb I get. I always surface grind everything anyway. As far as controlling warping, I've done enough blades to know what to do and more importantly what NOT to do. I hardly ever get a warped blade and if I do it is easily fixed during the temper.

Kinda my thoughts. Unless he's trying to get higher hardness somehow.
I still don't know how y'all can quench 1095 in parks in under a second

 

[Natlek]

Kinda my thoughts. Unless he's trying to get higher hardness somehow.
I still don't know how y'all can quench 1095 in parks in under a second

Knifemaker don t quench under a second , oil do that

 

[Willie71]

Kinda my thoughts. Unless he's trying to get higher hardness somehow.
I still don't know how y'all can quench 1095 in parks in under a second

The measurement is the time it takes the steel to go from approx 1400f to 900f. You can take three or four seconds before quenching as long as the steel doesn’t drop below 1400f in that time.

 

[Justin Schmidt]

The measurement is the time it takes the steel to go from approx 1400f to 900f. You can take three or four seconds before quenching as long as the steel doesn’t drop below 1400f in that time.

Ok that makes alot more sense. Stupid question. Can you use parks 50 for oil hardened steels like o1, 80crv2, etc?

 

[scott.livesey]

i have used parks 50 for O1, 80CrV2 and 52100 with no issues. they were all small, thin(<1/8") blades. it was the only quench oil I had.

 

[Willie71]

Ok that makes alot more sense. Stupid question. Can you use parks 50 for oil hardened steels like o1, 80crv2, etc?

You can, but exceeding the needed quench speed can cause cracks, or stress in the steel. Use canola, parks aaa, or other medium speed oil for best results.

 

[Ed Braun]

Hi all, sorry I didn't know about this thread sooner otherwise I'd have responded; thanks to Butch for letting me know.

To that point, I'd like to clarify a few things:
1) These tests began after I received a sudden series of reports from people reading threads on social media of others claiming to be plate quenching carbon steels, particularly 52100, 5160, and 1095. I do heat treat customer support for New Jersey Steel Baron and with these claims, I put it to test as, as butch clearly highlighted, we don't need more snakeoil or hype in knives.
2) Tests were conducted at NJSB during my recent trip to Aldo's in part for access to a recently, properly calibrated Rc machine, fresh stock, and a surface grinder--for example to exclude the possibility of case hardening, samples were surface ground to 220 grit with .060 material removed. Furthermore, I have the certs for all steels tested, so I was assured composition, the annealed state, and legitimacy of the materials.
3) BluntCut and Mete specifically state my concerns--despite HRC readings, micrographs and tests must be taken to check elongation and the greater possibility there's a mixture of pearlite, bainite, etc. with martensite, which as noted will not make a serviceable edged tool. While I am not a classically trained metallurgist, the stated claims made little sense to me aside rather old reports of Nicholson plate quenching C10130 and 1095 files, and those are hearsay. That's why I took it upon myself to do testing--to ensure consistency in some aspect of minimal, preliminary testing and that samples be sent to a proper lab for thorough examination before progressing any further.

To be frank, I am VERY skeptical of the results, this was a maneuver to do some preliminary controlled testing in light of other people posting in support of this practice.
It is all too easy for someone to try this, break a sample, and post pictures of fine grain and say, "it works" when we know that what can be seen with the naked eye does not mean there is not mixed structure. While I do understand the enthusiasm many people have about this, it is imperative to be objective and logical without making assumptions. It could very well be as Geoff put it--a cute party trick, but not one that properly hardens a blade.
What is important is this:
I am trying my best to send early samples to a lab for testing, I have them with me and once I find a reputable, certified lab to review them, will send them off.
I understand more than anything else that faking anything along these lines jeopardizes my credibility and once I have results from an accredited lab, will post their results and name with it--sources count a lot for the reliability of the information.
Since posting the videos mentioned by the OP, I have more than once told people the aforementioned factors publicly on the original threads--I am not endorsing or advocating plate quenching carbon steels until we have proper lab results.
Until we know what's going on inside the steel I tested, it's a novelty, not an alternative.

 

[Justin Schmidt]

Ed to be clear I wasn't trying to start any work of gossip or jepordize your name in anyway. As a new maker I just thought this approach was very intriguing and wanted to get others opinions on the matter. I should have consulted you before posting the thread. I did not mean any disrespect by it.

 

[Ed Braun]

Valknut, no worries at all, lad, and no offense taken! And I don't mind you posting it--I know from my early days on here that Mete, Bluntcut, Count, or Stacy would be able to address and vocalize the cold hard facts that I would, and I should honestly swing by BladeForums more often.

 

[scott.livesey]

Ed, do you have liquid cooled quench plates available? I have seen photos here of some home made ones. maybe if you were able to circulate cold cooling fluid (say propylene glycol at -40F or so) you might be on to something.

