Reasonable Knife Evaluation

[Phil Elmore]

Does Boeing test their wings by driving them through cinder blocks?

Stop comparing wildly different scenarios.

 

[busselover]

You mentioned sample size. My example addresses that issue.

To answer your question, no, they bend them repeatedly until they break. The topic is destructive testing. The result of interest is the yield point. Fundamental concept is the same.

 

[Phil Elmore]

No, it doesn't "address" anything, because you're comparing wildly different scenarios. They are not analogous. They do not support your assertions.

We do not agree about knife breaking stunts or their utility. We are not going to agree. You are not going to persuade me to agree, because you are wrong.

 

[theonew]

You are not going to persuade me to agree

That is quite obvious but only because you are wrong.

 

[ADD]

That is spurious logic. Find a knife with an airbag built into it and we'll talk about the appropriate way to test that air bag.

At heart, these techniques seem more a boxer than a martialist.
Bob and weave, and rope-a-dope to wear down the opponent.

Or, perhaps a magician.
Using a turn of a phrase as a slight of hand to misdirect the audience so the direct questions never need answering...






Oh, BTW aeronautical engineers would never max out their stress tests.

 

[Phil Elmore]

"I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[theonew]

but what am I?

Wrong.

 

[busselover]

No, it doesn't "address" anything, because you're comparing wildly different scenarios. They are not analogous. They do not support your assertions.

The fundamentals of fatigue testing are the same regardless of what is being tested. They are indeed analogous. If you knew anything about engineering design, strength of materials, and materials testing, you would understand this.

We do not agree about knife breaking stunts or their utility. We are not going to agree. You are not going to persuade me to agree, because you are wrong.

You have yet to prove your point; simply saying I am wrong does not make it so. You have failed to support your premise. Repeating it over and over does not make it true....

Your bickering is not productive.

 

[Ebbtide]

The car crashing analogy doesn't work.
Car crashes happen during normal use.
It is not an intended event during normal use, but they still happen.
How many people posting in this thread have been in a car crash?
I have.
Now beating a knife thru a pressure treated 4x4 with a steel hammer doesn't happen during normal use.
Nor does stabbing a steel chair or filing cabinet.
That only seems to happen in internet knife "Tests"

If you're going to test how a knife batons thru wood, do it as you would in a RLSS®. On a piece of wood that you chopped into a manageable size with the knife (therefor having more or less pointy ends ). Use a baton made of wood that you'd find.
How many of you carry a 5lb steel hammer into the woods on your survival trips? Or carry one in situations where you might have to survive or save someone from a car wreck?
If you're going to test how well it does on impacts with rocks chop something as you would in a RLSS® that include incidental impacts with rocks.
Around here, on Long Island, that would be quartz not cinderblock and those incidental impacts would be much different. They wouldn't be the same chop for each impact either.
Cliff would say that chopping cinderblock simulates a higher rate of wear in a shorter time. I'm not buying it, that's just chopping cinderblocks.
If one wants to test it, test it as you use it and put the time in

Anything can be broken.
Breaking something out of context doesn't teach you much.
One can learn from destructive testing if it is done in context.
Otherwise it is a parlor trick, show biz, attention grabbing, or silly abuse for bragging rights on who's got the toughest knife.

The toughest knife is a recent phenomenon. I'm 52 and feel that it all started with Cold Steel and their tanto punching thru the oil drum in their ads. Before that it was style, use, steel type and edge holding that were pushed in the ads. Again AFAIK/remember.

IMNSHO it (the toughest knife) is the answer to a question that no one asked.

Thompson & CS created a market niche and filled it.
Others saw the underpopulated niche and jumped on the bandwagon.
It isn't good or bad, it just is.
If you feel the need to have the toughest knife out there, by all means go buy it. Heck, buy a bunch.

The terms "hard use" and "abuse" are probably the most misused terms in knifedom.
Neither have been defined by a standard.
One man's hard use is another's abuse.
Just like spicy for one is killer hot to someone else.
Or, hard use that would kill my Case Congress would be laughed at by a CRK GB.
There's that context thing again.

There was mention made of the ABS doing bend and break tests.
Those are not tests of the knives.
Those are tests of the individual smith's ability to manipulate the steel.
There is a difference.

BTW, I've had a knife in my pocket since 4th or 5th grade and haven't broken one yet

 

[theonew]

It is not an intended event during normal use, but they still happen.

And mistakes are of course never made when using knives

 

[busselover]

The car crashing analogy doesn't work.
Car crashes happen during normal use.
It is not an intended event during normal use, but they still happen.
How many people posting in this thread have been in a car crash?
I have.
Now beating a knife thru a pressure treated 4x4 with a steel hammer doesn't happen during normal use.
Nor does stabbing a steel chair or filing cabinet.
That only seems to happen in internet knife "Tests"

What is normal use? Do you think the knife carried by the soldier in Iraq sees the same use as the one carried on weekend camping trips?

How many of you carry a 5lb steel hammer into the woods on your survival trips?

No, but a large rock is a reasonable substitute....

The toughest knife is a recent phenomenon. I'm 52 and feel that it all started with Cold Steel and their tanto punching thru the oil drum in their ads. Before that it was style, use, steel type and edge holding that were pushed in the ads. Again AFAIK/remember.

Guess you aren't familiar with a company called Buck and their ads featuring a knife batoned through a steel bolt....from waaaay back....

One man's hard use is another's abuse.
Just like spicy for one is killer hot to someone else.

Exactly.....

