THERE is NOT an answer for EVERYTHING!

The late Don Hastings made knives out of 5160. He pounded them out with a hammer and used his eyes when forging the metal checking the colors along the way. Knives have been made for eons in this fashion. Science plus art and a 'passed down tradition' made great cutlery long before we had machines that could measure specific temperatures let alone rockwell hardness. The makers learned by doing the craft and then refined their skills along the way. They made a million mistakes as well.

I suspect there is some magic to Don's blades since they do cut amazingly well. Perhaps his hammer aligned those atoms in just the right way to where they were neat and tidy and suberbly strong as any new powder metalurgy might offer. Art and science with a modicum of luck sprinkled on the top? Who knows if the atoms themselves have a relationship with each other? Some things are quite difficult to explain. Where science leaves off we have poetry to ponder from the porch on a rain saturated day.
 
chad2 said:
i never said that i did not know how electricty works, i never said that i did not know how these aircraft systems work, and i was obviously wrong about the helo not being able to fly comment. but i did say that electricty is still a theory! and i also said that these aircraft systems can do things that i could never do, i was simply testifying that we have a very strong knowledge of how electricity works but we do not know EXACTLY how it works. which is true! this is why it is still THE THEORY OF ELECTRICITY.
Click to expand...

Hi Chad,

This is why I asked you if you were deeply religious before. Because you argue that way... You are confusing any "theory" with an actual scientific theory. A scientific theory (gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.) isn't a "theory" like the theory that your cat is covertly flushing your toilets at night, driving up your water bill. A scientific theory becomes a theory when it has already been widely accepted and used to prove things already. A lot of our modern technology is based on the "theory" of relativity. It's called a "theory" because it has reliably been used to predict and explain other phenomenon and hasn't been disproved yet. That's all. It doesn't mean it's a "theory" with no basis.

EDIT: I was writing my post when Insipid posted. My post is along the same lines.
 
Magnaminous_G said:
Hi Chad,

This is why I asked you if you were deeply religious before. Because you argue that way... You are confusing any "theory" with an actual scientific theory. A scientific theory (gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.) isn't a "theory" like the theory that your cat is covertly flushing your toilets at night, driving up your water bill. A scientific theory becomes a theory when it has already been widely accepted and used to prove things already. A lot of our modern technology is based on the "theory" of relativity. It's called a "theory" because it has reliably been used to predict and explain other phenomenon and hasn't been disproved yet. That's all. It doesn't mean it's a "theory" with no basis.

EDIT: I was writing my post when Insipid posted. My post is along the same lines.
Click to expand...

Lol i completely agree, but it is still called a theory because it still could be disproven in one way or another. Right?
Like i have said before i do not disagree with the books at all! but there are somethings that science can not explain but it works maybe not better maybe not worse but it still works dispite the previous information. Again the scientists are not wrong yet like you said, and they may never be wrong. But it is still called a theory because it is not an absolute and more info could come up. I understand that we know how to control electricity other wise we would not risk lives because of it. But you can not sit there and tell me that we have hit the limits of electricity, that we could NOT learn anything else about it. That is why it is called a theory because everyday we are learning new ways to control it, better ways, faster ways, and ways we did not know we could do 5 years ago.
 
chad2 said:
it is still called a theory because it still could be disproven in one way or another. Right?
Click to expand...


Here's a very easy example to understand how a scientific "theory" works: I have a hypothesis that 2 + 2 = 4. Now I have to test that. Every time I add 2 and 2, I always end up with 4. Whenever I add 2 things to 2 more things, I always end up with 4. I ask everyone else to try it. They all come up with the same results. Now it's a theory: my hypothesis has been verified by experimentation and observation. Now the important question: can we use it to explain other things? Can we use it prove things? Yup. So the theory is strong. And every time someone adds 2 + 2 and ends up with 4, the theory becomes even stronger.

Think you can disprove the "theory" that 2 + 2 = 4? Try it... and when you have done that, then you can tackle gravity, relativity, and evolution.

A lot of people wrongly believe that a scientific "theory" is just an off-the-all hypothesis with no basis. Those people also believe scientists are evil and trying to shut down open debate about things (like electricity in your example). They are not. Scientists are open-minded people who are very welcome to new ideas. They are looking for the truth. Do you have a competing theory? I'm sure serious scientists would welcome the new idea. The problem is that anti-scientific people don't understand that scientists cannot take things like religion or magic or ghosts seriously... because there's no evidence to weigh and nothing to prove or disprove. That's just reality; it's not that scientists are scared of your beliefs or hate your beliefs... there's just nothing to work with.
 
But scientists are very fond of fairies... especially the ones that live in freezers. ;)
 
chad2 said:
Lol i completely agree, but it is still called a theory because it still could be disproven in one way or another. Right?
Like i have said before i do not disagree with the books at all! but there are somethings that science can not explain but it works maybe not better maybe not worse but it still works dispite the previous information. Again the scientists are not wrong yet like you said, and they may never be wrong. But it is still called a theory because it is not an absolute and more info could come up. I understand that we know how to control electricity other wise we would not risk lives because of it. But you can not sit there and tell me that we have hit the limits of electricity, that we could NOT learn anything else about it. That is why it is called a theory because everyday we are learning new ways to control it, better ways, faster ways, and ways we did not know we could do 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Chad

Here on Blade forums we are not debating string theory or dark matter, we are dealing with metallurgy. Metallurgy is and has been tested and retested; heat treating success is built around the known facts of metallurgy. You may be confusing hypothesis and scientific theory. In metallurgy we are dealing with proven science, not educated guesses.

I agree that a blade can be heat treated using a charcoal fire, judging the steels suitability for quenching by watching the shadows crossing the surface and then plunging the blade into warm cow patties; but for repeated success its best to consult the books.
 
