....where you go off on how you cannot take someone's word for it and on and on about why his references are invalid.
They were for the reasons I noted. References are not someone's name, they are data and logic. "Billy White, who works for ACE steel, says their RT44 is tougher than UH11." is not a meaningful reference, however "Landes has studied the high temper temperature for ATS-34 and found it produces a lower edge stability and corrosion resistance, details are in his book. The problem comes from the secondary carbide precipitation of chromium carbide which reduce the free chromium obviously and weaken grain boundries. This is of course a known problem in all such steels, you can see the same behavior in D2 for example, see Tool Steels by Robert's/Cary for details."
One of these proposes a faith based persepctive, you should believe what is said because of who said it. The other gives you the data and makes a logical arguement and gives you the ability to content said arguement which you are supposed to do if you can.
Also, I see nothing silly about Kershaw going for the market to garner the most sales.
Of course not, what is absurd is what Thomas does constantly, "Look at all the people using this steel/method/design - obviously is has to be quality." That of course presupposes that quality is the only criteria and you just noted it is not and thus his entire arguement is invalid.
Have you actually used one of these Kershaw knives at all? Or do you just think you know that they don't work the way they are?
No, and yes I do to the extent and for reasons noted in the above. I have used many steels in that class both soft and hard. I cited references from people who used that exact steel. I noted the fundamental behavior as to what causes the problems, not a specific steel issue. Kershaw admitted they were having problems with corrosion resistance and kel_aa noted rolling issues, exactly what I said would be problems with underhardening and they have raised the hardness and still you fail to see validation in what I said.
STR, in general, in experimentation, you don't simply let your data constrain your viewpoint. You consider it for what it is and don't judge it any more or less valid because you have collected it (ideally). This is fundamental because if you didn't do this, if you waited until you have experienced everything yourself then you could never actually do any research STR because you would spend your entire life having to recreate what is already known. What you do is see if the data makes sense, does it agree with what is known, if it does then it becomes part of your viewpoint.
Note again, in the above I am talking about general issues, fundamental issues. The key point I made is that if you compare a low carbide steel to a high carbide steel in obtuse edge profiles then the high carbide steel will drastically outperform it directly. I have done this on many steels, Landes has done it on the exact steels in question. This isn't an issue of theory. You can see the exact same behavior again in Elliott's work where he thins down chisel edges and Johnston as noted also showed it in detail on custom cutlery. The other point was that you don't underharden steels to gain toughness, you switch steels. So when you have someone running 13C26 at the same hardness you can achieve with 12C27M then it should have anyone who is familiar with those steels pointing out there is a problem.
Neither of of these ideas would be opposed and this thread would not be more than 1-2 pages if Kershaw wasn't such an inflammatory topic. If the exact same discussion was had on T15, I can guarantee that the exact same fundamental arguements would be repeated with no contention - none. I know because I have made them and seen them made by others many times. I didn't origionate those two ideas in the above, I in fact cited the people who did. The problem here is that the ideas are actually being ignored and the discussion is 100% on the people. Focus on those two points, forget about any particular steels and see if those two general statements are valid. It is hard to contend them when you consider the wealth of data, both from the users and the direct published data.
Further consider the following; you see people discussing a knife from a manufacturer which had a 0.15" liner lock with a relief cut to 0.01". Now you have not actually used that knife or specific geometry however do you really think that you can't use your experience to comment in a productive manner and note immediately that there is a really big problem with that geometry as the relief is going to serious compromise the strength of the lock. Of course you can, you do it all the time. I guarantee that I could show you a picture of a lock from a knife you never used and you would be quite willing to criticise that lock.
You mean to tell me that you have never seen in life someone react harshly to criticisim or comment only to think those comments over once the dust cleared and things settled down?
Yeah, the last part is kind of critical though.
You say that here Cliff, but in the other earlier 13C26 thread you are quoted as saying this ...
[I carry low end knives]
Yes, I have also noted why. I get a lot of knives as gifts, my 10 year old nephew recently gave me a $2 folder which I carry and you actually use that as some sort of attack on my arguement in the above. Congradulations, I think that is the lowest attack I have seen to date. Not to mention the fact that as I have also noted I use those knives as benchmarks. Performance is relative, you only know something is superior by comparing it to an inferior product. Of course there are other issues as well which I have also noted such as I like to introduce knives to people, I often give away the knives I carry.
I pick knives up for a dollar or two, often at flea markets and second hard stores, or just find them unused in a friends garage and ask for them and then sharpen them up and carry them for awhile. Later I pass them on to someone who needs a knife when they ask. I often check back with them after awhile and discuss it with them and if they need a better one I give it to them. But this of course is a bad thing and somehow invalidates the statement I made that I am interested in the performance of a knife vs the profit it makes for the maker/manufacturer.
-Cliff
