Stainless vs Carbon Steel Sword Blades

My whole point is that sword design and materials are a lot more complicated than "what's the HRc" and "mass = cutting power." Otherwise, if you're about to sword fight someone I bet almost everyone would pick a katana over a tanto. :D
Grosse Messer for the win :D

~Chip
 
Good thing we're not sword fighting, right. You know I'm impressed with your ti but you've not done a spadroon for me yet ;) Show Al your big one! Let's whip 'em all out!

Standing face to face, I'll take a tanto over a katana. :p At arms length? Well, I dunno, maybe a magic spadroon. The one that gets stuck isn't going to care. Of course, everyone will want their choice for the apocalypse.

I'd still like to see numbers.

Cheers

GC
 
Good thing we're not sword fighting, right. You know I'm impressed with your ti but you've not done a spadroon for me yet ;) Show Al your big one! Let's whip 'em all out!

Standing face to face, I'll take a tanto over a katana. :p At arms length? Well, I dunno, maybe a magic spadroon. The one that gets stuck isn't going to care. Of course, everyone will want their choice for the apocalypse.

I'd still like to see numbers.

Cheers

GC

Like one of those old time knife fights where the fighters' unarmed hands are tied together with a rope. :D
 
Oh gourd, you're really going to drag up a 16 yr (or so) year old video to show the good, bad and ugly?

You have to admit, horseclover......that video is the blade equivalent of the video of that DEA agent who shot himself in the foot a second after he said he was the "only one qualified to handle" it......
 
Sure, but there are newer examples of the same idiocy and quality of product. Not to mention being a fairly dismal attempt at explaining steel types, sword handling or any other subject in any depth. You know what though? An awful lot of what is posted to boards amounts to the unknowing being made aware of some fairly common sense truths. I shouldn't be surprised when viewers are offered nothing but the drive through menu. That, the level of interest and understanding many collectors and users limit themselves to. The rest of us 10% could/should be willing to pony up better explanations and examples.

Cheers
GC
 
Sure, but there are newer examples of the same idiocy and quality of product. Not to mention being a fairly dismal attempt at explaining steel types, sword handling or any other subject in any depth. You know what though? An awful lot of what is posted to boards amounts to the unknowing being made aware of some fairly common sense truths. I shouldn't be surprised when viewers are offered nothing but the drive through menu. That, the level of interest and understanding many collectors and users limit themselves to. The rest of us 10% could/should be willing to pony up better explanations and examples.

Cheers
GC

Well if that's the case then I'll add something, but it really just feels like more drive-through menu stuff.

2lbs of any ti alloys weigh the same as 2lbs of any steel alloys, or for that matter, 2lbs of feathers.



What am I missing here? 2-3lbs of either require the same amount of energy to overcome inertia, right?

If we are to quantify benefits, let us look at rotational forces, momentum and other factors before we claim any superiority. Heads up, equal dimensions, all the junk than can really support an argument one way or the other. Is faster equal to kinetic energy? You need the variables to compute that, right? Is less mass at a higher velocity delivering as much energy as more mass traveling slower with more momentum? Again, you need the variables to compute this stuff.

:p

GC

I'm sure you were asking a rhetorical question, but what's missing are the dimensions and shape nuances of the 2-3 lbs of sword blade material, which in practice WILL greatly affect all those movement and energy factors listed above, on both ends of the sword. When you're pushing the material's utmost limits, which a sword blade does by nature, then the shape - and the movement/energy factors that are determined by the shape and size - are limited (or made possible) by the characteristics of the sword material itself.

Imagine people being told they get to use 2 lbs of any type of wood to make a club in any shape, to use in a Death Dome battle. The variety of different clubs one could see would be crazy, and an "optimal" club's size and shape would be largely determined by the type of wood chosen. And in theory each club would be optimal for the personal it was made for and what they feel would work well for their strengths and style. In reality most folks would probably just mimic a bat or something they were familiar with.

