Regarding IDIOT tester.

[hardheart]

methodicalness is open to fair use, but "scientifical methodicalness of the highest degree" is my baby

 

[markksr]

How about "Scienterrific Methodologocology"...

 

[Ebbtide]

You can break knives and call it science, but that is like breaking wind and calling it music.

Brilliant!

 

[hlee]

Gator, you wrote…

Let's say Noss uses some sort of device that swings the mallet with exactly same amount of force, perpendicular, etc. You get some data out of it. So... Then what? How many times you, me or any other human being will be able to match that by hand? And when you need to perform such task in the field or wherever else, and you don't have that machine with you, you will use your hands and introduce numerous "variables" to that lab test. Will those results ever apply?

For all the criticism I've seen here out outside, I don't recall too many (if any) suggestions what he should do to make tests more scientific. All I see is dismissal of the test results, scientific or not. Why are you guys even watching it over and over again?

From the bolded part, I inferred that you were suggesting that, by not controlling for anything that Noss is doing a real world “test.” From reading the above, it seems clear to me that you are indeed saying that Noss’ “tests” have more real world application than a series of actual tests that conform to a set of criteria and are designed to allow the detection of quantifiable observables (data), which can be compared between samples. (I’m going to foreworn you that the following may seem pompous) That is laughable.

Fantastic. So we agree that human beings won't be able to match the machines.

Again, the point is not that a human must match a machine. Exactly the opposite is true. If you can’t see the difference, then you should go watch an episode of Mythbusters. The one where they test the sword cuts a sword movie myth would be perfect. Not that they are the epitome of experimental design, but this episode shows the “machine conforms to a human during cutlery testing” idea.

And this is valid logic? How many humans do you know that can exert same force which will be "typical of average human" and do it over and over again? And how often knife use is in uncontrolled env. Those tests will give exactly that result, i.e. how will the knife behave in controlled use and environment. Which doesn't really apply in most of the situations in everyday life, forget survival or combat.

So here you say that controlled testing only applies for those tests (and cannot give information beyond the tests). However you then drag real life/survival/combat into the equation. By your own logic, Noss’ “tests are only applicable in his garage while wearing a hockey mask.

That's confusing huh? In first sentence you say tests are not the same, in second you list the tests and clearly state that does the same tests, so which one is it? Besides, if you're not watching them how do you even know he's doing the same thing or not, or what is he even doing there. Criticizing without knowing the subject is scientific or at least ok?

What I actually said is…

So he doesn't claim that what he is doing is scientific. Good on him, it's not. However, he takes his unscientific "data" and uses them to draw comparisons between knives. Even though the knives may have gone through the same style of "tests," ie chop through a board, break a cinder block, hammer the spine, etc- the forces experienced by each knife and the number of blows, bounces, chops, and stabs vary greatly between knives "tested." The only conclusion that can be drawn at the end is "the knife did/not break." Statements like "I felt this knife should have lasted longer" are right in the same catergory with "this was fun." Absolutely subjective and based on someone's feeling.

The “tests” look the same on the surface, but are not controlled for any parameter. They are not actual tests that give portable observables. You cannot take the results from one of these “tests” and compare it to another, even if both were chopping wood, for example. I don’t watch the videos because they are all the same, but still not comparable and uninformative for me.

I apologize, may be I misunderstood overall tone of your msgs, but you do come out as a bit pompous. However, I would really be interested to see your CV(cutlery related parts at least) and more importantly, learning what have you contributed to knife community, scientific knife testing and such.

As I said in an earlier post…

I do not have a degree in metalurgy, ergonomics, or whack-a-knife-with-a-hammerology. However, I do belive that I have sufficient standing to critique the <laugh>scientific</laugh> <guffaw>testing</guffaw> of the hockey masked.

And just because you asked…

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/282/44/31982

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/21/14411

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/21/14402

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/281/47/36236

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/bichaw/2003/42/i50/abs/bi035596s.html

They're not cutlery related, but should show-none the less- that I can put an actual assay (test) together with controls.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

Still, my point is that I've never really gotten past all the naïve ego that noss4 displayed in his earliest posts. With statements like, "I have produced work that will endure. Your talk will fade like an echo," it just seems like he enjoys the attention more than anything else. We have a name for that behavior over in a couple of other subforums, but I try my best not to call names out here in the rest of BFC.

Very few people do free public service for purely altruistic reasons. Most get pleasure from recognition of their work.

