Super Steels vs Regular Steels

Status
Not open for further replies.
shinyedges said:
What did bluntcuts say was "science" ? He named a heat treatment protocol just like a bunch of other people. D3v hasn't been examined in the methods that proves "science" either.

What I don't like about blunt cuts posts was his beyond confusing approach to describing what he is trying to convey. I don't recall ever seeing him say his method is proven by "science".. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

So who were you talking about here?

shinyedges said:
Add to that, the process must be recreated by others and verified before it is accepted.
Click to expand...
 
shinyedges said:
I was unaware of Ed Fowlers academic publishings? Where are they found?
Click to expand...
I don't think he's had any academic publishing, there isn't a scientific journal for knife blade heat treatments as far as I know. But he has worked with a metallurgist for quite a number of years to personally document and publicly share what is being achieved (or not achieved) through his multiple quench process (exclusively with 52100).
 
marcinek said:
So who were you talking about here?
Click to expand...
Anyone who claims their process is backed by science. Adding the fact that an event or process must be recreated by others specifies no one. It's adding a fact.

I don't believe I've seen bluntcut do that, ever. Care to mention any knifemakers whose undergone the arduous task of having their claims proven by "science" ?
 
shinyedges said:
I'm totally in agreement Dan, I don't think (in my limited knowledge) that those terms accurately depict what's occuring. Terminology out the window, the results he's shown through video's and that others have tested are evidence his process does something otherwise blades that hard snap under the use shown.

All I'm saying is, everyone's talking smack about science and I've yet to see him claim his methods are proven by science and his naming of his heat treat is and has been done by many others whose videos sufficed as evidence.

Whatever he's doing, regardless of the name, it's being documented and tested and so far so good. I'm unaware of ANY knifemaker whose had their claims proven under the standards that have them backed by "science".
Click to expand...
He claims to be contributing to science. First paragraph. First post.
https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/heat-treatment-crystal-weaving-foundation.1409721/
 
danbot said:
I don't think he's had any academic publishing, there isn't a scientific journal for knife blade heat treatments as far as I know. But he has worked with a metallurgist for quite a number of years to personally document and publicly share what is being achieved (or not achieved) through his multiple quench process (exclusively with 52100).
Click to expand...
I know who Ed Fowler is and agree he's a master at what he does, absolutely no doubt about it.

That said, the standards people here are screaming for bluntcut have not been done by ANY other knifemaker who made claims about their heat treat protocol. Like I said, I'd love some examples...
 
shinyedges said:
I know who Ed Fowler is and agree he's a master at what he does, absolutely no doubt about it.

That said, the standards people here are screaming for bluntcut have not been done by ANY other knifemaker who made claims about their heat treat protocol. Like I said, I'd love some examples...
Click to expand...
Any maker that made claims about their HT that were outside of the known and established/accepted metallurgy would be viewed as highly suspicious by me without any evidence to back up their claims.
 
shinyedges said:
Anyone who claims their process is backed by science. Adding the fact that an event or process must be recreated by others specifies no one. It's adding a fact.

I don't believe I've seen bluntcut do that, ever. Care to mention any knifemakers whose undergone the arduous task of having their claims proven by "science" ?
Click to expand...

There is a string of folks here claiming "science is on their side." I'm talking to them.

Would bluntcut do the same? Maybe he will turn up.

By the way, you might want to avoid calling members "hot air breathing loud mouths"....I believe we have been warned to limit our discussions to knives, not each other! :thumbsup:
 
For what it's worth I'm playing devil's advocate, I've never had a bluntcut blade and my opinion of his process being more than hot air is the fact a guy who I trust (Nathan) did a small amount of testing and then said it warranted a closer look.

I don't think he's creating a "crystal weave" nor do I believe unicorns roam the earth. I do believe physical evidence and trust worthy opinions though.
 
marcinek said:
There is a string of folks here claiming "science is on their side." I'm talking to them.

Would bluntcut do the same? Maybe he will turn up.

