Tip penetration : amusing, actually quantitative as well

R.W.Clark said:
This is a very serious post. Stick around longer and you will learn what the vast majority of long term members have learned, Cliff is a blow hard wind bag at best. In 99% of reviews all you will ever see are a few before photos and maybe an after photo showing some form of damage.

I have not personally seen any footage of him actually DOING a test. Anyone can slam a blade into the side of a steel bar and then type two pages about how it chipped out while chopping 2X4s. Or break a knife in a vise and say that it broke while carving a bowl. So until he starts providing real proof and not just windbag text, I am calling his reviews exactly as I see them and that is as a stinking pile of BS.
Click to expand...
Whoa, that sounds pretty harsh, but I guess that's the spot Cliff has earned in your perspective. I'll consider him innocent until proven guilty. As you mentioned, time & observation will be the ultimate trial as to whether Cliff = Quack. So far, his posts have been very helpful. To each his own battle.
 
Time will prove it out and has done so time and time again for member after member.

Prime example. He claimed Strider would not stand behind their warrentee. When all the facts of the matter came into light the truth was that Strider did stand behind their products and Cliff had never even bothered to try to replace the knife. He just decided to make the claim that they would not replace the knife.

If it walks likes BS and talks like BS than chances are.......
 
I'll be sure to carry a slim hunter with me the next time I go out hunting for plastic water bottles ! Plastic water bottles can be a very elusive game animal.
 
R.W.Clark said:
Time will prove it out and has done so time and time again for member after member.
Click to expand...

Cliff has performed tests on knives and wrote what he did so that his assessment could be judged and those tests could be repeated by anyone who cared so they could see if their results did or didn't match his or even if what he did with the knives was or wasn't to anyone else's situation.

If that's all bullpucky, it only takes a few people to repeat the tests for the knives on his completed test list and find demonstrable grossly different results to invalidate his writing. I think there's a Busse straight-handled Battle Mistress for sale on this forum, so you'll be able to cobble most of the same knives used.

BTW, Mr. Clark, I know that the beryllium in LM1 is practically inert when it's part of a glass; same as uranium and plutonium. You were typing silly things, so I thought it'd be okay if I did the same.
 
Originally posted by R.W. Clark,
Hey Cliff, get a gold membership, start posting photos and videos as proof for what you claim or STFU. Still waiting on that video you claimed you were going to send me over a year ago. Fact is, there is no video. Never was.

Time to put up or shut up Cliff. Provide real proof (in action photos of YOU ACTUALLY DOING THE TESTS or video mpegs of YOU ACTUALLY DOING THE TESTS) or shut up and go away.
Click to expand...

I highly agree.

Cliff, you always seem to be conducting these 'tests' and then posting an essay about your results, while at the same time dissecting every post that disagrees with you in some way, shape, or form.

For someone that is so scientific in conducting these tests, IMO, you should document everything with pics and/or video to back up your results. Another thing that is annoying about your posts, not only to me but to other BF members as well, is the fact that you like to post $20 words to make your findings sound that much more authentic.
jpshakehead.gif


In short,

useless.gif
 
Repeatable!? Thom you must be joking. Your just mad because I kicked you off my waiting list.

Nothing Cliff does is repeatable in any meaningfull sense of the word. If you want repeatability you need to use standardized testing media. Something that can be had over and over again all over the country or contries. That is why when I posted my testing of LM1, with photos of the tests BTW, I used standardized materials. If you use logs and branches from your back yard there is no way anyone can possibly repeat what you are doing.

Now that that little bit of nonsense is addressed I am still waiting on video or photos from Cliff, which I am sure will never turn up.
 
I had to go somewhere.
More uncertainties to take into account.
Grip of the knife.
How loosely can you grip the knife before it becomes an unacceptable variable? If held loosely, it will slide in the hand at moment of impact, and this cannot be quantified. Well, that's not entirely true, but with Cliff's limited instrumentation, it cannot be measured.
Force of impact.
Usually measured in G's, speed and power behind the thrust is not going to be constant.
I doubt a repeatabilty of ±10% is acheivable.
It would have to be practiced for a long period of time to get the action down to a muscle memory activity, so the stroke can be almost automaton.
Given that has been done, then you have to make sure the attack angles are consistent, the point of contact can be repeated with unerring accuracy.
Every time you make a thrust you will be thinking of one of the variables or another, so consistency is out the window...
Cliff, if you can answer one question, here it is:
What's the TUR of your method?
Can't do it, can you? ;)
Enough for now.
If you want to know how to do this test, let me know.
It won't be inexpensive, though... :D
 
Howie, something tells me you know a thing or two about running these type of tests. But I think you know how to do them without all the BS made up stuff.

