What do you learn from destruction tests?

[video=youtube;3QQhudemIkg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3QQhudemIkg[/video]

there is always something to learn :confusion:
 
If you buy a food and it tastes horrible, how many times are you going to buy it, eat it and say maybe it's just and anomaly in the manufacturing process.
 
Maddogg774 said:
If you buy a food and it tastes horrible, how many times are you going to buy it, eat it and say maybe it's just and anomaly in the manufacturing process.
Click to expand...

If one buys a bag of sunflower seeds and the first one cracked tastes like dirt, is it reasonable to throw out the entire bag based on the assumption that all subsequent seeds will also taste like dirt? Or should the eater try more than one in order to better determine the consistency of the product as whole?
 
One gets out of these types of tests what one wants too IMO, it's up to the individual what they take away from them in the end.

While not conclusive or the finial word by any means they still have some value for reference and gained knowledge with other data points that could be taken into count.

I have no dog in this fight so I really don't care one way or the other in the end.
 
allyourblood said:
If one buys a bag of sunflower seeds and the first one cracked tastes like dirt, is it reasonable to throw out the entire bag based on the assumption that all subsequent seeds will also taste like dirt? Or should the eater try more than one in order to better determine the consistency of the product as whole?
Click to expand...
If one gets sick or smells a bad smell from the first one does one keep eating hoping it will get better? By the way...you don't buy a single seed, you buy a package, so example not applicable.
 
Maddogg774 said:
If one gets sick or smells a bad smell from the first one does one keep eating hoping it will get better? By the way...you don't buy a single seed, you buy a package, so example not applicable.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

And a sunflower seed is not a knife. Doesn't invalidate the comparison. You just don't like it. That's two different things.
 
allyourblood said:
:rolleyes:

And a sunflower seed is not a knife. Doesn't invalidate the comparison. You just don't like it. That's two different things.
Click to expand...
Your the one that tried to force the comparison, if you bought all the knives in a package maybe, or if you are calling all offererings from a company or steel a packacke, less maybe. But you sunflower analogy is not compatible.
 
You can learn a lot from the tests. The other day I learned that removing the steel liners and increasing the amount of G10 makes a knife just as strong with a certain lock and lighter.
 
midnight flyer said:
It's sounds contradictory, but I wasn't trying to be. I read more of the posts on this thread and remember how many threads have popped up with people being horrified, indignant, pissed off and hurt when watching Noss. He offends people when playing out in his garage when tearing up knives, and they crap all over him because he is doesn't do tests they way THEY think he should. As Guardians of the Knife and all things Holy, even if he pays for it, they don't even think he even have a knife! Still they watch, still he presses on and draws their venom (based on their considered opinion)
Click to expand...

No matter what Noss does....there will be always people crying about it. Considered opinion or individual opinion does not really matter, what really matter is that there's video footage (where you can be the judge of it and formulate your opinion)



But then it popped into my head, hmmmm....."why not Noss?" if I had private control of the test results.
Click to expand...
This Noss tests was initiated by Noss, so its private but to say that He have control of the test results, you speculating out of you ass....except if you have the evidence to prove it!


We figured if Paul didn't break it, it had to be pretty sturdy, and pretty well built. It was simple, intuitive reasoning. Scientific? No.
Click to expand...

Now I understand when demoteamone call you contradictor...in other words... you want to have a full bottle of wine and wife drunk.
How many time you go into the library to read The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, how many?
Science is not static, Science its evolution thing. The Science of yesterday its considered today crap...and so on!


To anyone who want something indestructible...buy a knife made of carbon nanotubes (of course if you have the money for it)

Since carbon nanotubes have a low density for a solid of 1.3 to 1.4 g·cm−3,[18] its specific strength of up to 48,000 kN·m·kg−1 is the best of known materials, compared to high-carbon steel's 154 kN·m·kg−1.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...rbon_nanotubes
 
Maddogg774 said:
Your the one that tried to force the comparison, if you bought all the knives in a package maybe, or if you are calling all offererings from a company or steel a packacke, less maybe. But you sunflower analogy is not compatible.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Just as I'm not expecting you to directly compare the sunflower seed itself to the knife, the point of my analogy was not the purchase itself. It was to illustrate that taking one single sample (an individual seed or single knife) from a pool of many (big bag of seeds or entire production line of a particular knife) isn't going to tell you much about the quality and consistency of that product beyond the knowledge that the solitary sample didn't meet a given expectation.

Heck, your own analogy doesn't meet the standard you're holding mine to, as it has elements to it which also don't apply: We're not talking about a consumer buying a knife, having it fail and then deciding to buy another and trying it again. We're talking about the usefulness and validity of having someone perform destructive acts on a knife, and then others extrapolating some sort of reliable sense of quality and strength from that single sample.

To compare it more closely to your food analogy, it would go something like this: A guy across the globe buys a candy bar, eats it, hates it or finds something physically flawed in it (perhaps it's lacking in peanuts or the caramel is hard, or some such). Then you, without having received any further information, determine that said candy bar is not up to par and you won't buy it. You haven't tried it yourself, you haven't heard anyone else having the same problem, and the guy who ate the first one isn't going to ever eat another. But he gives it a 0 rating out of 5, and you apply this assessment to your own opinion of the candy bar. Further still, he tries another candy bar of similar ingredients from another company and finds that candy bar to be of higher quality, and gives it a 5 out of 5.