By the way, you might want to avoid calling members "hot air breathing loud mouths"....I believe we have been warned to limit our discussions to knives, not each other! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I'm sure you reported it lol I'll wait for a real mod to infract me or do nothing :thumbsup: They can decide if I was out of line.
 
danbot said:
Any maker that made claims about their HT that were outside of the known and established/accepted metallurgy would be viewed as highly suspicious by me without any evidence to back up their claims.
Click to expand...
The evidence as I see it, is his testing and outside reviews ( peer testing). Regardless of what bluntcut thinks is happening, he's having good results. Those results may be on to something, as Nathan said... It warrants a further look.
 
Larrin nailed it a couple years ago, in the original thread.

Larrin said:
These problems are beyond issues with English. The "results" and the metallurgy are separate questions. If the person proposing the heat treatment is willing to make up fake metallurgy to support his claims then I have a hard time taking him seriously. He is proposing a made-up microstructure with literally zero evidence that this microstructure exists. Why not say, "I don't know what the resulting microstructural differences might be but I am very excited about the resulting properties."?
Click to expand...

I will, gladly, defer to him.
 
Even he claimed his heat treating (which heat treating IS science) isn't anything unheard of. Interpret that post how you want, I'll do the same.
 
shinyedges said:
For what it's worth I'm playing devil's advocate, I've never had a bluntcut blade and my opinion of his process being more than hot air is the fact a guy who I trust (Nathan) did a small amount of testing and then said it warranted a closer look.

I don't think he's creating a "crystal weave" nor do I believe unicorns roam the earth. I do believe physical evidence and trust worthy opinions though.
Click to expand...
I think Bluntcut has done a fine job of proving his performance claims. I don't know of many makers who have gone to the extent he has. A "further look" is necessary though, to prove or disprove the untested metallurgical claims.
 
danbot said:
I think Bluntcut has done a fine job of proving his performance claims. I don't know of many makers who have gone to the extent he has. A "further look" is necessary though, to prove or disprove the untested metallurgical claims.
Click to expand...
Agreed, as I said before I'm not sold on what he thinks is occurring. His understanding of why a 65 HRC blade holds up to use that should break it, may well be wrong. In the end, whatever he does to a blade to make it not snap at that hardness is worth examination.
 
shinyedges said:
For what it's worth I'm playing devil's advocate, I've never had a bluntcut blade and my opinion of his process being more than hot air is the fact a guy who I trust (Nathan) did a small amount of testing and then said it warranted a closer look.

I don't think he's creating a "crystal weave" nor do I believe unicorns roam the earth. I do believe physical evidence and trust worthy opinions though.
Click to expand...
What nathan tested is not in question and even he admitted it was not scientific. BC doesn't know why his magical ht is doing what it does. He only thinks it. Then calls it a contribution to science. That's bunk.
 
craytab said:
What nathan tested is not in question and even he admitted it was not scientific. BC doesn't know why his magical ht is doing what it does. He only thinks it. Then calls it a contribution to science. That's bunk.
Click to expand...
I don't care if he thinks he's turning the inside to unicorn horn, if he makes a knife survive when it should fail, there is potential for something to be gained.

If later down the road he's formally corrected as to what's occuring, so be it. Why not look at his results? The condemnation benefits no one, sure he may be confused or down right wrong on what he thinks is happening.

His results still deserve to be looked at.
 
shinyedges said:
What does it take to contribute to science? I'm not aware of a standard he's not meeting to "contribute" to science. Hell, test subjects for experimental drugs are contributing to science lol
Click to expand...
Actual science.

Many of us work or have worked in the various scientific fields. I myself spent many years working as a data analyst for an organization that did large scale epidemiological studies funded by the NIH. Getting those grants was quite laborious, requiring hundreds and hundreds of hours of work from actual scientists. Then, if we were awarded said grant, typically about $2 million, we would spend years putting together, implementing, analyzing, being reviewed by our IRB, and writing peer reviewed conclusions to our findings. It was incredibly complex. But it was an actual contribution to science, and yes, our subjects were part of that contribution.

So to have some guy come along and babble a bunch of made up stuff that he can't prove, break a few knives, and call it a contribution to science? Yeah, I can call bs on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top