BTW. Cliff was on here for about 30min without making a peep. Hopefully he makes a habit of coming and going without opening his mouth. But I doubt his ego will let him do it for long. He is too much like that wannabe smart kid you all knew in highschool who always wanted to say something but was too dumb to really join in the conversation.

Wasn't Cliff the name of the guy on the TV show Cheers who was always trying to sound smart but ended up looking like a fool by getting his facts mixed up? Cliff Claven played by John Ratzenburg?
 
RW,
Yes, I've been measuring things for a living since 1969, and doing some limited environmental, and non-destructive and destructive stress testing for 18 of those years.
Hence the Metrology Engr. title... :)
No, I don't do the weather... :rolleyes:
Tests like these do not really have to be real elaborate (it's nice sometimes if they are, as you get more info), but it is important that is all facets of the test can be reliably repeated, results should be documented, and knowledge that results of a test on one knife cannot always be compared directly to another knife's performance in the same test.
Howie
 
Scott, I saw the light a long time ago. Truth is Cliff gets thrown under the bus about once ever two years or so. The knifemakers around here get ticked off off enough at his BS and go off on him. Then Cliff hides and licks his wounds. But like a bad fungus he creeps back until he ticks us off again.

Last time I went at it with him was over the testing of a blade of mine. He claimed then that he would send a "proof" video. Ya right! Over a year later, no proof. Guys a fraud. He gets enough new members to follow him. By the time they figure out he is full of hot air, he has a new batch of members to listen to his nonsense. Then there are his regular sheeple who hang on his every word (never figure that one out). They are mostly Busse worshipers, since Cliff loves Busse and SWKs and loves to point out how much better they are then almost all other knives.

BTW: I have nothing against Busse knives. They seem to be fine knives. I just can't stand Cliffs obvious bias to them in his "testing" since he presents himself as a scientist.
 
I only have one comment and one question Cliff.

WOW!

Question: what have you been smokin' this weekend? Must of been some good stuff huh?
 
So...

A thick tipped, heavy bladed knife penetrates thin plastic easier than a thin tipped blade?

Really?

Never would have guessed that one.
 
Chiro75 said:
I disagree. If you miss the bottle and dink it off the side of the blade, or hit it at a 50° angle instead of 90°, I fathom a guess that it will skew the results.


I disagree with this statement. Perhaps people can initiate a movement with some degree of consistency, but can they carry that motion out over and over again with consistency? And there's more to this type of test than that movement. How feasible is it that you'll repeat the same motion consistently over and over and over again when you stab a bottle, walk to pick it up, place it again, walk back to where you think you were standing before, and repeat? That's a lot of variables. If I'd designed an experiment with that many variables when I was a chem student in quantitative analysis I would've earned a big fat F! Also, if this motion was so consistent and repeatable by humans, there would be no need to train in things like martial arts. Pulling the trigger on a gun is an even simpler motion requiring fewer joints and muscles, and more simple neurology than stabbing forward, and yet that is something that must be practiced ad nauseum to develop proficiency. My knowledge of biomechanics says that the stabbing motion isn't as simple as you say, and there are more variables (distance, velocity, moevement in the X, Y and Z axes, foot position, hand/eye coordination, consistent bottle positioning, etc).


Exactly my point. These tests rely on your skill level, which means they are not "quantitative" tests as the post suggests. In another 10 years with more wood chopping training, the tests will still be different. Same for stabbing a plastic bottle. This is why a quantitative test needs to have as many variables controlled as possible.



Exactly my point. You cannot claim that a test that controls none of the variables, then, as a quantitative comparison with subsequent ranking of the results. I'm not saying this test is worthless, just that it can't be claimed to be quantitative or anything above subjective when it is done using the method you've described.

If I was having one of my knives investigated in such a way and judged against others in a claim that the tests are "quantitative" with a conclusion pitting it against other products, I would like to see a lot more control over the variables. Otherwise, the bias of the observer comes into great play, not to mention the variables I've mentioned that are not being controlled in any other way than "I think I'm standing about in the right place and using about the same motion..."

A true experiment comparing various knives will eliminate as many variables as possible and it will use a repeatble method with actual measures of the performance of each knife.
Click to expand...

Surely you pointed at some things to think about before you take such tests as "results". But the way you pointing at only leafs us to do nothing, no testing because the first time i say "this knife is f+++in´grap" i have to calm down because i can´t proof this objective.

Testings should be reported in detail, so i am able to understand what was going on. Everything else is a subjektive opinion i do take or regret.

But to insist on "objektivs", maybe just because someone doesn´t want to buy striders, means to close the board.
 
Shadow213 said:
I highly agree.

Cliff, you always seem to be conducting these 'tests' and then posting an essay about your results, while at the same time dissecting every post that disagrees with you in some way, shape, or form.

