Super Steels vs Regular Steels

[Someone1]

It's a good idea to suggest that my testing is bad before I test anything. That way if it doesn't confirm what you want you can say you knew my testing wouldn't be fair to begin with.

It's not so much that, Larrin, it's that if you give requirements that box everything into a neat little square and doesn't give credit to those outside the box, then nothing much will be gained. Most anything that pushes society forward is outside the box that can be properly tested and accounted for. Doesn't matter if you're talking music, psychiatry, or physics. Those that push society forward are often the ones that would not fit into a neat little testable box with absolute quantifiable outcomes.

What if Galileo had succumbed to the scientists of his day and stuck with what they purported to be the most scientifically reliable testing frameworks?

What if Newton had decided that there wasn't an adequate way to test gravity? That all the previous scientists were right?

What if Jimmi Hendrix decided that the beatles were the pinnacle of music?

A LOT of what they said was absolute hogwash, doesn't mean they didn't push things forward a step or two regardless of their bs.

 

[danbot]

It's not so much that, Larrin, it's that if you give requirements that box everything into a neat little square and doesn't give credit to those outside the box, then nothing much will be gained. Most anything that pushes society forward is outside the box that can be properly tested and accounted for. Doesn't matter if you're talking music, psychiatry, or physics. Those that push society forward are often the ones that would not fit into a neat little testable box with absolute quantifiable outcomes.

The requirements for the Charpy toughness test are not "Larrin's" requirements. It is a standardized test designed to eliminate as many variables as possible. So that we can compare "apples to apples". It is only the sample sizes that are standardized and the control sample that you are testing against. The outcome that Luong would be looking for is that his Vanax has more toughness at high hardness than Vanax conventionally heat treated at typical hardness for example.

 

[Natlek]

With the right geometry even brittle steel can do some pretty impressive things.

Then prove to us what you just write ? I will pay the costs of test ?
Bluntcut aready challenge you ? Come on metallurgist , show us that science can do this ? Make knife in AEB-L steel in 64.5 HRC and send it to @Twindog for test ?? I will PAY all cost you have ?
edge geometry around 0.022-0.025" behind edge thick and 17+dps.

Metal Experts - please make sure show your emperor stuff/clothe first then maybe think about bad mouthing others. For example - show us your 64+rc chopper in aeb-l or more challenging niolox, such as this one:

Simple - if you can't do something others can, which mean others know and experienced something you simply don't have! i.e. time to learn.

 

[Larrin]

I think I’ve made my points repeatedly and succinctly. For my own mental health I will no longer be repeating myself in this thread.

 

[danbot]

Then prove to us what you just write ? I will pay the costs of test ?
Bluntcut aready challenge you ? Come on metallurgist , show us that science can do this ? Make knife in AEB-L steel in 64.5 HRC and send it to @Twindog for test ?? I will PAY all cost you have ?
edge geometry around 0.022-0.025" behind edge thick and 17+dps.

An example of how it works would be that test blades of a standard size and edge geometry would be made (let's say three) using AEB-L and they would be heat treated. One would be conventionally HT'd to, say 58 RC, one would be conventionally HT'd to 61 RC and one would be HT'd using Luong's HT protocol to 64.5 RC, then they would all be CATRA tested cutting the same standardized material.

 

[Twindog]

Back in December 1947, two physicists at Bell Laboratories, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, inserted two electrodes into a small wafer of germanium. They measured 100 times more power coming out of that wafer than what went in. Their discovery led to invention of the transistor, which is the "nerve cell" of modern electronics.

At the time, no one had an understanding of what was going on, but those physicists and others created hypotheses, which were often ridiculed by more rigid, traditional physicists. Through extensive testing of various hypotheses, the movement of electrons through semiconductors was teased out and documented.

This is the process of science.

What Bluntcut did was create a heat treat that has proved effective in multiple, real world tests. He created a hypothesis to try and explain why that heat treat was effective. Whether that hypothesis holds up is a matter for further research. Ridiculing that hypothesis without testing is no different than the cynical critics who tried to deny the science behind transistors without evidence.

 

[Natlek]

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.

Well he quench and temper in same time ?
s1: quench obj to 450-465F oil bath, slice around for 10 seconds, then stir around for 1 minutes
* do this for 1 or more objs
* Suspend/hanging this obj in this bath



s2: Cover the oil bath with a lid or aluminum foil.
* Target for uniform 1F/minute drop in temperature.
s3: 1 hr later – remove lid/cover.

 

[danbot]

Back in December 1947, two physicists at Bell Laboratories, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, inserted two electrodes into a small wafer of germanium. They measured 100 times more power coming out of that wafer than what went in. Their discovery led to invention of the transistor, which is the "nerve cell" of modern electronics.

At the time, no one had an understanding of what was going on, but those physicists and others created hypotheses, which were often ridiculed by more rigid, traditional physicists. Through extensive testing of various hypotheses, the movement of electrons through semiconductors was teased out and documented.

This is the process of science.

What Bluntcut did was create a heat treat that has proved effective in multiple, real world tests. He created a hypothesis to try and explain why that heat treat was effective. Whether that hypothesis holds up is a matter for further research. Ridiculing that hypothesis without testing is no different than the cynical critics who tried to deny the science behind transistors without evidence.

Do you know what his hypothesis is? And can you explain it in layman's terms? Is it testable?

