Tip penetration : amusing, actually quantitative as well

[SteelDriver]

INFI has been tested and reported here years ago, it isn't modified A8 anymore than A8 is modified S30V.

Did someone say ASTM A8 Modified?

INFI
0.50% C
0.74% Ni
0.95% Co
8.25% Cr
1.30% Mo
0.36% V
0.11% N
balance Fe

TLS Chipper Knife Tool Steel (ASTM A8 Modified)
0.50% C
0.45% Mn
0.95% Si
8.00% Cr
1.30% Mo
0.45% V

Note that the S30V spec calls for up to 0.20% N and closer to 0.10% is achieved, yet nitrogen is not mentioned in Crucible's S30V data sheet. 3V also contains nitrogen, presumably a similar percentage as S30V. It is possible that A8 modified also contains some nitrogen.

Jerry Hossom who started this rumor retracted it some time ago, nice to see you keep spreading it.

The truth is, we don't know if this is true or not. You don't know why Jerry retracted his statement, yet you imply that it is a rumor. The same could be said about many statements you make.

 

[Chiro75]

I don't know why everyone gets upset by the fact that a knife from brand A does something better then brand B.

Yojimbo-girl, I'm not upset in the least. What you wrote here is the EXACT reason I've been spending my time typing what I've been typing. What I'm saying is that based on the type of testing Cliff does, one cannot state conclusively that Knife A does something better than Knife B.

If you want to test penetration of a knife, set up an apparatus that:
1) Gives a constant angle in X, Y and Z planes.
2) Does each test at a constant velocity.
3) Uses a controlled medium for tip penetration
4) Investigates the various variables that can affect the penetration of a knife (degree of surface finish, type of material being penetrated, steel thickness, edge angle, etc).
5) Negates operator/observer bias.

This is what true scientific study attempts to do: make a conclusion based upon controlled variables. So, your statement proves exactly the point I'm trying to get across in the first place. In a subjective test you can't conclude that Knife A does something better than Knife B because there are too many uncontrolled variables to make that conclusion.

Many people have made arguments about Cliff's biases. Personal bias, either intentional or unintentional, is so strong that in other types of studies it can cure cancer, so my contention is that this type of conclusion based on this type of test is false because there are no controls, whatsoever, in them. Also, people are asked to trust Cliff on face value, without pictures, without film, etc. How do you think GM would respond if you put a show on Dateline that concluded that one of their vehicles was unsafe, based on your test, but you didn't show a film, picture, control any variables, etc?

 

[R.W.Clark]

More and more wind with no substance. Put up or STFU Cliff.

Prove me wrong that you are a fraud. Show yourself performing all these supposed tests.

You guys are still taking Cliff for real. You are acting like he is performing these reviews instead of just sitting behind his keyboard typing nonsense.

Fact is you won't do it. You won't up grade to support the forums. You won't post photos or mpegs of YOU doing any testing. Why? Because you are a fake! Pure and simple.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

First of all, posting images is not a big deal AT ALL.

The reviews contain lots of images.

But don't come in here and tell everybody how thorough your "findings" are

I don't. I in fact have said the exact opposite constantly. To repeat again, the purpose of the reviews is not to provide a definately statement about the performance of a knife (except to me of course), it is mainly to generate discussion about such issues, and allow users to ask informed questions to makers.

I didn't make that assertion, for the record.

Yes you did, I quoted it in the above. I'll repeat it again :

"I assert that the above method could be used by an average person without a serious physical handicap to illustrate that there is a significant difference in soft penetration ability between the WB and the Military."

I picked the WB as it has the thickest tip I recall, so much so that I didn't figure anyone would argue otherwise. Again, I am NOT defining the limit of exclusion ranking here, just a starting point.

If you want to avoid dealing with the issue, then I'll ask an even more obvious question. Take a Military and break the tip off, now repeat the above. Note that if answer is yes then it proves the test is quantative.

It doesn't prove it is very precise however, but of course I never argued that. I do think it is a lot more precise of course, for example I would assert the Temperance would outperform the Manix, based on other work I have done.

I also don't know what your definition of "soft penetration" is.

Won't break the tip.

So, if these things you are measuring are so person-dependent, what is the point to doing them and making conclusions about them?

Because then you can learn about method as well. So for example if I compare two axes and Jimbo does and we get wildly different results we start up a conversation on method and see what that turns up.

Your findings may be different depending on your level of skill..."

