Value of Noss's Destruction Tests

[nozh2002]

He means that any criticism of this person's unscientific "tests" is affirmation of the validity of those "tests," regardless of reality. Any dissent is, similarly, to be considered the "backlash" of those whose "toes" have been "stepped on," which makes it easier to dismiss that dissent without actually considering its content.

He means that this tests destroys commonly acceptable knowledge by doing reality check.

Like CR knifes can not stand survival use - batooning wood.

This does make angry many who gets personal and instead of discussing tests start personal attacks and tries to dismiss this tests one or other way using one or other way.

So far there are many "criticism" - I hear some calling me clown, other "criticism" was bold statements like - "stupid and pointless" etc...

But with all this toe cry fact is simple some survival knives - like CR can not stand some test - simple real survival task, while other like Busse can.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Rationalize it however you wish. These destructive "tests" are stunts performed for entertainment. They have little or no actual conceptual value.

 

[nozh2002]

Rationalize it however you wish. These destructive "tests" are stunts performed for entertainment. They have little or no actual conceptual value.

This is you Criticism which we can not stand?

I am saying this again - batooning wood is practical survival task. Now what can you say other then "stunts performed for entertainment" and "stupid and pointless"? Why do you think in survial situation in emergency no one ever will not need to do this with survival knife?

Thanks, Vassili.

This is looks like someone saying 2+2=5, and when you try to correct this answer is "You just can not stand Truth!".
You say that this is same as 1+1+1+1 which is 4! Answer again - "This is stupid and pointless - you can not stand truth!"

 

[sunnyd]

Rationalize it however you wish. These destructive "tests" are stunts performed for entertainment. They have little or no actual conceptual value.

Thanks for summing it up so plainly here, Phil.

~ ~ ~ ><> ~ ~ ><> ~ ~ ~

nozh2002,

Thank you for your opinion here as well. I always value anyone who posts opposing opinions because it provokes the thought process and makes us wiser, and after all that is what these forums are all about.

I would very much like for you to explain your post as well. Perhaps I can ask you a few questions if I may in all seriousness, please?

You stated in your post:

"He means this test destroys commonly acceptable knowledge by doing a reality check."

I am glad you mentioned the world reality. Because you have just described exactly what I believe is the complete polar opposite of reality regarding these tests. I promise I will fully explain why, but first I'd like you to kindly answer my simple questions here.

1) What real world cutting chore anywhere on this earth involves gouging and beating up concrete with any knife? Kindly explain in detail.

2) What particular purpose would be achieved by any person using a case hardened sledgehammer or any tool with hardened steel to beat the spine of a knife(with any Rockwell hardness rating) with the expressed purpose of the knife's destruction?

 

[nozh2002]

Thanks for summing it up so plainly here, Phil.

~ ~ ~ ><> ~ ~ ><> ~ ~ ~

nozh2002,

Thank you for your opinion here as well. I always value anyone who posts opposing opinions because it provokes the thought process and makes us wiser, and after all that is what these forums are all about.

I would very much like for you to explain your post as well. Perhaps I can ask you a few questions if I may in all seriousness, please?

You stated in your post:

"He means this test destroys commonly acceptable knowledge by doing a reality check."

I am glad you mentioned the world reality. Because you have just described exactly what I believe is the complete polar opposite of reality regarding these tests. I promise I will fully explain why, but first I'd like you to kindly answer my simple questions here.

1) What real world cutting chore anywhere on this earth involves gouging and beating up concrete with any knife? Kindly explain in detail.

2) What particular purpose would be achieved by any person using a case hardened sledgehammer or any tool with hardened steel to beat the spine of a knife(with any Rockwell hardness rating) with the expressed purpose of the knife's destruction?

I see where you going. But before we goes to final stages of test for extremely tough knives, can we agreed on first "simple test stages" which any tough knives suppose to pass easy:

I am talking about simple practical task - wood batooning which CR knives for example failed.

Are you agree that this is practical not very rare survival situation?
Are you agreed that this task any survival knife should stand?

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[kgd]

It seems to me that the biggest complaint raised with Noss' test are that they are not scientific in presentation. So the entire issue seems to rest with pseudoreplication. If Noss were to take 5 knives of the same brand and repeat his tests, running through the same routine, you could then argue that his tests now become scientific.

The criticisms about not hitting the hammer at the exact same spot, or with a slight angle, or somewhat more power, now disappear simply because the 'random error' with these variables would become assigned across his replicates. Hell knows, maybe this is all part of the Noss Master Plan. He is going through his first round of tests and pretty soon will start the 2nd replicates. Once he gets the third one down now we can say it is scientific.

