Super Steels vs Regular Steels

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pilsner said:
Chris, it isn’t BC who has been derailing this thread. The OP, myself, Dan and others are all for BC making great knives with an amazing RHC. What has derailed the thread is certain members who try to splurge BC’s inductive theorising (which I agree is beside the point to his practice) into a completely innocuous and unrelated thread. BC has not done that and nobody is getting at him.

Quite simply, BC is a dude, nobody denies it. But the whole crystal weaving? Nah. Sorry. Nah. BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER! :)

What is irritating is people who are not BC but are peddling his imaginative, perhaps whimsical theories as somehow being credible vs double blind RCT’s etc. To my endless embarrassment I have two degrees in science. I don’t know shit about mettalugry, but I do understand scientific method. Science is not a choice, it is not a matter of faith. There is no option. Throw that chunk of magnesium in the pan of water. See how long it takes for a pea to drop from 100ft. Work out the mechanism for the internal combustion engine. Split the atom. Use a computer. Buy a steel knife. Science. God love it.
Click to expand...


Please, really. Ask everyone to divulge trade secrets or whatever hoodoo they do to open scrutiny. Would love to see how far you get.
 
Someone1 said:
Please, really. Ask everyone to divulge trade secrets or whatever hoodoo they do to open scrutiny. Would love to see how far you get.
Click to expand...
:confused:

You are really off the mark in your posts. They read as utterly ludicrous; they reflect an inability to absorb new and conflicting information; they assert a false framework and dismiss anything outside of it; they dismiss basic scientific method.

It is sad, for me at least, to hear quacks bandying about the names of great theoretical physicists in order to mount some paper thin defence of the worst sort of pseudo-science. Don’t kid yourselves.
 
Pilsner said:
:confused:

You are really off the mark in your posts. They read as utterly ludicrous; they reflect an inability to absorb new and conflicting information; they assert a false framework and dismiss anything outside of it; they dismiss basic scientific method.

It is sad, for me at least, to hear quacks bandying about the names of great theoretical physicists in order to mount some paper thin defence of the worst sort of pseudo-science. Don’t kid yourselves.
Click to expand...


And we love you too. I'd love to reply in an escalated manner as you wish, but i don't think it's allowed. So, i bid you adieu
 
What if you are like me and you sometimes prefer anecdotal evidence?
Maybe it's a bit naive but I enjoy a good story over how many carbon particles something has. For instance It's one thing to say a Japanese sword has this much carbon particles and another to say "Back in WW2 a Japanese officer cut through my Granddads M1 with his sword"... sorry but I find the second more entertaining and interesting.

But it is a matter of perception like Larrin had mentioned earlier. One person may look at a Japanese sword as a "Super steel" that can cut through anything. (Any kid who grew up in the 80's thought that including you) where as the next person will view a Japanese sword as a super brittle that that needs precision usage not to break. So where does science play into perception? Really, scientific method is still a perception in it's own right as conclusions can be wrong.
 
cbrstar said:
Really, scientific method is still a perception in it's own right as conclusions can be wrong.
Click to expand...

Please tell me your qualifications to make that statement. In what discipline is your degree and how long have you worked in a technical field that people would recognize as a "science"?


♦ There is steel and it has properties.
♦ Knives are made of steel, and some of the properties they have are dependent on the blade alloy. But knife performance is dependent on more than the blade alloy. It is a proven fact that blade geometry overrides blade alloy.

Larrin is interested in the steel properties in and of themselves.
If you don't want to talk abou that, then you posting in the wrong thread.
 
Quiet said:
Well, I can't speak for others, but I can't say I'd want to know, because it's an irrelevant data point for how almost anyone would ever use 1095. I certainly would not use a knife in 1095 to cut down a steel tree, or try to baton another knife.
Click to expand...
Well the thread does have a topic... Most conventional steel knives fall into d2 and 1095 and 440c... So i dunno not a big fan of any of them.
 
Pilsner said:
Chris, it isn’t BC who has been derailing this thread. The OP, myself, Dan and others are all for BC making great knives with an amazing RHC. What has derailed the thread is certain members who try to splurge BC’s inductive theorising (which I agree is beside the point to his practice) into a completely innocuous and unrelated thread. BC has not done that and nobody is getting at him.

Quite simply, BC is a dude, nobody denies it. But the whole crystal weaving? Nah. Sorry. Nah. BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER! :)

What is irritating is people who are not BC but are peddling his imaginative, perhaps whimsical theories as somehow being credible vs double blind RCT’s etc. To my endless embarrassment I have two degrees in science. I don’t know shit about mettalugry, but I do understand scientific method. Science is not a choice, it is not a matter of faith. There is no option. Throw that chunk of magnesium in the pan of water. See how long it takes for a pea to drop from 100ft. Work out the mechanism for the internal combustion engine. Split the atom. Use a computer. Buy a steel knife. Science. God love it.
Click to expand...
I get it, and I agree. I've been watching BC threads for years, I've never participated or took up for him, nor have I went after him. My role as devil's advocate in this thread was entertaining. I hear and agree with most of the criticism, doesn't mean I think his results should be tossed aside or made a mockery of.