Yeah it states this, they all do, or the recent ones anyway. There are like ~200, I don't think I added it to the really early ones, but they were really qualitative anyway. Some of the recent ones explore it in more detail, it often results from someone asking me a question or similar.

For example while I was doing the review of a long puukko I was discussing chopping with a guy with a vastly different method on really different woods so the chopping section in that review talks about how the relative performance of the Leuko can change vs other knives depending on method and wood type.

Rather than "knife A is superior than knife B because I conclusively proved it..."

Actually I would never say anything so vague, you have not defined how you are juding anything there and what qualities are being ranked.

What I would say is something like :

"The GB Wildlife hatchet is superior for thick soft wood cutting compared to a long bowie."

Then talk about what I actually meant (fluid, number of hits) how much superior, what methods were used (swing type, wrist action), what kinds of woods, what size, and so on.

I'd then discuss how these could be effect by various differences, what would make the performance go up or down depending on strength, speed, wood type, etc. .

I think you don't take that into consideration when you post your results

Of course I do, as I noted in the above, I avoid simple grading systems for exactly that reason, for years actually there were no conclusions, then Cobalt and others really pressed hard so now there is somewhat more, but as noted it still discusses endlessly that they are not so black and white.

Can you imagine what would happen if safety boards "concluded" things based on tests with this much subjectivity?

Yeah you would hope they would have different standard of variability. I work with highly toxic substances such as Hydrogen Cyanide and so on, I don't use the same criteria there.

-Cliff

 

[STR]

With todays digital technology and cutting and pasting techniques it would be easy to fake photos I guess. Many times we have seen leopards with no spots because of the trickery some can do with any photo. I would assume the same is true with video.

I do think there is a viable need for some testing by an objective third party especially in the high dollar specialty knives. But not in some of the ways I've seen done by Cliff. It does appear to me at times that the tests results are swayed to favor anything by Busse and any other brand or name Cliff likes that hasn't pissed him off. But it is a truth that the Busse knives are indeed tough and capable performers. Certainly capable of holding their own in any test so long as the tests are within the limits of the knife. Busse used D2 in the Swamp Rat knives for his lighter knives that were not designed for chopping or prying so to do a test with them that involved chopping or prying makes little sense to me unless he specifically requested this test from Cliff to let him know what it takes to snap one of them.

On the other side of the coin the tests on the hemp rope are pretty good for edge retention and have been used by more than just Cliff to test the edge of knives. I like his input on how sharp they come from the factory, how well the geometry is on the blade, how well it slices etc etc and all but what sense does it make to compare a Cold Steel Voyager to a Falkniven U2?

I think it would be a better comparison to compare a gents folder to another competitive gents folder. Compare the Voyager 4" clip point with a knife that would be one of the choices available to someone looking for a 4" beater or tactical EDC folder. Not that this hasn't been done right sometimes but it hasn't been consistantly done this way. I'd not think too highly of a car review comparing a Honda Civic to a Lincoln Navigator. Lets try to keep the choices and the testing on the same page in the future. This would be my suggestion whenever possible.

On the Busse steel. This is not an issue I think we can all discuss indepth regarding his steel because it isn't like you can run out and buy it at a vendor to test it.

His steel may as well be in a secure lockdown in area 51 because it isn't for sale anywhere but through him as a finished product as I understand it. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. My hats off to the guy that is that self reliant enough to be able to make his own. I have not had a Busse knife but I know guys that do and they are good knives that do what they were designed to do from what I've seen. So, I have no issues with anything he is doing. Seems like he has his $hit together to me.

On another note. I don't think it would be possible for Cliff to objectively test one of my knives, or one from Razorback's, or one from R.W.Clark and a whole list of others at this point. I don't need to send one in to him just to read how it broke or failed during a simple twist test or while carving a bowl or some other such thing. It is a given. I can save everyone the time of a test on these knives. I can guarantee you no matter how much of a tank of a knife I sent him or one of the other guys on his $hit list sent him, that it would break and fail in an aspect or several aspects of the test even if ole Cliff had to rent a truck to run it over and snap it. That is another no brainer if you ask me.

Hey, he is human. It is hard to be objective in certain venues.

 

[R.W.Clark]

Wind wind wind wind wind.

Still no photos of Cliff USING a knife.

CLIFF YOU ARE A FRAUD>

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I think it would be a better comparison to compare a gents folder to another competitive gents folder.