Come now - if Noss did five CR knives, and they broke under similar conditions, would all of his distractors suddenly accept his results? My guess is no, they would still claim the excercise was pointless and unrealistic. I think the constant claim of the tests being unscientific is a guise to the real complaint that some wage that knives should not be subjected to that kind of abuse. To each his own. I certainly don't think toughness is the only criteria to evaluate a knife, but it is useful to know this characteristic. It is also true that many companies advertise this as a major feature to their products.

I've seen hundreds and hundreds of reviews now on BF. I can't think of a single time where anybody, outside of the manufacturers, who actually test multiple knives of the same brand under the same test. So, basically nobody around here does Scientific testing. They do repeated tests on the same knife and are guilty of the same pseudoreplication error that Noss is. Why is Noss the only who gets so much flak?

 

[sunnyd]

I see where you going. But before we goes to final stages of test for extremely tough knives, can we agreed on first "simple test stages" which any tough knives suppose to pass easy:

I am talking about simple practical task - wood batooning which CR knives for example failed.

Are you agree that this is practical not very rare survival situation?
Are you agreed that this task any survival knife should stand?

Thanks, Vassili.

Thanks in advance for getting us started.

To answer your two questions first then:

I am agreed and do completely believe simple battening is appropriate using a suitable hard wood or soft wood branch utilizing a swinging hammer and spike technique on the back of the spine of the knife for the purposes of cutting forest wood, let's say notching for a shelter or cooking preparation for a pot stand, or even splitting small logs for fire wood, especially in the absence of a hatchet and/or axe, ect.

I am agreed that this task is important and should stand up to the aforementioned.

 

[Culpeper]

Rationalize it however you wish. These destructive "tests" are stunts performed for entertainment. They have little or no actual conceptual value.

That is rationalizing as well but well outside the ballpark of plagiarism, which is a good thing. I did like your anarchism hypothesis. The original OP was correct and so was your interpretation. It sort of makes you wrong.

 

[Phil Elmore]

That has to be the most beautifully crafted pile of nonsense I've read all day.

 

[Culpeper]

That has to be the most beautifully crafted pile of nonsense I've read all day.

It was pretty good, uh?

 

[nozh2002]

Thanks in advance for getting us started.

To answer your two questions first then:

I am agreed and do completely believe simple battening is appropriate using a suitable hard wood or soft wood branch utilizing a swinging hammer and spike technique on the back of the spine of the knife for the purposes of cutting forest wood, let's say notching for a shelter or cooking preparation for a pot stand, or even splitting small logs for fire wood, especially in the absence of a hatchet and/or axe, ect.

I am agreed that this task is important and should stand up to the aforementioned.

Let then goes over Noss4 video for Project I step by step to see this "knife destruction for entertaining".

He introduced knive - as A2 thick heavy duty one piece...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0H8EFC26vw

1. Peel apple, (I tests on potato) - shows basic ability to use knife for "fine" thing like food prparation, reasonable test and Project one doing all right.
2. Slice an apple - reaonable test to me - show that blade is bit too thick for fine slicing.
3. Cut 10000 pounf ribbon cutting
4. Control Cutting of 10 000 pound ribbon
5. Cut same with serration
6. Chopping 2x4 - not a good chopper according to Noss4. get some energy to do. not heavy enough...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ2fT6pL4xQ&feature=related

7. Cut 10000 ribbon after chopping - cut well no difference on the edge.
8. Batooning firewood hitting with wood - done.
9. Cutting Ribbon after batooning. - less sharp.
10. Tip break test on 2x4 "dig through" - perfect shape after testing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VmWJOAJB5I&feature=related

11. Tip test on metal - snaped off very tip few mm but no any serious non fixable, compare holes with holes from other knife. Reasonable test for survival knife.
12. Batooning through 2x4 with 3 pound steel hummer

I would say he hit it very gently, defenetely without intention to destroy it with blade about 60 degree to wood) until at 8 minutes it breaks very easy without actually any hard hit and at the different point from where he did hit it with hummer, but near handle.

So is it stupid and pointless destruction for entertainment, unrepeatable etc, etc, etc?

Thanks, Vassili.

It is absolutely clear that some just build some fiction around only words "Destruction test" and talk and talk and talk without having see those videos...

 

[sunnyd]

. . nozh2002,

Thank you for your opinion here as well. I always value anyone who posts opposing opinions because it provokes the thought process and makes us wiser, and after all that is what these forums are all about.