Like I said, he's doing something. 90% of his critics aren't doing diddly squat. Whatever he does, putting his incorrect label of crystal weaving aside to actually examine his results seems like the best way to make a judgement on whether or not BC is onto something.
 
Putting a complex understanding into laymans terms or metaphores seems to get your teeth kicked in rather quick especially when there is a unknown process or unexplored territory.

I tried talking to abana smiths about attempting a bainite quench by keeping steel at a bright yellow in a charcoal forge for three hours at an exact spot of the reducing flame so it didnt burn out and then quenched it in water.

Theoretically the steel is above the curve on the phase diagram, is absorbing carbon and restributing it and then the steel is locked into place like a snapshot of a moving process. This gets it above the magic s curve and then drops into bainite.

I got this result by a fluke accident where i forgot a 1045 practice blade in the forge under these conditions then water quenched it at the bright yellow, didnt bother tempering it just took a hammer to it trying to break it. It doesnt give a shit.

Grinding on it, its not 1045 anymore, it has a modified carbon content, file slides off and it has a very very high pitched glass screech.

I have no idea what it is other then a single reference on wikipedia under the possibilities of bainite under those exact conditions in earnest i tried asking about and you would not beleive the crap i got from just bringing up the matter or explaining what i do know. It seemed to me like hey dudes look i figured out something awesome, wasnt the result it was more like: go kill yourself for spouting impossibilities.

Iv sort of experienced what hes going through i guess.
 
cbrstar said:
Really, scientific method is still a perception in it's own right as conclusions can be wrong.
Click to expand...
That is an intellectually dishonest statement or a statement made from a position of utter ignorance of the subject. To even entertain it would just make one dumber.
 
knarfeng said:
Please tell me your qualifications to make that statement. In what discipline is your degree and how long have you worked in a technical field that people would recognize as a "science"?


♦ There is steel and it has properties.
♦ Knives are made of steel, and some of the properties they have are dependent on the blade alloy. But knife performance is dependent on more than the blade alloy. It is a proven fact that blade geometry overrides blade alloy.

Larrin is interested in the steel properties in and of themselves.
If you don't want to talk abou that, then you posting in the wrong thread.
Click to expand...

I'm of course not a Scientist, but I am a certified Watchmaker which is a technical skill that I'm assuming not too many people here have. But really what does yours or my credentials have to do here? We're talking about basic High School science.

People are screaming "Scientific Method" and I doubt they really know what it means. So I guess the "Non-Scientist" here has to teach what he learned over 20 years ago sitting in High School

First of all lets learn what Scientific Method is, as their are 7 steps.

1) Make an observation (Right here perception can come into play as people's perceptions obviously differ from one an other)
2) Conduct research
3) Form hypothesis (Still conjecture which can be influenced someones Perception)
4) Test hypothesis
5) Record data
6) Draw conclusion (Again this is where perception can run awry as people can interpret raw data differently from one another)
7) Replicate (No where does this mean that someone else needs to replicate those findings, it just means that if they cannot be replicated there was an error.

Like I said before the Scientific Method is built on Empirical Evidence: "Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation" -wiki."
Pay attention to the Senses part. People see, taste, smell, and hear things differently which alters our perceptions of reality.
Scientific method therefore is still perception just scrutinized and tested.

Sorry for being off topic, I'll drop this and get back onto topic of knife steels unless someone asks me about what I just wrote.

IMHO knife marketing is all about changing our perception of what a good steel is. I don't think that's going to change as the newest latest great steel is a major factor in what sells knives for a premium. Sadly science is often used as a marketing tool.
 
cbrstar said:
I'm of course not a Scientist, but I am a certified Watchmaker which is a technical skill that I'm assuming not too many people here have. But really what does yours or my credentials have to do here? We're talking about basic High School science.

People are screaming "Scientific Method" and I doubt they really know what it means. So I guess the "Non-Scientist" here has to teach what he learned over 20 years ago sitting in High School

First of all lets learn what Scientific Method is, as their are 7 steps.

1) Make an observation (Right here perception can come into play as people's perceptions obviously differ from one an other)
2) Conduct research
3) Form hypothesis (Still conjecture which can be influenced someones Perception)
4) Test hypothesis
5) Record data
6) Draw conclusion (Again this is where perception can run awry as people can interpret raw data differently from one another)
7) Replicate (No where does this mean that someone else needs to replicate those findings, it just means that if they cannot be replicated there was an error.