As a great sword maker once told me, one reason he is able to make blades with so much raw cutting power is simply because the material used for the blade is strong enough to support such a design and use. Do we not see that process happening throughout history? i.e., bronze, iron, steel, then improved steel all affected weapon design, among a ton of other factors, such as armor design and fighting tactics, and even style trends.

I'm saying that the characteristics of ti alloys allow me to make a sword that pushes some limits, and one is that the sword can be dimensionally larger but be used very quickly and easily for its size, compared to a sword of the same size made in a heavier material like steel. I think that's a good thing because the ti doesn't take it too far - it's a lot more like steel than it is like aluminum. It's a hand-held weapon, after all, and a computer reading simple force factors isn't going to determine what's going on there.

This all seems self-evident and I should probably quit blithering forth. :D
 
I'm saying that the characteristics of ti alloys allow me to make a sword that pushes some limits, and one is that the sword can be dimensionally larger but be used very quickly and easily for its size, compared to a sword of the same size made in a heavier material like steel. I think that's a good thing because the ti doesn't take it too far - it's a lot more like steel than it is like aluminum. It's a hand-held weapon, after all, and a computer reading simple force factors isn't going to determine what's going on there.

VS

Make the ti sword 35% larger than the steel counterpart. It will still be 2-3 lbs and even quicker than the steel one. That's not a disadvantage - speed and accuracy are king!

Of the two statements, I am disagreeing with the latter. In the latter, you are indicating two objects equal in mass require different amounts of energy and my argument hinting at rotational forces, inertia and momentum are still quite valid points.

It is easy enough to say the larger (dimensionally) may have more reach or more width but the properties of mass in moment remain much the same. There are a lot of variables going on here and its simply not as simple as my sword is bigger than yours but weighs the same.

Forget ti for a second but compare say my m1832 foot artillery gladius meant for chopping rods of wood vs my Del Tin espada ropera (D5160) sidesword of about the same weight. Which one do you figure will have the same percussive force in chopping wood?

Equal length and breadth, now tell me a dimension-ally equal gladius of ti will have as much percussive force. Yes it will be lighter and move more easily. Make a copy of the espada ropera, equal in dimension. Yes, it will be lighter. Yet while needing to overcome less inertia in a thrust, will carry less momentum of mass. As well, have less rotational percussive force (albeit not blades intended to limb an opponent). That is where one needs the computer, to "prove" the perceived greater speed equals or exceeds the general performance of the heavier object.

In my opinion. The larger the item dimension-ally, the benefit that might be gained in using lighter alloys is really only reach and potential durability. Again, your work has changed my own perspective quite a regarding alloys of ty for knives and swords but I'll never dismiss what is fairly obvious (to me) some of the physics involved.

Cheers, best
GC
 
Last edited:
The larger the item dimension-ally, the benefit that might be gained in using lighter alloys is really only reach and durability.

I think that's the whole point? Not exactly bad benefits to have :). And alien blood acid resistance;).

~Chip
 
VS



Of the two statements, I am disagreeing with the latter. In the latter, you are indicating two objects equal in mass require different amounts of energy and my argument hinting at rotational forces, inertia and momentum are still quite valid points.

It is easy enough to say the larger (dimensionally) may have more reach or more width but the properties of mass in moment remain much the same. There are a lot of variables going on here and its simply not as simple as my sword is bigger than yours but weighs the same.

Forget ti for a second but compare say my m1832 foot artillery gladius meant for chopping rods of wood vs my Del Tin espada ropera (D5160) sidesword of about the same weight. Which one do you figure will have the same percussive force in chopping wood?

Equal length and breadth, now tell me a dimension-ally equal gladius of ti will have as much percussive force. Yes it will be lighter and move more easily. Make a copy of the espada ropera, equal in dimension. Yes, it will be lighter. Yet while needing to overcome less inertia in a thrust, will carry less momentum of mass. As well, have less rotational percussive force (albeit not blades intended to limb an opponent). That is where one needs the computer, to "prove" the perceived greater speed equals or exceeds the general performance of the heavier object.