The vastly majority of the time there are other comparisons which would be more informative, I work with what I have obviously.

On another note. I don't think it would be possible for Cliff to objectively test one of my knives ...

It would be trivial, but you would have to know me to understand that. But I can make an arguement for it.

For example, I recently sent Joe Talmadege the Rat Trap from Swamp Rat knives. Joe will not hesitate to point out any problems with the lock or any other aspect. Now consider this and see if it holds with your description of me pushing a favorite.

I give my brother all the heavy utility knives as he doesn't know one maker from another and won't play favorites at all. I don't think I actually need to do that to be honest, but it never hurts to be sure, plus anothers persons opinion is always useful.

I did a large review of a bunch of machetes awhile back, after I was finished I sent them around out of my own pocket. This really seem like to you someone who was trying to promote a certain brand of knives. Why would I link this thread to the review if that was the case?

I will ask you the follow similar question though, how objective to you think are the critisms of me leveled by Clark and similar? Lots of times you see makers reviewing their own knives, do you see this as objective and unbiased?

... it would break and fail in an aspect or several aspects of the test even if ole Cliff had to rent a truck to run it over and snap it.

Yeah because I do that a lot with knives.

If you sent me a knife to review I would ask you what it was made to do, note that in the review and describe how it did that. Then I might do other things which interested me, or someone else. if you commented that it was unfair or misprepresentative I would offer to quote you in the review so people could see your responce. Again does this seem like the person you describe?

As for my reviews favoring someone, point out the performance which you don't agree with. If it is because I slant work to showcase certain brands, again I am open to including other work, so suggest it. Here is what I will assert trivially , I am a lot more negative and critical about the makers I "favor" than the above makers about their own work, and the fans which aggressively promote their knives.

You don't know why Jerry retracted his statement, yet you imply that it is a rumor.

Ask him publically if he will support it now.

-Cliff

 

[Chiro75]

Yes you did, I quoted it in the above. I'll repeat it again :

No I didn't. Yes you did! No I didn't...

So for example if I compare two axes and Jimbo does and we get wildly different results we start up a conversation on method and see what that turns up.

Yeah, but here we are having a conversation and it's going nowhere because you insist that you can self-calibrate and that you're conclusions are meaningful, yet you also insist that tests vary based on who is doing them. I'm confused.

Yeah you would hope they would have different standard of variability. I work with highly toxic substances such as Hydrogen Cyanide and so on, I don't use the same criteria there.

This is going nowhere quick. You cannot make a conclusion about one factor or another without controlling as many factors as possible. You can take that broken tip Military and with enough acceleration it'll penetrate your bottle better than a brand new one. It may not be likely that you can accelerate it that fast, but you're still avoiding the point of my postings:
1) Your tests are completely, entirely subjective, yet you present them as if they are gospel and people read them as such.
2) You do not remove your own personal bias from the testing.
3) You do not control variables to isolate what is being tested.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Yeah, but here we are having a conversation and it's going nowhere because you insist that you can self-calibrate and that you're conclusions are meaningful, yet you also insist that tests vary based on who is doing them. I'm confused.

The tests are repeatible to me within the tolerances I quote. The ranking should be repeatable for most people for most tests, when I note it could be very different I discuss it, how to deal with it, and where and how the performance could change. It even says in the review that the best methods would have multiple people do the work and thus get a more complete perspective.

All data analysis is like this you know. For example in any data reduction there are user influences such as outlier judgement, noise reduction algorithms, etc.. Read all those papers you mentioned, I can guarantee that the authors don't quantitify every detail of the analysis. There is a hell of a lot of personal judgement being carried out.

You can take that broken tip Military and with enough acceleration it'll penetrate your bottle better than a brand new one.

Sure, if you decide to stab one fast and one slow, but that is a delibrate bias. I can for example lean on a chemical scale and throw that reading off too.

1) Your tests are completely, entirely subjective, yet you present them as if they are gospel and people read them as such.

Neither one of these are true, the first one is trivial as some of the tests I do are just measurements like weight, balance, press a knife into a book while it is on a scale, etc. . I go out of my way to note the problems with what I do. As for what people think, ask them, I don't control that.

2) You do not remove your own personal bias from the testing.

I take steps to as noted in the above.

3) You do not control variables to isolate what is being tested.