Noss is doing original knife testing of his own devices in an attempt to compare durability. IMO, he should get credit for attempting to reveal otherwise hidden information that many on these boards have often wondered about. Granted, the relatively unprecedented nature of his tests sometimes make it hard to judge if they yield valid comparisons. But if repeatability is a measure of validity, his results with Busse knives closely parallel those of Cliff Stamp, even though their testing methods are not exactly the same.

Perhaps others will be inspired to follow, either confirming or contradicting Noss' results.

 

[theonew]

I think my kitchen may be dull, it doesn't seem to cut a tomato as easily as it used to. The problem is I just can't be sure whether its the knife or me or perhaps the tomato. I guess I can never really be sure whether its dull or not without sending it out for some scientific Catra testing.

 

[hardheart]

I think a big thing is that many people want precision without realizing that Noss isn't just testing for a breaking point, he's also commenting on how well the blades chop or penetrate, how much it hurts his hand on impact because of handle design, how secure the grip is, what he thinks of the sheaths, etc. He breaks the knives, but he also comments on the ergos and heft when working them. They aren't tests with rigorous demands on precision, but they are reviews at the very least. Kudos are tossed around for youtube soundbites and knife rag articles that for the most part don't do any more than anything Noss posts. There are sources for numbers on material properties, the vids are fun.

 

[Gator97]

series of actual tests that conform to a set of criteria and are designed to allow the detection of quantifiable observables (data)

Could you please clarify and give some examples of such tests including how it would apply to real world applications?

(I’m going to foreworn you that the following may seem pompous) That is laughable.

No need, your posts speak for themselves.

The one where they test the sword cuts a sword movie myth would be perfect. Not that they are the epitome of experimental design, but this episode shows the “machine conforms to a human during cutlery testing” idea.

Which can be argued indefinitely how close the machine will match a human because it's a machine and much more "flawless" in motion and precision. Besides, for repetitive work machines aren't good testers, that is just because machine can do repetitive work well doesn't mean a human can do. So if your tests succeed with a machine that absolutely doesn't mean in human hands the same knife will achieve the same results or even close to that.

So here you say that controlled testing only applies for those tests (and cannot give information beyond the tests). However you then drag real life/survival/combat into the equation. By your own logic, Noss’ “tests are only applicable in his garage while wearing a hockey mask.

This isn't exactly what I meant, but how about, you give us an example of what are the tests you're speaking in your messages all this time, at least one, and then we can go by example, at least I'll understand where or how am I wrong. So far all you never went any further than mentioning "scientific tests" with quantitative data and my main problem with all that is the lack of definition or any examples.

What I actually said is…

That you don't watch the videos and already know they're the same.

And just because you asked…

Thanks for the info. Though, as you state yourself none of it is cutlery related, however you do seem comfortable enough criticizing including mythbusters test machine which isn't good enough for your standards.

They're not cutlery related, but should show-none the less- that I can put an actual assay (test) together with controls.

So, could you please put together a small one about one of those knife scientific tests you're advocating?

 

[Guyon]

Noss is doing original knife testing of his own devices in an attempt to compare durability. IMO, he should get credit for attempting to reveal otherwise hidden information that many on these boards have often wondered about. Granted, the relatively unprecedented nature of his tests sometimes make it hard to judge if they yield valid comparisons. But if repeatability is a measure of validity, his results with Busse knives closely parallel those of Cliff Stamp, even though their testing methods are not exactly the same.

I see. Are you one of the fans of whom he speaks?

 

[pedicabdriver]

I think a big thing is that many people want precision without realizing that Noss isn't just testing for a breaking point, he's also commenting on how well the blades chop or penetrate, how much it hurts his hand on impact because of handle design, how secure the grip is, what he thinks of the sheaths, etc. He breaks the knives, but he also comments on the ergos and heft when working them. They aren't tests with rigorous demands on precision, but they are reviews at the very least. Kudos are tossed around for youtube soundbites and knife rag articles that for the most part don't do any more than anything Noss posts. There are sources for numbers on material properties, the vids are fun.

i think one problem, as well, is the fact that many people either want to look at noss' tests as the be all, end all evaluation of a knife or as completely unreliable/pointless. the truth is somewhere in the middle. tests like batoning, chopping, cutting webbing, etc... are totally legitimate tests in my opinion and it's nice to be able to see how different knives perform in that regard.

to be honest, i usually don't watch the tests beyond the sheet metal penetration or concrete block chopping portions because those are things that i never plan on doing with a knife. it's cool to know what a knife can/cannot take in terms of extreme use, but it's not something that i find extremely practical in my everyday life.

