Super Steels vs Regular Steels

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joseph Gardner said:
65+ is obtainable with any steel but really going for hardness of that sort really makes an object fragile. could just be the vanadium throwing readings off, cpm steel is like having marbles in clay, hit one of those marbles even in the soft state and itl throw readings off. did he say what method was used to test hardness?
Click to expand...
I'm sure its attainable but likey very brittle.
Posts I have seen were sale posts. And no indication of how they were tested were shown. Just his crystal weaving protocol HT.
 
ShannonSteelLabs said:
I'm sure its attainable but likey very brittle.
Posts I have seen were sale posts. And no indication of how they were tested were shown. Just his crystal weaving protocol HT.
Click to expand...
But what IS his CWF HT protocol?
I see a lot of explanations about what he believes is happening, but no step by step process that would allow replication for peer review, testing and evaluation.
 
slamosam said:
It didn't take long to spots the word 'tempered' - https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...ving-foundation.1409721/page-34#post-18021573
Click to expand...
As per his instructions, it notes to not perform a dedicated temper unless it's absolutely required.

"Temper ONLY when warranted by intended usage requires more ductility."

This is why it's confusing to me. It looks to me like he's just quenching a blade, doing a tiny bit of tempering via oil bath, and then using it at near-quenched hardness.
 
marrenmiller said:
As per his instructions, it notes to not perform a dedicated temper unless it's absolutely required.

"Temper ONLY when warranted by intended usage requires more ductility."

This is why it's confusing to me. It looks to me like he's just quenching a blade, doing a tiny bit of tempering via oil bath, and then using it at near-quenched hardness.
Click to expand...
Yea it's very strange. Looks like quench. Then mini oil tempers? I read the instructions several times. Still dont quite understand what's going on.
 
ShannonSteelLabs said:
Yea it's very strange. Looks like quench. Then mini oil tempers? I read the instructions several times. Still dont quite understand what's going on.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don't think anybody in the bluntcut thread knows what's going on either. That just puts us all on the same page.

The part that really throws me for a loop, aside from all of it, is the part where it says you can wait a day or a year before performing cryo, and then you only do cryo for 4 minutes.
 
marrenmiller said:
To be fair, I don't think anybody in the bluntcut thread knows what's going on either. That just puts us all on the same page.

The part that really throws me for a loop, aside from all of it, is the part where it says you can wait a day or a year before performing cryo, and then you only do cryo for 4 minutes.
Click to expand...

We should stop polluting Larrin's thread with bluntcut's ht protocol.
 
slamosam said:
Found: Nathan test result - https://www.bladeforums.com/threads...aving-foundation.1409721/page-8#post-16274399

Found: protocol - http://www.bluntcutmetalworks.com/i...aving-foundation-how-and-a-little-bit-of-why/
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. I had a hard time finding this on my own!

So it looks like he believes that by making slicing motions in the quench oil (and quenching at low temp) the crystal lattice orientation is realigning. Then by using a stirring motion it is taking on a spiral orientation.
Then you end up with a FCC structure surrounded by BCT (martensite) and with cryo and subsequent hot oil bath you now allow space for retained austenite to transform to martensite.
Is that the gist of it?
 
It's sad to see such harsh comments about Bluntcut's blades, even though he generously shared his blades with many for testing and often posted heat treating and testing details that knifemakers rarely share. Nathan's tests show that Bluntcut's heat treat is indeed amazing. Nathan has a well-deserved reputation as being honest, talented and knowledgeable. Why Nathan's word isn't good enough is a mystery to me.

I've personally tested Bluntcut's blades -- and use a couple of them regularly. They perform extremely well.

Larrin's comments miss the point of Bluntcut's description of what is going on within the steel's microstructure, which was just meant as a metaphor.

I've never known Bluntcut to be anything other than knowledgeable, honest and generous. Somehow, it seems he was driven from the forum, which is a great loss.
 
danbot said:
Thanks for posting this. I had a hard time finding this on my own!

So it looks like he believes that by making slicing motions in the quench oil (and quenching at low temp) the crystal lattice orientation is realigning. Then by using a stirring motion it is taking on a spiral orientation.
Then you end up with a FCC structure surrounded by BCT (martensite) and with cryo and subsequent hot oil bath you now allow space for retained austenite to transform to martensite.
Is that the gist of it?
Click to expand...
Copy and paste from that link...

Nathan the Machinist said:
This is a quick and dirty evaluation of a test knife sent to me by Luong. I don’t have the time to do an extremely through comparison, or make the needed full hard control sample, but I can look at a few things here with some accuracy and tighter controls.

The test knife sent to me is 16 ¾”, has an 11 1/8” blade, is .176” at the ricasso and weighs 16.0 ounces. The most remarkable thing about this knife is the hardness, which measures at HRC 65.5.

I ran it though some cuts and used other control knives for comparative reference. Every knife in this test was sharpened at 18 degrees per side on a fresh ceramic belt, at low speed and under flood coolant to prevent issues with a burnt edge being an unknown variable.