Sure I do, it depends on the test. For example after stabbing knives for awhile I realized the grip and weight were effecting penetration so I augmented this test with a simple press which isn't influences by this, as noted in the above it discusses this in the reviews. I act to reduce random variance when I can as well as I again noted in the above.

-Cliff

 

[R.W.Clark]

Provide proof you are performing the tests Cliff!


Love the new user title BTW.

 

[cerberus]

Mr. Clark has asked you some very poinent questions about your testing proceedures yet you ignore him. Even Lynn Thompson puts out his own version of his proof video, chastised though it may be. And not to put Lynn in the same arena as Ron, but there were numerous reports of how the LM knives preformed because fellow forumites were invited by Ron to come and take part in the evaluation. We saw those pictures, we saw the peports from those who were there for the weekend. Jerry demos his blades live at shows, we have seen the testing that Eric does to SRKW knives. There are extensive photos of what the ABS does to their knives by the makers doing the tests.
I think Ron is right. I think you should put your money where your mouth is.

Cerberus

 

[Gossman Knives]

WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE THAT DEFEND CLIFF GONNA WAKE UP! After all this and the other threads no one can give any credentials on what makes him an authority. No pics of these so called tests, no proof. At least Lynn Thompson made a video and he still gets beat on for his Proof video. Like I said before anybody can test a fricken knife and explain it with plain english in stead of the useless mathamatics and big words. Putting up a post talking about testing this way is just dumb because there will always be a moron that will try this, slip, get cut and try to blame BF.
Scott

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Mr. Clark has asked you some very poinent questions about your testing proceedures ...

Such as what? I answered his questions, the rest of it was personal attack. I never debated that Clark's knives could do what he claimed they could, he did it obviously. What I debated what that this was superior performance and that the performance was due to the reasons he claimed about the crystal structure of the material.

You want to see video's, buy me a decent camera and host a website with enough space to hold them and I'll gladly show some of the work I do. Obviously I can't film it all. If I cut down 14 truck loads of wood with an axe and limb it out with a knife do you really expect me to film it all. Often times you can cut a hundred pieces of wood and then have a knife ripple, really expect that to be caught on tape. You really want to watch me cut 500 piece of rope? Or go through the mechanics of measuring sharpness by cutting string 12 times.

As noted this is all useless as it is trivial to really misrepresent such work. Here is a pretty easy way to solve it, all the makers who think that the work I do doesn't represent their products, make a public statement that they guarantee their performance will be superior to what I have described and then to finalize it, do a demonstration live at a show. If they are really so confident why have they not done either?

-Cliff

 

[R.W.Clark]

Obviously I can't film it all. If I cut down 14 truck loads of wood with an axe and limb it out with a knife do you really expect me to film it all. Often times you can cut a hundred pieces of wood and then have a knife ripple, really expect that to be caught on tape. You really want to watch me cut 500 piece of rope? Or go through the mechanics of measuring sharpness by cutting string 12 times.

As noted this is all useless as it is trivial to really misrepresent such work. Here is a pretty easy way to solve it, all the makers who think that the work I do doesn't represent their products, make a public statement that they guarantee their performance will be superior to what I have described and then to finalize it, do a demonstration live at a show. If they are really so confident why have they not done either?

I did and I have. So now you should STFU right!


Lame reasons not to back your "work" with real proof Cliff. I had no problem documenting all my LM1 testing. But then again my work was actually done and was valid. In you case it would be hard to video something that never happens.

If you don't own a decent camera, how did you shoot the video you claim to have sent to Gabe of LM1 "testing"?

 

[Chiro75]

Read all those papers you mentioned, I can guarantee that the authors don't quantitify every detail of the analysis. There is a hell of a lot of personal judgement being carried out.

But they at least make more of an attempt to control the variables than stating "yeah, we like, um, calibrated stuff..." There is a standard that pretty much everyone follows except you when they want to go about "proving" something. I don't see why it's okay to ignore that standard for your tests.

Sure, if you decide to stab one fast and one slow, but that is a delibrate bias. I can for example lean on a chemical scale and throw that reading off too.

Right. Or you can be off by a bit with your test, which you undoubtedly are, and that can change the result. Or you can pick up a knife and think to yourself "Gee, I just don't like this knife" and the self-fulfilling prophecy "occurs" in which the knife performs poorly. In the pharmaceutical industry people cure themselves of diseases taking a sugar pill, so don't try to tell me that you're above conscious or subconscious bias.

