HoB said:
...the test cited was somebody doing these cuts buy hand and by feel.
The reason the results are so dramatically different (CATRA vs the other) is that blunting is not linear, and is similar to an exponential decay, initially rapid and then a plateau. Catra cuts a specific amount of cards and compares sharpness, the other method cuts until a specific level of blunting is achieved and compares the amount of material cut.
If you take two highly nonlinear curves f(x) and g(x), and calculate the ratio g(x)/f(x) at some fixed x, and then solve for what value of g(x) and f(x) = C, the ratio of x values here can be *massively* different than the previous function relationship. This means you can easily say something is 30% better or 200% depending on what exactly you mean.
My problem with some of the tests is that they don't exactly say what they are doing, is it the same geometry with all edges sharpened by the author, or is it different knives with NIB edges, could one be more acute or left more coarse, was one knife even just longer? Were the cuts every repeated to check, could the really low perforamance simply been because of a wire edge?
Some times they make no sense either, consider this one :
ZDP = 3 times VG-10
ZDP = 4 time D2 (at 62 HRC)
ZDP = 10 times ATS-34
So VG-10 is superior to D2 and ATS-34 is not even close to either of them? How do you explain that? This is from a PDF file Willian Henry has on their website.
-Cliff