Like I said before the Scientific Method is built on Empirical Evidence: "Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation" -wiki."
Pay attention to the Senses part. People see, taste, smell, and hear things differently which alters our perceptions of reality.
Scientific method therefore is still perception just scrutinized and tested.

Sorry for being off topic, I'll drop this and get back onto topic of knife steels unless someone asks me about what I just wrote.

IMHO knife marketing is all about changing our perception of what a good steel is. I don't think that's going to change as the newest latest great steel is a major factor in what sells knives for a premium. Sadly science is often used as a marketing tool.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're talking about basic high school science but the rest of are talking about a much more complex issue. I'd advise you reread the thread, and the cwf one as well.

And with that I'm done responding here as it has gone from off topic to ridiculous.
 
cbrstar said:
Really, scientific method is still a perception in it's own right as conclusions can be wrong.
Click to expand...

knarfeng said:
Please tell me your qualifications to make that statement. In what discipline is your degree and how long have you worked in a technical field that people would recognize as a "science"?
Click to expand...

cbrstar said:
I'm of course not a Scientist, but I am a certified Watchmaker
Click to expand...

You lack the training to hold a valid opinion on that topic.
 
knarfeng said:
You lack the training to hold a valid opinion on that topic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but can I ask what your credentials are that your opinion is more valid then mine? Your using the logical fallacy of ad hominem to undermine what I said with out a real argument of why i'm right or wrong.
 
I would like to thank Larrin for another fine article.

It was interesting seeing the parameters that commonly defined an individuals idea on what super steel means.

A steel like H1 would not fall into the category to many despite its superior rust and corrosion resistance.

Thanks again for all the work and research, it’s very appreciated.
 
Blade making is as old as time, the ancients just did enough work to figure out what works and kept working it very blind trial and error and alot of expirimentation.

I dont think the comprehension is as important as the ability to get results and replicate it.

You just cut enough small peices of a batch of steel up, heat each part to a 50 degree difference for a set amount of time and quench in water oil or brine and replicate the process over and over until you find a desired property, repeat with tempering break the peices with a hammer and observe the tempering penetration and durability until you find the optimal results. Documenting the process will help any claims as it shows you did the work.

Just takes alot of time to do and a small amount of dedication when you can replicate the same result three times you should just be good and being able to show the documentation of your expiriments should be good enough for anyone.
 
Last edited:
Joseph Gardner said:
Putting a complex understanding into laymans terms or metaphores seems to get your teeth kicked in rather quick especially when there is a unknown process or unexplored territory.

I tried talking to abana smiths about attempting a bainite quench by keeping steel at a bright yellow in a charcoal forge for three hours at an exact spot of the reducing flame so it didnt burn out and then quenched it in water.

Theoretically the steel is above the curve on the phase diagram, is absorbing carbon and restributing it and then the steel is locked into place like a snapshot of a moving process. This gets it above the magic s curve and then drops into bainite.

I got this result by a fluke accident where i forgot a 1045 practice blade in the forge under these conditions then water quenched it at the bright yellow, didnt bother tempering it just took a hammer to it trying to break it. It doesnt give a shit.

Grinding on it, its not 1045 anymore, it has a modified carbon content, file slides off and it has a very very high pitched glass screech.

I have no idea what it is other then a single reference on wikipedia under the possibilities of bainite under those exact conditions in earnest i tried asking about and you would not beleive the crap i got from just bringing up the matter or explaining what i do know. It seemed to me like hey dudes look i figured out something awesome, wasnt the result it was more like: go kill yourself for spouting impossibilities.

Iv sort of experienced what hes going through i guess.
Click to expand...

You have martensite and retained austenite not bainite. To get lower bainite, you quench to just above martensite start temperature and hold it there long enough to complete the transformation.

Hoss
 
DevinT said:
You have martensite and retained austenite not bainite. To get lower bainite, you quench to just above martensite start temperature and hold it there long enough to complete the transformation.

Hoss
Click to expand...
2400 degrees even with a semi brine quench will not drop down to martensite, I did cross section cuts and stock removal just to check for case hardening, isnt either and all martensite will shatter without a temper, I beat the hell out of this thing trying to break it untempered and it doesnt break. 3 hours is enough to get over the curve at sustained temp. the material is also through hardened and there is only ONE pitch tone and no resonance. very very short high pitched sound with no lingering ring or vibration. Martensite will resonate and continue to do so. It has deviant physical properties abnormal to conventional heat treats for spring steels. I cant claim to know what exactly it is but I know what its not.

Im in the process of occasionally trying to replicate the process with a very thin casing of satanite filled with grainulated charcoal and a piece of steel sealed in the canister.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top