In my opinion. The larger the item dimension-ally, the benefit that might be gained in using lighter alloys is really only reach and potential durability. Again, your work has changed my own perspective quite a regarding alloys of ty for knives and swords but I'll never dismiss what is fairly obvious (to me) some of the physics involved.

Cheers, best
GC

In the latter statement, I was referring to the speed and "quickness" of the business of the sword as it relates to leverage at the hilt, not purely of mass and inertia. That's what I meant by "even quicker than the steel one [of the same weight]." The longer sword's speed at the tip is going to be faster or quicker for the same movement input at the hilt end. Which is obvs, but that's specifically what I meant but didn't explicitly say.

The reason this matters beyond pure physics is because I believe the quickness of the nervous system and muscles is more of a limitation than strength, and the longer blade amplifies the hand's speed at the distal end. This is why I think it's generally advantageous as long as the weight doesn't start to get beyond the limits of what people can handle, or the length doesn't get cumbersome for the intended use (such as gladius being short for use in a very close shield wall fight - of course you would want to keep some weight in the shorter blade to keep the force it delivers effective).

This is why dog people like those atlatl tennis ball throwers. Using one you WILL add more power into the tennis ball than you can throwing it by hand because of the extra length it gives your arm, showing that the limitation to throwing the ball far isn't strength but hand speed. The ball does fly farther using the ball thrower (unless its so long or heavy that it becomes too big to use and overwhelms your strength).

So that's what I meant by a faster or quicker.
 
Stainless steel sword blades .......not a fan

Ti blades ........ Mecha changed my opinion of them

If I get hit by a bus tomorrow, all I want is for someone to say, "Once upon a time there was a dork named Mecha who made titanium alloy swords a real thing." :D
 
So that's what I meant by a faster or quicker.
Long story short, I believe your belief to be the answer, while disagreeing there is the advantage implied. Believe me when I say to have been down this road before.

Dagger vs halberd anyone? Coke vs Pepsi? Cut vs thrust? Boxers vs briefs?

Cheers

GC
 
Long story short, I believe your belief to be the answer, while disagreeing there is the advantage implied. Believe me when I say to have been down this road before.

Dagger vs halberd anyone? Coke vs Pepsi? Cut vs thrust? Boxers vs briefs?

Cheers

GC

I completely agree with your disagreement. The size/weight advantages I'm talking about aren't universal all the time. What I'm saying is the way titanium alloys work, which goes beyond just weight, can lead to some great and advantageous and even aberrant designs in swords. The casual remark I made earlier about simply making a sword 30% bigger or whatnot, was a response to the casual dismissal that there could be no advantage to using the material over steel. The ti opens new possibilities, many of which are great.
 
The "Goliath" manuscript illustrates dudes performing Longsword techniques with weapons that are clearly much larger than "normal" sized longswords. Instead of something around 3 pounds and 44"-52" long, the whole book is full of weapons that look as tall as the men wielding them. How much would they weigh? 4 to 5 pounds or more? Yet it's clear they were expected to be used the same way as their lighter counterparts.




This is where my mind starts wondering about the possibilities with titanium. You could make something that's much bigger (yet still within historically correct dimensions), while also being lighter (AND still within historically correct weight parameters). I.E., if you can use longsword techniques with something that's 45" and 2 3/4 pounds, and also with a 63" 5 pound behemoth, then why not combine the best of both? Get the reach & tip speed of that long blade while being lighter, yet also hitting with more power than other (shorter) swords that weigh 3 pounds.
 
Get the reach & tip speed of that long blade while being lighter, yet also hitting with more power than other (shorter) swords that weigh 3 pounds.

Therein lay the fallacies. Show your math projecting the given objects deliver less, or more kinetic energy and plot the dimensions along with weights (not forgetting linear and rotational forces).