These are the test knives:

#1: Luong's Test knife: .037 BTE, HRC 65.5
#2: D3V Field Knife, .030 BTE, (thicker than standard) HRC 61.5
#3: D3V Chopper, .046 BTE (much thicker than standard), HRC 60.5
#4: Industry Standard HT knife, .041 BTE, HRC 60.0



1: The first cut is whittling, carving and light chopping on a piece of seasoned pressure treated pine board. These are sliding shaving cuts with the blade held almost parallel to the work piece. A person might do something like this sharpening a tent stake. Knives in a good steel with a good heat treat will frequently show no sign of damage from this at all.

Results:
#1, One extremely small chip that can be seen with bright light and felt with fingernail
#2, no sign of use
#3, no sign of use
#4, Industry standard HT shows a shiny glittery edge along the length where it was being used.



2: carving whittling cuts in Osage Orange. This involves carving down into and deepening a groove in the wood and torquing it back out. It makes a horrible gritty sound and puts a lot of lateral load on a fine edge.

#1, Very slightly shiny glittery edge, almost no sign.
#2, One extremely small chip that can be seen with bright light and felt with fingernail
#3, One extremely small chip that can be seen with bright light and felt with fingernail
#4, Minor shiny glittery edge that can be seen with bright light and felt with fingernail



3: Chopping into Osage orange. Due to the weight and size difference of these pieces I’ll hold the knife stationary against my bench and swing the wood into the edge. This tests edge stability in impact.

#1, One extremely small chip that can be seen with bright light. Can not be felt with fingernail
#2, small edge roll visible without bright light.
#3, small edge roll visible without bright light.
#4, Moderate edge roll, visible at arms length.



4: carving slivers off a steel nail.

#1, small glittery shiny edge, requires bright light to see
#2, small edge roll, requires bright light to see
#3, moderate edge roll, visible without bright light
#4, significant edge damage visible at an arms length



5: Chopping 16 penny nails. .150" work hardened wire, cut against an aluminum anvil using a 4 pound hammer. All of the knives took significant damage that is visible at an arms length. I ran this test yesterday at 20 DPS and there was much less damage. This shows the significance of a couple degrees in a test like this. Many testers are not controlling this geometric variable close enough to form valid observations.

The least damage was #1 (Luong's) followed closely by #3. #2 has more damage followed by #4 which has damage that goes above the edge bevel.

The final thing I did was chop a 2X4 in half twice without incident. These are hard, well seasoned boards and I hit pretty hard, and my control with this chopper wasn’t great, but there was very little sign of edge roll or micro chipping with no dents to the primary grind.

In conclusion: I don't know what a typical full hard blade would have done in these tests, but common sense tells me it probably wouldn't be great because untempered steel is usually too brittle to hold an edge well in rough use. I don’t know what the application will be for such a high hardness knife, and my testing of this knife was limited and didn’t include long term durability testing. But it certainly seems to me that Luong may be onto something here and his work may have a lot of potential in cutlery heat treat. So I can validate some of the claims made, and it is my opinion that this warrants a closer look.
Click to expand...
 
Twindog said:
It's sad to see such harsh comments about Bluntcut's blades, even though he generously shared his blades with many for testing and often posted heat treating and testing details that knifemakers rarely share. Nathan's tests show that Bluntcut's heat treat is indeed amazing. Nathan has a well-deserved reputation as being honest, talented and knowledgeable. Why Nathan's word isn't good enough is a mystery to me.

I've personally tested Bluntcut's blades -- and use a couple of them regularly. They perform extremely well.

Larrin's comments miss the point of Bluntcut's description of what is going on within the steel's microstructure, which was just meant as a metaphor.

I've never known Bluntcut to be anything other than knowledgeable, honest and generous. Somehow, it seems he was driven from the forum, which is a great loss.
Click to expand...
I dont mean my comments to sound harsh.
I just dont fully understand how he does his heat treat.

I have seen his videos and they have very impressive results.
 
Twindog said:
It's sad to see such harsh comments about Bluntcut's blades, even though he generously shared his blades with many for testing and often posted heat treating and testing details that knifemakers rarely share. Nathan's tests show that Bluntcut's heat treat is indeed amazing. Nathan has a well-deserved reputation as being honest, talented and knowledgeable. Why Nathan's word isn't good enough is a mystery to me.

I've personally tested Bluntcut's blades -- and use a couple of them regularly. They perform extremely well.

Larrin's comments miss the point of Bluntcut's description of what is going on within the steel's microstructure, which was just meant as a metaphor.

I've never known Bluntcut to be anything other than knowledgeable, honest and generous. Somehow, it seems he was driven from the forum, which is a great loss.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to sound harsh either, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary scrutiny. I think there is a language barrier that prevents Luong from effectively describing his processes in layman's terms, which leads to misunderstandings/confusion sometimes.
 
I spent a significant amount of time on those threads about "Crystal Weaving" and I can tell you that there isn't anything to his proposed theories. I pointed out all of the inconsistencies and nonsensical parts and he didn't budge in the slightest. He is preaching a religion not science. As I said many times in those other threads, I have no idea if his heat treatment is good or not. But I have a big problem with how he presents it, describes it, and overall just makes up whatever he wants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top