 

[Ebbtide]

Normal use?
ummmmmm.... cutting things?
Again, normal use in context eh?
Do soldiers in Iraq use a 5lb hammer and piece of 4x4 lumber?
The problem with these disussions is that one can invent a scenerio to fit one's side of the discussion.
What would a soldier in Iraq use a knife for?
Figure that out and test that way. Then your test would be in context.
Same goes for the weekend camper.


A large rock or a piece of tree or a piece of pressure treated lumber.
Context again.

I am familiar with Buck and their logo.
Steel bolt? All this time it was an iron nail.
One can cut an iron nail by tapping the knife thru it.

Besides, it is a logo, a piece of art, not a mission statement.
The old Pontiac cars had an indian on the hood ornament.
Does that mean they were made by indians?

 

[theonew]

Ebbtide, but what about accidents.

For instance, last time I was out in the woods I made a fire. There wasn't much available wood on the mountaintop so I batoned a dry piece of wood to get some kindling. I was being careful, not abusing my knife, but I misjudged the necessary force and my blade slammed into what I thought was just dirt but happened to be a small layer of earth over rock. Messed up the edge a bit but didn't break the knife. Now imagine if I had been slightly hypothermic with less accurate gross motor skills and rushing to build a fire ...

 

[busselover]

duplicate post...sorry!

 

[busselover]

Normal use?
ummmmmm.... cutting things?
Again, normal use in context eh?
Do soldiers in Iraq use a 5lb hammer and piece of 4x4 lumber?
The problem with these disussions is that one can invent a scenerio to fit one's side of the discussion.
What would a soldier in Iraq use a knife for?
Figure that out and test that way. Then your test would be in context.
Same goes for the weekend camper.


A large rock or a piece of tree or a piece of pressure treated lumber.
Context again.

That is the point- one never knows what situation might present itself in a hard use environment. That is why destructive testing is necessary- it defines the ultimate strength and illustrates what the knife is capable of in a worst case scenario.

I am familiar with Buck and their logo.
Steel bolt? All this time it was an iron nail.
One can cut an iron nail by tapping the knife thru it.


Besides, it is a logo, a piece of art, not a mission statement.
The old Pontiac cars had an indian on the hood ornament.
Does that mean they were made by indians?

Not too familar I see. Reproduced below. Hammered through what looks to be more bolt than nail. Your analogy is false. The logo makes an inference of toughness.

http://www.great-lakes.org/graphics-2/Buck-Logo.jpg

 

[Ebbtide]

I fixed the link for you
I thought we were talking about old advertising and when the whole toughness thing began?
That logo is newer than the CS Tanto ads that I saw in SOF back in the mid 80's.
Maybe look for the old logo, back from the 70's?
Either way, the head on that is round and not a hexagon, so I still vote nail.
Again it is a piece of art. Even if it does make an inference of toughness, it is one that can be duplicated by the product. Cutting an iron nail.
This nit picking is silly.

That is the point- one never knows what situation might present itself in a hard use environment. That is why destructive testing is necessary- it defines the ultimate strength and illustrates what the knife is capable of in a worst case scenario.

In your heated desire to be right about something and to champion your cause you missed the fact that I never said anything against destructive testing.

I did, however, say that testing is useless without context.

I stated that crash testing cars was a bad analogy.
I stated that beating a knife with a 5lb steel hammer thru a pine 4x4 wasn't in context of any real world use of a knife.
I stated that the ABS tests the smith, not the knife.

 

[theonew]

I stated that beating a knife with a 5lb steel hammer thru a pine 4x4 wasn't in context of any real world use of a knife.

And I stated why it was by using an example above. Not the hammer through wood analogy but regarding the often cited 'why would I ever need my knife to be pounded through a brick'. Yes, it was an accident! Yet you conveniently ignore this.

 

[Ebbtide]

Ebbtide, but what about accidents.

For instance, last time I was out in the woods I made a fire. There wasn't much available wood on the mountaintop so I batoned a dry piece of wood to get some kindling. I was being careful, not abusing my knife, but I misjudged the necessary force and my blade slammed into what I thought was just dirt but happened to be a small layer of earth over rock. Messed up the edge a bit but didn't break the knife. Now imagine if I had been slightly hypothermic with less accurate gross motor skills and rushing to build a fire ...

What about accidents?
They happen.
You learned a lesson.
Your brain is the most important tool you have.
Now you know to watch where you baton your kindling.
Or would you rather have a bullet proof uber tough knife that you can have accidents with and not worry?
If so, get one.

I absolutely refuse to get into what if scenarios.

That can go on forever and just be an excercise in discussion/arguement.
If I were to go down that road I'd just answer with what if you made a broader search for wood?
Or what if you wore another sweater and didn't get hypothermic?

See, the whole point is to avoid the RLSS® in the first place
That goes back to the brain being the most important tool.

Not picking on you, just answering cuz you asked
Friends?

 

[theonew]

What about accidents?
They happen.
You learned a lesson.

No I didn't learn a lesson, I made a mistake. I'm simply trying to point out that toughness, beyond Phil's notion of "reasonableness", as a metric for knife use is a valid concern.

Appreciate the answer though

 

[Ankar Sheng]

You know the limit of the item you've just destroyed and no longer own, in a vague sort of way. You don't necessarily know the limit of every other model of the same knife with a sample size of one or two, broken through "tests" that are not truly reproducible or measurable.

As far as I'm concerned if one random sample fails either the design, materials or quality control are at fault, and I dont care which it is because the bottom line is all the same.