I would very much like for you to explain your post as well. Perhaps I can ask you a few questions if I may in all seriousness, please?

You stated in your post:

"He means this test destroys commonly acceptable knowledge by doing a reality check."

I am glad you mentioned the world reality. Because you have just described exactly what I believe is the complete polar opposite of reality regarding these tests. I promise I will fully explain why, but first I'd like you to kindly answer my simple questions here.

1) What real world cutting chore anywhere on this earth involves gouging and beating up concrete with any knife? Kindly explain in detail.

2) What particular purpose would be achieved by any person using a case hardened sledgehammer or any tool with hardened steel to beat the spine of a knife(with any Rockwell hardness rating) with the expressed purpose of the knife's destruction?

Come on nozh,

I indulged you with your first 2 questions. Fair is fair. Right?

Your turn now.

Please answer the questions.

 

[nozh2002]

Come on nozh,

I indulged you with your first 2 questions. Fair is fair. Right?

Your turn now.

Please answer the questions.

Point me to his clip with this things you mentioned - he has quite a bit knives tested, I do not want to see all them, so please - point it out for me.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[theonew]

Geez guys enough, it's way past "Agree to disagree" time :grumpy:

 

[sunnyd]

Point me to his clip with this things you mentioned - he has quite a bit knives tested, I do not want to see all them, so please - point it out for me.

Thanks, Vassili.

No clip.

Once again, I am trying to get your opinion here!.

Kindly answer my (2) questions based on your own real world experience, please.

 

[nozh2002]

Geez guys enough, it's way past "Agree to disagree" time :grumpy:

I think we have first time listed Noss test procedure I think quite a bit here "have no time" to really watch this tests and confused and misleaded by "Distruction tests" name, so they are easy believe in this pretty well crafted image of "Noss knife smasher". Let clear all this now.

I have to admit I did not watch as careful as I just did his tests, but now I see how really scientific they are and how careful he is with this knives - it is clear he respects them and treat them fairly - just see his video, make your own opinion!

I am looking forward to carefully watch what sunnyd meant. More attention we pay to this - less base for any misunderstandings and conflicts.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[nozh2002]

No clip.

Once again, I am trying to get your opinion here!.

Kindly answer my (2) questions based on your own real world experience, please.

So this is fictional and not related to Noss tests and to this topic then.

Anyway I will answer.

1) What real world cutting chore anywhere on this earth involves gouging and beating up concrete with any knife? Kindly explain in detail.

As I mentioned before I have real example from Russian North (Norilsk - nickel-platinum-iridium center of the World), where to geologists were caught into gravel slide on the side of the mountain. They both use knives as an anchor stickng them into rock as an anchor - one survived with no harm, another one whose knife fail end up oin hospital with many bones broken for half year.

So in general I can imagine situation where you may be barried under building after earthquake or urban war and nid to dir or climb through concrete debree etc.

I should not that Noss4 was not doing anything like this to Project I.

2) What particular purpose would be achieved by any person using a case hardened sledgehammer or any tool with hardened steel to beat the spine of a knife(with any Rockwell hardness rating) with the expressed purpose of the knife's destruction?

In that partcular phrasing it seems stupid and pointless - as I sad you directly stated purpose of this - knife destruction. I should note that if you watch Noss video this is not what he is doing . As I sad he batooning knife quite carefully and did not hit it hard at all, his clear purpose to batoon through the wood not destroy knife - see for yourself, it is very clear. And knife broke near handle not where he hit it.

Thanks, Vassili.

 

[markksr]

.....

 

[Joshua J.]

2) What particular purpose would be achieved by any person using a case hardened sledgehammer or any tool with hardened steel to beat the spine of a knife(with any Rockwell hardness rating) with the expressed purpose of the knife's destruction?

Vassili gave his explanation, your question implies that the only reason Noss hits a knife with a hammer is to try to destroy it. Watch the videos, Noss does not intentionally destroy the knife untill it has passed all the standard tests, then he lets loose just to see how much it takes.
So your question cannot be applied directly to the testing which Noss does, at least not the official "test". The mayhem that ensues after a knife has passed, ok you've got me there. The test would be complete without destruction of the knife, except that then I'd still have the question burning in my mind "if it passed all the tests, the how much more can it take?".
This is the fulfillment of why the knives are always destroyed, even when they pass, and the answer to your question.

 

[yoz's friend]

well at the end of the day the tests do show which knives are the most durable. do they not? i for one like to see the test results.