Chad:

A book that is well worth the read. "Disciplined Minds" By Jeff Schmidt. ISBN 13: 978-7425-1685-4. I think you will enjoy it.
 
I have gotten a lot out of this thread. Very interesting arguments. Stacy, you are a saint.
 
Last edited:
Caps, exclamation point and absolutes (and subject matter);

Chad, you knew you were going to stir the pot. Science and theory seem to be high participation threads, especially when there is a challenge to either. No problem. If everyone does like Stacy said, the thread will live until it dies.

I noticed you were a Navy man. I replied here to thank you for that.

Erik
 
Final musings:
It isn't called the theory of metallurgy..it is the science of metallurgy. It is called that because the science is proven knowledge.
It isn't called the theory of electricity, it is called physics...which is a science....because it is proven knowledge.
Modern science evolves, and new info is added, but rarely (at least in the past 50 years) has anything been removed.
Calling it a theory won't change the facts. Making up the facts is not going to help you win a debate, either.

Just to point out your own words :
......
Because yet another example of my job i work on H60 sea hawks which is a helicopter and scientifically a helicopter should not fly so try and tell me that it does not fly because those lab geeks say it cant fly.........
I don't know any modern scientist (lab geek?) that ever said a helicopter can't fly, nor do I know of any book that says it won't fly. I do know a lot of "lab Geeks' who say it will fly, and will bore the heck out of you explaining it if you ask. They have shelves of books proving it,too. The principle has been well proven back to Davinci. I won't go into the explanation of how a rotary wing gains lift, because I think you know that. Aerodynamics and physics are pretty well known subjects, Your statement was wrong, and not just because a book of a lab geek says you are wrong. Either you made up the information you gave, or are very poorly informed, but whatever the case,..... your statement is just plain wrong.

....."Start testing Fowler's process compared to yours and let me know if your process is better. Don't tell me i am wrong because a book says its wrong. ".....
When I returned to knifemaking in the late 90's, I moved from doing HT by eye in a brine quench as I did in the 1970's. I started doing HT using info provided by Ed Fowler. On the shelf, I have a copy of Knife Talk (Autographed, IIRC), which I bought when it first came out. I bought Knife Talk II, a few years later. I tested his info, and some of it didn't quite add up to me. Then I went and did more research, and reviewed my old metallurgy books, and did more testing. The freezer thing made no difference in my tests, and my research said why it didn't. Many other very experienced makers, PHD's, a rocket scientist (Jim Batson), and all the books said so, too. Now, Ed says he gets good results, and that is OK, because he has tested those results, and his procedure provides them reliably......but I get the same results without the freezer. So, I have tested Ed's HT vs the metallurgical HT, and I went with the latter because I got the results that I had reasons for. This doesn't say that I don't like Ed, or his books, or that he doesn't make good knives........ just that I don't agree with all his theories. That is why I gave the advice about the freezer, not just because a book said so.

Anyway, back to the problem here, which is your getting upset by more experienced makers offering advice. If you don't want it, OK, but getting into a tiff over their offering it is not going to go far in most large groups.

Get Schmidt's book and read it. I won't start a side discussion on it here, but please consider that the authors opinions are the kind of theory that you were alluding to earlier...nothing more than the personal opinion of a radical activist against the industry that eventually fired him.
 
ERIK KNIVES said:
Caps, exclamation point and absolutes (and subject matter);

Chad, you knew you were going to stir the pot. Science and theory seem to be high participation threads, especially when there is a challenge to either. No problem. If everyone does like Stacy said, the thread will live until it dies.

I noticed you were a Navy man. I replied here to thank you for that.

Erik
Click to expand...
Yes i am, just reenlisted also.
 
These threads "suck the air" out of the shop talk forum and I regret that. There is no argument here, and no basis for a discussion, its time spent trying to prove something to someone that has no intention of accepting the truth; the fun would be over if that were to happen.
I'm headed for the custom forum, come and check out Jeff's second knife, he did a bang up job. http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/936947-Proxy-post-cable
 
Good point Fred.
On the recommendation of others,I'm moving this to Around The Grinder.
 
Thanks, Stacy.... that'll pretty much stop the bleeding.(or let it bleed out, depending on your point of view)
 
For 2 1/2 years I tested the results of applied metallurgical *science* in the plant that makes the metal that your helicopter engine turbine blades, rotors and shafts are made from. Metallurgy is a science. Applied metallurgy is a practical science. It is well documented that certain percentages of certain elements treated in certain ways will produce certain results. Yes, at several times what I was doing was literally rocket science. The last several shuttle missions had main engine nozzles that I worked on, you will note that they performed as specified. Every time a helicopter engine fires up, there is a high probability that I worked on at least several grams of the metal that is spinning at high temperature in it. Metallurgy is not theory. My job was not to test theory, my job was to make sure that the practical application of science (manufacturing) had done everything right, namely that they had the correct percentages of elements, that they had handled the purifying(remelting) grain refinement (heat treatment and physical reduction) and finishing steps correctly and had removed any portions where the practical application did not meet the expectations of science. One can ignore the science that indicates that the world is round, although that requires an increasingly active application of willful ignorance, and one can choose to ignore the practical science of metallurgy. Fortunately in the grand scheme of what is routinely expected of metal, knives are a pretty low performance application and as such it is not really surprising that so many knives that are heat treated with voodoo, goat pee and eyeball torch heating survive such unscientific practices and still cut.

-Page
 
Understanding/observing “action and reaction” is probably the most important. Understanding “why” materials react the way they do isn’t absolutely necessary, but can be helpful in the event that things didn’t react as expected.

If a knife performs as it is intended to, trying to use scientific theory to prove that it can’t or must not,… is a waste of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top