 

[Broos]

I think my kitchen may be dull, it doesn't seem to cut a tomato as easily as it used to. The problem is I just can't be sure whether its the knife or me or perhaps the tomato. I guess I can never really be sure whether its dull or not without sending it out for some scientific Catra testing.

Maybe you should go to Tomatoforums.com for that. This is the knife reviews and testing forum on bladeforums.

Actually, that is the best defense of using an unrepeatable and semi-random test methodology to predict behavior or failure (scientific conclusions) that I've seen in this thread! Good job.

 

[theonew]

Maybe you should go to Tomatoforums.com for that. This is the knife reviews and testing forum on bladeforums.

Sorry, maybe one of the double-secret-uber-internet mods could move it over there

 

[hlee]

Could you please clarify and give some examples of such tests including how it would apply to real world applications?

Chopping Cinder Block- Each knife was chopped through a cinder block (insert cinder block manufacturer and lot number (if available) here). The angle and velocity of each swing was controlled with the use of the cinder-block-buster-o-matic instrument (Noss4 Industries) and each strike was delivered to the block with the same region of the blade ± x mm. Chops were counted and cinder blocks (this is why we have lot numbers) were replaced every y chops in order to maintain uniformity of the chopping media. I understand that Noss is of limited budget (as we all are) and does these reviews out of his own pocket, so for the purpose of this example I will only mention that these tests should be done at least in triplicate on several areas of the blade edge.

The cinder-block-buster-o-matic consists of a rigid pole/lever upon one end the knife to be tested is attached. The other end is affixed to a rigid pivot point on the floor of the shop. The knife is raised above the test media z feet and allowed to drop to the media below. The knife end of the instrument also houses a set of weights that allows the tester to maintain the overall mass of the sample, regardless of the actual mass of the knife being tested (this corrects for force without having to measure force). See figure 1 for a detailed construction diagram.

This is &#8220;quick and dirty&#8221; and would probably need to be tweaked before full implementation. Part of my current job is assay development and implementation. No assay goes into screening without verification that it is giving interpretable data, and validation that the data are applicable over a broad range of potential samples. Instruments also have to be checked for operation within specification.

Which can be argued indefinitely how close the machine will match a human because it's a machine and much more "flawless" in motion and precision. Besides, for repetitive work machines aren't good testers, that is just because machine can do repetitive work well doesn't mean a human can do. So if your tests succeed with a machine that absolutely doesn't mean in human hands the same knife will achieve the same results or even close to that.

The point of using a machine is to remove human error from the equation. If you want a set of data with a meaningful standard deviation that is a result of the test sample and not the tester, then removing the tester as a source of variability is the solution. That knife x broke on material y after z repetitions could just be an artifact of Noss doing the testing. Again, Noss like the rest of us, is not a man of unlimited means. He cannot test a sufficient number of samples of a particular make to put boundaries on the variability that he introduces. Remove the Noss variable from the test and the random variability goes down orders of magnitude.

The point is that with appropriately bounded data, one could say that x knife is tougher than y knife regardless of environment (field, shop, or lab). Toughness should be (and is) a characteristic of a knife and not of how it is used. However, in order to test toughness, you have to have a consistent scale for all knives.

This isn't exactly what I meant, but how about, you give us an example of what are the tests you're speaking in your messages all this time, at least one, and then we can go by example, at least I'll understand where or how am I wrong. So far all you never went any further than mentioning "scientific tests" with quantitative data and my main problem with all that is the lack of definition or any examples.

See above.

That you don't watch the videos and already know they're the same.

Can you point me to a set of Noss destruction videos that deviate significantly &#8220;talk about the knife, peel the apple, chop the 2x4, cut the webbing, baton through the 4x4, cut the webbing, stab the folding chair, dig through the 2x4, cut the webbing, chop the cinder block, cut the webbing, bounce on the knife?&#8221;

Thanks for the info. Though, as you state yourself none of it is cutlery related, however you do seem comfortable enough criticizing including mythbusters test machine which isn't good enough for your standards.

You don&#8217;t have to be an expert in a particular field to recognize flaws in testing methodology, or the near absence of methodology all together.

The only bad criticism is criticism that is not rationally evaluated for its merits by those receiving the criticism. I&#8217;m sure that Adam Jamie and the rest of the Mythbusters would welcome criticism- and they do as they frequently reopen old &#8220;cases&#8221; when a sufficiently large mass of fans see a potential flaw. I have no problem with the machines that they create. In fact, I think that they are ingenious solutions to the problems that they face.