That's the ENTIRE REASON that people design studies to control variables. Otherwise the results are inconclusive, false, and downright incorrect.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

I did and I have.

You have made absolutely no performance statements at all which contradict anything I said. As noted, I never said the knives could not do what you did with them. I don't think you pulled a Copperfield. I just don't think what you did was impressive, compared to steel knives, nor was it for the reasons you described due to the crystal structure of LM1.

If you don't own a decent camera, how did you shoot the video ...

Same way I drove a car for years and I didn't own one then either.

But they at least make more of an attempt to control the variables ...

Yeah as they want higher precision you would hope, as I noted in some circles this can be extreme, like 0.01% or similar. The guys who work at the standard labs have extreme tolerances, as in they take equipment apart and re-assemble it during calibration to even include this variation (yes, realize what I said, they add variation to the results not reduce it). The work that our lab group publishes has mainly 1-2 significant digits, yes just one or two. It is really uncertain data.

Or you can be off by a bit with your test, which you undoubtedly are, and that can change the result.

Yeah and this shows up in the tolerance you quote as you repeat it a few times to estimate the consistency. Some things are really uncertain, for example on the 2x4 digging, the uncertainty I quote can be more than 25% due to massive differences in 2x4's and the results scatter widely, its all normally distributed though.

Or you can pick up a knife and think to yourself "Gee, I just don't like this knife" and the self-fulfilling prophecy "occurs" in which the knife performs poorly.

You can do this with machines easily, just change the calibration on one, put on in the jig improperly, burn the edge on one and then do a CATRA test, etc.. There are always people behind the machines. This doesn't prevent a bais at all, bottom line you have to trust the user irregardless of how the measurements are made.

-Cliff

 

[Chiro75]

You can do this with machines easily, just change the calibration on one, put on in the jig improperly, burn the edge on one and then do a CATRA test, etc.. There are always people behind the machines. This doesn't prevent a bais at all, bottom line you have to trust the user irregardless of how the measurements are made.

Sure, anything can be faked, manipulated, lied about, etc. I guess you're not willing to admit that your tests are extremely subjective and that there is no control over the variables being tested. So be it. By and large, the conclusions I have seen in your reviews seem to lean heavily toward factory knives, often of specific brands, and handmade knives tend to, by and large, perform poorly in your tests. I see this as a bias, but unfortunately most of the people who read your reviews don't have the full perspective.

 

[Clint Simpson]

Prove me wrong that you are a fraud. Show yourself performing all these supposed tests.

First let me say that I have nothing against you personally Mr. Clark.

But the burden of proof is on you to show that he is a fraud.
Maybe he is a fraud, but then again, so can you!
If I made such accusation (I’m not but if I did)...
What are you going to do, fly out to Ohio to make a knife in front of me?
No, of course not. The onus of proof is on me. Speaking of proof...

Lack of proof that something did happen...
is not proof that something did not happen.

Yes I know, life isn’t always fair.

We all have hobbies. This forum is our hobby (except for Spark and Co.). Using knives is a hobby. Abusing knives is a hobby (for some). For some, making knives is a hobby. We all have different hobbies in different ways.

Cliff likes to beat up on his knives and tell people about it.(at least the later)

If you want scientific evidence look else where.
If you want anecdotal evidence read on.

BTW, Evidence is not proof

If you have a problem with people taking Mr. Stamp too seriously, understand that is not Mr. Stamps fault.

And No I am not a Cliff Stamp fan. I disagree with his a lot, but I hold my words unless it adds to the topic. “I don’t like you saying that!” is not a good way to continue a conversation.

Let our calmer heads prevail ladies and gents... and let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Clint Simpson]

BTW folks,

Why is eveyone so hot about this?

For that matter, what is the "this" people are hot about?

That Cliff Stamp and/or his test are not perfect

 

[Jerry Hossom]

"A long time ago" was about 2 months. I deleted the post concerning the composition of INFI because of an angry phone call I received. It is my firm belief that by anyone's standards those steels are very similar and the term "modified" does allow some latitude for variation.

Clint, the difference between Cliff and Mr Clark is clear. Mr. Clark creates a product that is evaluated by everyone who purchases that product. There is no heresay involved. The results are uneqiuvocal and tangible. If you doubt Mr. Clark's expertise, buy a knife or talk to someone who has and learn the truth. If in doubt, you can pick up a phone and call him.

Conversely, there is no tangible proof that anything Cliff says is true, factual, or verifiable.