For someone that is so scientific in conducting these tests, IMO, you should document everything with pics and/or video to back up your results. Another thing that is annoying about your posts, not only to me but to other BF members as well, is the fact that you like to post $20 words to make your findings sound that much more authentic.
jpshakehead.gif


In short,

useless.gif
Click to expand...

Absolutly no.

A fine tip penetrates better than a thick one. Do you need a picture to believe this? Are you sure to be into knifes?

Cliff reported a nice and funny test.

And some people can´t read or whatever their problem is.
 
Fact of the matter Blop is that Cliff is presenting "findings" without any proof that he is actually doing any reviewing of the knife.

If you own any knife want and want to post that it hurts your hand, thats cool. But Cliff goes way beyond that. It is now to the point that I do not believe that he is using these knives at all before writing up reviews. And until he shows actually proof that he uses a knife in a review I will call BS on it, this includes all past reviews and testing as well.

When you read statements from Cliff saying that the human body is precise enough to qualify as a "scientific" constant, you begin to understand how outlandish a claim he is willing make to try to make himself sound right. Even though it flies in the face of real science. For example: a professional baseball player will train at batting for hundreds of hours, sometimes using state of the art computor generated biometric tracking software. How often do they still miss the ball. The same holds true with golfers. They practice driving hours everyday, many times using the same software to study their swings. They still slice and hook the ball. And Cliff claims that after a few minutes that he can with scientific acuracy and repeatablility perform a stabbing test (that he can draw scientific conclusions from) with nothing more than a plastic bottle and his hand? That in and of itself should prove the guy is off his rocker.
 
Mr. Clark, I can feel through this thread that you don't like Cliff, right? :D

Just kidding!
 
Dear Cliff, i have a little question, why don't you try it "old school". The Japanese found out that Goza tatami mats soaked overnight in water have the same resiliance to cutting as human flesh. Combined with fresh Bamboo( to substitute bone), they would test their knives and swords on Goza, due to the absence of convicted criminals. You can easely duplicate this buy rolling up those woven beachmats, tie them together untill you have about the size of the human part you wan't to cut, and then cut it. It is still ( unless using 10 % ballistical gelatine wrapped in jeans) one of the best way to test cutting and stabbing ability.
 
[Surely you pointed at some things to think about before you take such tests as "results". But the way you pointing at only leafs us to do nothing, no testing because the first time i say "this knife is f+++in´grap" i have to calm down because i can´t proof this objective.

Testings should be reported in detail, so i am able to understand what was going on. Everything else is a subjektive opinion i do take or regret.
[/quote]

Here's the problem, and this happens constantly in health care and probably in most other disciplines as well. Busy person opens a review or journal article, sees 20 pages in front of him, skips to the end "conclusion" and reads that. In many, many cases, even published, legitimate research can be flawed because of a poorly designed study, statistics that are manipulated to "prove" something, etc etc. And that's in the published peer-reviewed research. Many of Cliff Stamp's peers here and on other forums are critical of his methods because he concludes things that may be unfairly concluded.

For example, he mentioned in this thread that his wood chopping skill has improved greatly through his repeated wood chopping over the last ten years. He also says that the results of his tests have changed because of this change in skill. What that tells me is that his "tests" on wood chopping are not testing the knife as much as they are testing his skill level at chopping wood. This is a VERY, VERY, VERY important thing to consider, yet the average consumer who reads Cliff Stamp's reviews don't grasp this concept because no one brings it to their attention. I highly doubt too many people read the entire review and then take a critical look at the methodlogy. They skim the review, read the conclusion and then they make that conclusion their own.

So, wood chopping, stabbing bottles, breaking glass, throwing frozen sheaths into the air, etc. It doesn't matter. There is no control over the operator/examiner, so you cannot conclude anything from these tests because the differences in results could be the knife's differences, but it could also be:
1) The operator's methodology
2) The operator's bias
3) The operator's skill level
4) Variance due to poorly designed and controlled tests
5) Statistical manipulation


And, like I said, when these tests affect what people are going to purchase, I think it's unethical to claim that these tests mean anything beyond what they're really testing: one person's ability to do a task. Take two people with the same knife. One has been practicing ropecutting for 6 months, 1 hour per day. The other one has never cut rope in his life. Who will do better? Same goes for all of these tests. Legitimate scientific research controls as many variables as possible so conclusions can be made. Heck, look at those offset front-end collision tests. Do they throw a brick on the accelerator and let the car go as fast and in whatever direction they want, or do they put the car on a track so that the movement and velocity is controlled?

Knives aren't rocket science, sure I'll agree with that, but that doesn't mean you can claim scientific conclusions when the methodology doesn't fit the paradigm of acceptable research. If there was a peer-reviewed knife journal, not a single of Cliff's reviews would ever have been accepted. We can argue this forever, but there really isn't an argument. I've taken classes on how to read research, statistical methods, etc etc. I'm not making this up and I'm not trying to be difficult, this is just reality, folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top