However, the problem that I see (as small as it is) is that sometimes they seem to miss the forest for the trees when declaring a myth busted or confirmed. They may demonstrate the overall feasibility of the myth, but let an insignificant detail of the myth push it in to the busted file. On the other end, they may use a flawed experiment to confirm a myth. This was seen in the tractor trailer tire through the car window episode- the steel belt peels off of a trailer tire and flies through the window. They &#8220;confirmed&#8221; this myth by firing a tire tread at the driver&#8217;s side window at 50mph. Nevermind that if this were to happen on the road, the velocity of the tread would be in the same direction as the trailer and almost nonexistent in the direction perpendicular to the direction of travel (you know, toward a car next to the de-treaded tire).

So, could you please put together a small one about one of those knife scientific tests you're advocating?

See above.

 

[hardheart]

hlee, in regards to your cinder block test as outlined-it takes out human error, but it takes out the human factor completely. As I mentioned, since Noss does it by hand, he can provide feedback on how the action feels, if the knife is sufficient for the task for him. Yes, this isn't enough to say whether or not it is sufficient for me/anyone else, but it is a slight better than letting a machine do it. I'm not as interested in a knife-shaped-object version of a charpy or izod as I am in hearing someone say the knife is a 'good' chopper, and it's especially nice to have some video of that. Not as good as swinging it myself, but it won't get a whole lot better otherwise.

What is the question Noss is trying to answer with the videos? Is it "How much force does it take to break this knife?" or is it "How many times can I hit it with this hammer before it breaks?" One is best answered with a machine, the other is impossible to answer with a machine by the very nature of the question. Dropping a calibrated weight from a determined height onto wooden boards doesn't tell me how many I can break with a karate chop. Maybe Noss isn't answering the questions some people want asked.

 

[Broos]

Sorry, maybe one of the double-secret-uber-internet mods could move it over there

I was just picking at ya because hlee and gator were making my head hurt, and all I had left was enough sarcasm to match yours!

 

[theonew]

I was just picking at ya because hlee and gator were making my head hurt, and all I had left was enough sarcasm to match yours!

Sarcasm accepted, my head hurts too.

 

[hlee]

hlee, in regards to your cinder block test as outlined-it takes out human error, but it takes out the human factor completely. As I mentioned, since Noss does it by hand, he can provide feedback on how the action feels, if the knife is sufficient for the task for him. Yes, this isn't enough to say whether or not it is sufficient for me/anyone else, but it is a slight better than letting a machine do it. I'm not as interested in a knife-shaped-object version of a charpy or izod as I am in hearing someone say the knife is a 'good' chopper, and it's especially nice to have some video of that. Not as good as swinging it myself, but it won't get a whole lot better otherwise.

What is the question Noss is trying to answer with the videos? Is it "How much force does it take to break this knife?" or is it "How many times can I hit it with this hammer before it breaks?" One is best answered with a machine, the other is impossible to answer with a machine by the very nature of the question. Dropping a calibrated weight from a determined height onto wooden boards doesn't tell me how many I can break with a karate chop. Maybe Noss isn't answering the questions some people want asked.

This is why I was glad to see that Noss was doing some field tests with his knives. It was my impression that with the field tests, the object was to make these sorts of observations.

If the question is, is this a good and comfortable chopper, then a field test, not a destruction test, is in order. Good and comfortable are subjective. (We don't expect to get information about seat comfort from an automobile crash test)

If the questions are; can I break this knife by choppng a piece of wood, how does this relate to toughness, and how does the toughness of this knife compare another knife, then something more structured and rigorous is in order. Toughness is an objective observable parameter of a knife blade, which can be measured with a degree of certainty (standard error) and directly compared between samples.

 

[Vorpal Blade]

I see. Are you one of the fans of whom he speaks?

Yes. But Noss' tests alone are not conclusive. I would take a keen interest if more people became inspired to do destruction tests of their own devising. Consistent results, established for the same knives, tested by different individuals would provide valuable information for the knife buying public. On the other hand, sporadic and contradictory results would debunk the usefulness of such tests.

 

[hlee]

It could go a ways to answer the question of "How many times could the same guy get a poorly heat treated blade from the same company?" Also known as "Random bad heat treat versus evil serrations." Uniformity is still the name of the game.

 

[hlee]

Double post