 

[cbrstar]

I'm a little on the fence about Bluntcut as I have the feeling it's a bit of a "Blish Principle" moment happening and there's some pseudo science going on. On the other hand I do believe the results he's getting whether or not it's described right.
I can't help think that if someone like Frank Richtig was around in this day and age, he would be getting ridiculed relentlessly on the internet to.

 

[Twindog]

Do you know what his hypothesis is? And can you explain it in layman's terms? Is it testable?

No, I cannot. I'm not a metallurgist. If the hypothesis is testable, that is ideal. But not all hypotheses are testable. Many of Einstein's hypotheses were not testable at the time, but have since been proven correct after we developed the technologies to test them.

In astrophysics and quantum mechanics, there are numerous hypotheses being debated or put forth that are not testable.

 

[DevinT]

Larrin doesn't have any issue with his performance claims as much as he has a problem with the explainations.

BC uses a lot of gibberish to explain what is going on. I have seen no micrographs of any steel that he has heat treated. There have been no charpy tests done and no catra tests done.

I have no emotional attachment to his success or failure. There is also no conspiracy to prove him wrong or disprove his theories.

His ideas are very creative and he is doing things that are not the norm.

There are ways of testing his claims through standardized methods.

BC has invested a lot of his time and money doing testing.

He is doing a variation on a mar-quench.

I hope he finds great success, and a real explaination for what is going on with the steel.

Hoss

 

[danbot]

No, I cannot. I'm not a metallurgist. If the hypothesis is testable, that is ideal. But not all hypotheses are testable. Many of Einstein's hypotheses were not testable at the time, but have since been proven correct after we developed the technologies to test them.

In astrophysics and quantum mechanics, there are numerous hypotheses being debated or put forth that are not testable.

Any scientific hypothesis has to be testable and falsifiable to be considered scientific and most hypotheses do turn out to be wrong.
If it isn't testable and falsifiable, then it is just speculation whether it sounds "science-y" or not.

 

[Someone1]

Any scientific hypothesis has to be testable and falsifiable to be considered scientific and most hypotheses do turn out to be wrong.
If it isn't testable and falsifiable, then it is just speculation whether it sounds "science-y" or not.

That's true, it's also the responsibility of naysayers to give due diligence in creating tests to prove or disprove a claim. If the claims stand up to testing then scientists SHOULD help in trying to figure out what's really happening and not malign the man who is helping us.

 

[DevinT]

That's true, it's also the responsibility of naysayers to give due diligence in creating tests to prove or disprove a claim. If the claims stand up to testing then scientists SHOULD help in trying to figure out what's really happening and not malign the man who is helping us.

No one has a responsibility to prove BC’s claims except for BC.

You are a troll and are not capable of understanding what is going on here.

If you or anyone else wants the testing done, come up with enough money to cover the costs.

This thread is about super steels vs regular steels. It is not about super heat treatments vs regular heat treatments.

Hoss

 

[Larrin]

Ok, I’m going to give this one more try. Bluntcut is saying, “quenching the blade in oil is attracting oil goblins to the steel and those goblins are creating black holes that make the knife cut well.” I’m saying, “Steel doesn’t work that way. That doesn’t make any sense.” The response to me is, “How would you know unless you test the steel?” I say, “Testing it has nothing to do with the goblin-induced black holes.”

 

[danbot]

That's true, it's also the responsibility of naysayers to give due diligence in creating tests to prove or disprove a claim. If the claims stand up to testing then scientists SHOULD help in trying to figure out what's really happening and not malign the man who is helping us.

It's up to him to come up with a working hypothesis to be put to the test and it can be built on from there with new hypotheses and testing. He has already done a lot of real world and anecdotal testing, a lot of experimentation as well, but now he needs to do the scientific testing to get things proven or disproven that way.

 

[Someone1]

No one has a responsibility to prove BC’s claims except for BC.

You are a troll and are not capable of understanding what is going on here.

If you or anyone else wants the testing done, come up with enough money to cover the costs.

Hoss

Mr. Thomas,

if I didn't know who you were I'd wonder the same of you. Multiple times BC sent samples out for testing. He has probably spent far more of his own money testing and evaluating and sending samples to others than he's profited. Did you ever volunteer to test his blades when he was sending them out to anyone who asked? All of these critics are fair to question except that they and you had the opportunity to test and didn't when the opportunity arose. To his credit Nathan Carothers DID perform some testing and was surprised at how good the blades were. I'd think that alone would make a metallurgist want to get involved and help pin down what was happening and not simply talk down the man trying to come up with a reason for the heat treatment working as well as it does.

 

[Someone1]

It's up to him to come up with a working hypothesis to be put to the test and it can be built on from there with new hypotheses and testing. He has already done a lot of real world and anecdotal testing, a lot of experimentation as well, but now he needs to do the scientific testing to get things proven or disproven that way.

Agreed

 

[DevinT]

Mr. Thomas,

if I didn't know who you were I'd wonder the same of you. Multiple times BC sent samples out for testing. He has probably spent far more of his own money testing and evaluating and sending samples to others than he's profited. Did you ever volunteer to test his blades when he was sending them out to anyone who asked? All of these critics are fair to question except that they and you had the opportunity to test and didn't when the opportunity arose.

You are proving again and again that you are not capable of understanding what we are saying. I/we are not challenging his claims, just his explanation.

Hoss

 

[Someone1]

You are proving again and again that you are not capable of understanding what we are saying. I/we are not challenging his claims, just his explanation.

Hoss

Then wouldn't it behoove all of us if those who DO or COULD understand to get involved and help figure out why what's happening is happening and attach a real explanation?