Really, aren't you going to want to hear at least a handful of people weigh in on the taste, quality and consistency of the candy bar before drawing your own conclusions? Maybe you'd even like the guy to try it again, as -- and this is the important part -- maybe his single taste of that exact piece of candy doesn't speak for the product line as a whole. Is that not reasonable?
 
allyourblood said:
Except these videos aren't showing any consistent or reliable proof of that. If this guy breaks one knife in 3 minutes by chopping through a 2x4, we have no reasonable way of knowing if the next 5 knives off the line will fail at the same point; the sample is not broad enough. The same can be said for a knife that lasts through an hour of testing and finally arrives at being yanked on by a cheater bar in a vice: you and I have no way of knowing if this particular model of knife can survive this much abuse consistently, because we've only been shown one example.
Click to expand...

And you are absolutely correct. This is a weakness in the testing. Unfortunately this is the best that I can find on the net to show me, Joe average, what I would ''likely'' expect. I am going under the assumption that most major manufacturers have a reasonable quality control program and have to follow consistent heat treat parameters etc. I really don't see this as a black and white issue. Sometimes there are shades of grey. Cold Steel makes some crap and some interesting tough folders for example. But I do appreciate the evaluations because I can't afford to go out and use specific methodology to destroy say 30 knives from alternate runs. Real world for me is that I get a rough idea and I feel that it helps in my buying choices. Not the end all, be all, but definitely another aspect of my research on a specific blade that I may buy, if it has been tested.
 
Since we are on the topic of candy bars. Candy bars can save your life, just like knives. Candy bars therefore have to be tough. I would hate to be injured, needing energy and find that my candy bar has melted.

So eating a candy bar is not a valid test for survival use of a candy bar.

What you need to do is place different candy bars in the sun. The one that takes the longest time to melt is the best candy bar. One that does not melt at all is the ultimate candy bar.
 
midnight flyer said:
It's sounds contradictory, but I wasn't trying to be. I read more of the posts on this thread and remember how many threads have popped up with people being horrified, indignant, pissed off and hurt when watching Noss. He offends people when playing out in his garage when tearing up knives, and they crap all over him because he is doesn't do tests they way THEY think he should. As Guardians of the Knife and all things Holy, even if he pays for it, they don't even think he even have a knife! Still they watch, still he presses on and draws their venom (based on their considered opinion)

But then it popped into my head, hmmmm....."why not Noss?" if I had private control of the test results. That thought came when I thought he was like one of my employee/helpers I have had over the years. I had a helper for years (never picked up a trade) that had an idea of how to use some tools. Almost without fail, he would wind up abusing them by using them incorrectly, or in a way they were never intended or designed to be used. He didn't do it maliciously, but he just couldn't pay attention to what he was doing sometimes, and didn't think about what he was doing.

(Example: "Robert, after the concrete drill got too hot to hold onto, so I wrapped a big piece of rag around it and kept drilling for another 15 minutes, and then it just stopped. I don't know what happened... it just stopped")

I coined the phrase "Paul tested tough" after a couple of years, and it was a joke on the crew. Like Noss, we had only conclusive data, nothing static developed in a sterile, controlled, engineered environment with redundant testing of multiple random samples with all results certified with a second test under a the aegis of a third party as is favored here.

We figured if Paul didn't break it, it had to be pretty sturdy, and pretty well built. It was simple, intuitive reasoning. Scientific? No.

To me, Noss is indeed an amusing clown. And yes, there is something to be learned there, although I am not sure his tests prove too much. I admit I am mildly interested to see how some knives fare, especially the favorites of the fan boys that swear to the manufacturer's claim of near indestructibility. (These seem to be the guys that are most easily butt hurt if their knife doesn't fare well.) However, I have seen MANY, MANY times folks that watch the more silly test videos of knife tests that crow about the results if a favorite of theirs does well.

Threads about incorrect testing come and go here, especially when talking about Noss, and like the "spine whack test" they threads they devolve into petty arguing about the correct way to test knives (based on personal opinion), the way to interpret data as seen by each person. Then it gets personal, then more feelings get hurt and people feel impugned. Fingers are pointed. Tongues are stuck out at monitors. Then it dies down.

Don't worry, though. A new Noss thread will start again soon and the debate between experts can all start over again.

Strange how Noss doesn't give a crap about all this noise, eh? Years of outrage and being crapped on, and he still keeps having fun.

Robert
Click to expand...

With your 10000 words you really trying to twist the end to the main meaning. The true value of your post is equivalent to zero.
 
upnorth said:
And you are absolutely correct. This is a weakness in the testing. Unfortunately this is the best that I can find on the net to show me, Joe average, what I would ''likely'' expect. I am going under the assumption that most major manufacturers have a reasonable quality control program and have to follow consistent heat treat parameters etc. I really don't see this as a black and white issue. Sometimes there are shades of grey. Cold Steel makes some crap and some interesting tough folders for example. But I do appreciate the evaluations because I can't afford to go out and use specific methodology to destroy say 30 knives from alternate runs. Real world for me is that I get a rough idea and I feel that it helps in my buying choices. Not the end all, be all, but definitely another aspect of my research on a specific blade that I may buy, if it has been tested.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of a reasonable assumption from a single test. One data point is better than none too.
 
unit said:
Successfully making a knife like object that none of these guys can break may or may not be any indication of how good a knife really is. Personally, I would struggle to see much value in some of these knife like objects that are approaching thicknesses of over a centimeter and lack any sort of distal taper.
Click to expand...

My Scrapyard Regulator sharpened at ten degrees per side still cuts very well most of the time. The thick blade does get in the way occasionally, but the point is you can have a ridiculously sturdy knife that cuts well too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top