 

[Ed Braun]

No, Sorry, Scott, no intercooled quench plates currently planned, but as it is, plate temp regulation is more beneficial when quenching multiple blades during a single heat treat session rather than just the quench speed after having conferred with people like James Binnion on the matter. Positive pressure is as important if not more so than simply (and only) the temperature of the plates. One nice tip that James shared and I will be employing this week is facing my aluminum plates with .002 Copper foil--this is not to increase quench speed, but to more readily ensure and facilitate full contact and thermal conductivity. I.E. I'm not looking to magically increase hardness, just ensure a more consistent quench.
As always, on that note, I defer to Mete and Bluntcut as the metallurgical experts on their opinion as to whether or not intercooled plates would help as I'm skeptical that it would prevent issues and might encourage other problems.

 

[scott.livesey]

just a bit of brainstorm. I have used aluminum plates when heat treating very thin, 1/32", O1 where you have about 10 seconds to get from 1500*F to 475*F and then another 10 to get to handling temp, 125*F. i also oil quench to black then plates to eliminate chance of warp. in all cases, blades go in ice water bath until batch is done then into tempering oven.

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

Ed - since RA came up a few times == good instinct. My guess - RA probably less than 4% since your HRC is only 1-1.5rc below max/68rc. I think, excess carbon (from aust matrix, eventually not tied up in ra & mart matrix) most likely at & in grain interface and between twin plate martensite.

If I was trying to replicate this plate quenching 1/8" 1095, its pearlite nose need be around 2.5-3 seconds.

I won't use this 1095 composition, where PN only 1 second, which also in many people mind

I would use Aldo/NJSB's 1095 with 0.42%Mn and 0.22%Si = chemically stabilize aust = estimate push PN close to 2 seconds.

No grain refinement whatsoever - since recalescence latent heat is inverse to grain diameter.

Definitely use similar to your aust 1475F 45minutes = over saturated aust matrix = mechanical stabilize = get another second for PN. Higher aust than this probably would destabilize due to grain nucleation of larger aust into finer pearlititic.

High pressure full contact with plates- probably much higher psi than your setup.

... Fun to think about this anyway.

** If you have info/quote on accredited lab works, please share - since soon I need to render a Lab Testing services too: Std stuff + BSED, TEM, XDiff, Charpy, etc.

 

[Darrin Sanders]

Hi all, sorry I didn't know about this thread sooner otherwise I'd have responded; thanks to Butch for letting me know.

To that point, I'd like to clarify a few things:
1) These tests began after I received a sudden series of reports from people reading threads on social media of others claiming to be plate quenching carbon steels, particularly 52100, 5160, and 1095. I do heat treat customer support for New Jersey Steel Baron and with these claims, I put it to test as, as butch clearly highlighted, we don't need more snakeoil or hype in knives.
2) Tests were conducted at NJSB during my recent trip to Aldo's in part for access to a recently, properly calibrated Rc machine, fresh stock, and a surface grinder--for example to exclude the possibility of case hardening, samples were surface ground to 220 grit with .060 material removed. Furthermore, I have the certs for all steels tested, so I was assured composition, the annealed state, and legitimacy of the materials.
3) BluntCut and Mete specifically state my concerns--despite HRC readings, micrographs and tests must be taken to check elongation and the greater possibility there's a mixture of pearlite, bainite, etc. with martensite, which as noted will not make a serviceable edged tool. While I am not a classically trained metallurgist, the stated claims made little sense to me aside rather old reports of Nicholson plate quenching C10130 and 1095 files, and those are hearsay. That's why I took it upon myself to do testing--to ensure consistency in some aspect of minimal, preliminary testing and that samples be sent to a proper lab for thorough examination before progressing any further.

To be frank, I am VERY skeptical of the results, this was a maneuver to do some preliminary controlled testing in light of other people posting in support of this practice.
It is all too easy for someone to try this, break a sample, and post pictures of fine grain and say, "it works" when we know that what can be seen with the naked eye does not mean there is not mixed structure. While I do understand the enthusiasm many people have about this, it is imperative to be objective and logical without making assumptions. It could very well be as Geoff put it--a cute party trick, but not one that properly hardens a blade.
What is important is this:
I am trying my best to send early samples to a lab for testing, I have them with me and once I find a reputable, certified lab to review them, will send them off.
I understand more than anything else that faking anything along these lines jeopardizes my credibility and once I have results from an accredited lab, will post their results and name with it--sources count a lot for the reliability of the information.
Since posting the videos mentioned by the OP, I have more than once told people the aforementioned factors publicly on the original threads--I am not endorsing or advocating plate quenching carbon steels until we have proper lab results.
Until we know what's going on inside the steel I tested, it's a novelty, not an alternative.

Any updates on this subject?