More subjectively and simply put, I'll post again that the only true asset I see is reach.

Cheers

GC

The motante feders in Goliath are cute
 
And reach is a worthy asset in its own right. Even if nothing else was improved. There is a lot of thrusting in the German school of swordsmanship, at least.

I got halfway through the calculations, but ran out of time for now. The short version is that it's all a compromise. I'm sure you've seen this list: http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.WtEmS7pFyUk There are big swords that weighed 7 pounds, and also some of similar length that only weighed 3.3 or 3.4 pounds. So this was a compromise that at least some real swordsman considered worthwhile, which tells us the idea has merit. From pictures I've seen, when you make a 63" sword that light, the blade has to be very narrow, since there's a limit on how thin you can make 'em without being too floppy. By using a lighter material (titanium), you could make the blade broader so it has better cutting geometry, and possibly also make it a little thicker for stiffness as well.

Comparing a longer Ti sword of the same weight as a shorter steel one, the Ti blade will have a slightly greater radius of gyration, since the mass at the tip is further out. But since the grip is correspondingly longer I don't think you'd lose any rotational speed. Meaning it will hit a bit harder. It would not have the momentum of one of those 7 pound greatswords mentioned above, but its acceleration would be much greater making it faster handling. Thus, if you didn't have time to make a long/big swing to get it fully moving, it could have more energy/power than the slower & heavier sword. But I didn't get that far with the numbers yet. So like I said, a compromise.
 
My longest sword is a pound lighter than my heaviest sword, which is an inch shorter. Yes, the lighter sword can cut free standing empty plastic jugs and bottles. Yes, the heavier sword can cleave free standing half inch wall thickness cardboard pallet wrap cores. Grip lengths, centers of gravity and forward points of rotation quite similar.

It all kind of renders down to watcha goin to do with it ;), with all things being equal which usually aren't.

Or, we could compare +P 9mm to .357 loads.

Energy seems the biggest player.

Cheers

GC
 
It does depend on what you're doing with it. But whatever that is, it's within the parameters of being a hand-held weapon, sized for humans to use in combat. Within those bounds, the larger sword that weighs the same as a very similar smaller one is almost always going to be a bigger raw force multiplier than the smaller one, it's self-evident and doesn't take math to show it.

A group of samurai with tantos are going to get wiped out if they face a similar group with longer, thinner katanas that weigh the same. I mean place your bets, gents!

That's just considering cutting force, let alone the advantages of having a "quick" weapon. As I said above, what limits a sword fighter, in my opinion, isn't strength so much as speed and reaction time, and a longer blade amplifies that. A ti sword can be large and light relative to steel, yet well within the bounds of dishing out appropriate levels of hurtfu to an opponent.

Of course all of this musing is within reasonable dimensions, and assuming the blade's design doesn't go beyond being strong enough to use or weird enough to be unwieldy. In other words, still within the parameters of being used by a person and able to cause a lot of damage.

Sun Tzu doesn't seem to be opposed to a very large sword. :D

DeFszpb.jpg
 
My longest sword is a pound lighter than my heaviest sword, which is an inch shorter. Yes, the lighter sword can cut free standing empty plastic jugs and bottles. Yes, the heavier sword can cleave free standing half inch wall thickness cardboard pallet wrap cores. Grip lengths, centers of gravity and forward points of rotation quite similar.

It all kind of renders down to watcha goin to do with it ;), with all things being equal which usually aren't.

Or, we could compare +P 9mm to .357 loads.

Energy seems the biggest player.

Cheers

GC

By using ti as a blade material, you could make your heaviest sword weigh the same as your lightest sword and cut both of those targets. That doesn't seem to be a bad thing! X]
 
By using ti as a blade material, you could make your heaviest sword weigh the same as your lightest sword and cut both of those targets.

That could be infinitely debatable. No thanks :) (the debate)

Cheers

GC
 
Back
Top