SM-35M50 Micromelt Steel looks amazing!

[Donut]

I'm in for a Bug sprint in this steel. :)

[chuck_roxas45]

It seems to be about 50/50 on people who want to know and people who are curious to see what they can determine without knowing the nature of the steel as you don't have your expectations to filter the results so there is no way to know if a result is indicative or not aside from confidence in the method directly. Normally most people will readily throw out / modify observations to make them fit. If they use a knife and the edge chips or just goes dull early but the steel is "supposed" to behave otherwise they just excuse the performance and ignore it. But if the exact same thing happened with the same method on a steel which was "supposed" to behave like that then it is reported and proof of the steels performance.

I will be sending out the knife after Christmas and it should be interesting to see what people come up with.

No Cliffy, any substance can't go against it's chemistry. To say so would viloate physics but then I guess you're awesome enough to do that. :p

When you find that something goes way beyond it's chemistry, the tester becomes suspect.

Say you test a beetle and it outperforms a Ferrari. I'd look at the drivers and their motives.

[BrutallyEffective]

No Cliffy, any substance can't go against it's chemistry.

Chucky Baby, that's the point blind testing is supposed to make: by eliminating bias. If you know what the steel is, all the personal opinions and expectations you already hold about that steel colour the results; ie, go against it's chemistry.

Say you test a beetle and it outperforms a Ferrari. I'd look at the drivers and their motives.

Your two drivers are: The Ferrari marketing director with a history of betting his entire net worth on Ferrari winning everything, and the Volkswagen head Designer/Engineer who will be demoted to anti-squeak duties if the VW loses.

If you put them in a randomly chosen car, with a bit of tape over the logo on the steering wheels so neither has any idea what they are driving, how would they influence the results with their obviously strong motives? They can't drive slowly for risk of making their own team lose.

If the testing is blind, there can be no motives or skewed results, nothing breaking the laws of physics, just the actual truth of performance.

[Donut]

Why can't we ever get any Megamelt steel?

[Stuart Ackerman]

I am repeating a story I told a long time ago...

I made two knives, identical except for scale colour and steel type, but the user was not told what steel was in either knife...
In fact, he was not told steel types at all... even though he knew that I normally used 440C, D2, N690, 12C27, ATS34,, O1, L6, and DC53...
Specially bought 420 was there in my workshop because I was going to try and make scissors, but had not done any up to that stage...

He had both knives on a yacht for a few months, and I told him to wash and dry the knives after each and every use...

End of story? He battled to tell the difference between AISI 420 and 440C, whether it was cutting anything, or even in sharpening on a water stone...
The 420 was 54 C on Rockwell scale, and the 440C was 58 C...

He did line for line cuts with the same pressure and the same material...and he found it hard to differentiate...
We both learned something...

[Cliff Stamp]

We both learned something...

Yes this is why everyone in research both hates and loves double blind and shills avoid it like the plague.

420 is a very common steel locally because it is what Marttiini uses in their fillet knives and they are well liked/respected. I just reground a very old, very well used one the weekend, removed a recurve, added a small choil notch, zero'ed the primary to full and added a very minor secondary bevel. I believe it was about 10 years ago that I did the same thing to the same knife. I expect it will be as long before I see it again.

[chuck_roxas45]

blah blah blah

I know what blind testing is for baby.

The problem is that you can skew tests to favor a certain material with z characteristic you know is superior at a certain specification.

Let's get the beetle and ferrari again and test them for fuel mileage. Guess which one comes out on top.

That's also similar to testing s90v against 8Cr13Mov. If you take both test knives to ridiciculous bevel angles that nobody uses anyway and sharpnesses that arent't really practical to maintain, you'll find out that the carbide volume at some level will make s90v "fail".

If however you test at angles that most everybody uses and sharpnesses that 95% of the population use to cut with, guess which one's edge will last longer?

We both learned something...

Yes, I guess you learned that when cutting one piece of string, it's hard to tell steels apart.

In real life cutting, it's seldom that you cut enough material to really dulll your knife but that's precisely how you find out edge retention. With the steels we have today, you have to cut A LOT to really dull the knives with say, even S30V or M390.

Now it's a preference thing at what sharpness you like your knife to be, some people touch up often (butchers?) and these types of users will obviously like less wear resistance steels(grindability?), and that's fine really. Others don't like to touch up in the middle of a day or even a week's work and these people may appreciate a more wear resistant steel.

[Stuart Ackerman]

Yes, I guess you learned that when cutting one piece of string, it's hard to tell steels apart.

Ohh look...you left off the smilie at the end of the sentence... :D

[BrutallyEffective]

I know what blind testing is for baby.

The problem is that you can skew tests to favor a certain material with z characteristic you know is superior at a certain specification.

Let's get the beetle and ferrari again and test them for fuel mileage. Guess which one comes out on top.

I don't understand why you're making this point; yes bad testing will produce bad results. Are you worried that Kylie will skew his testing and therefore conclude a mystery steel is better than your favourite? That's only a problem if people fail to understand the testing and its inherent biases, and then the lack of understanding is the problem, not the testing.

Yes, I guess you learned that when cutting one piece of string, it's hard to tell steels apart.

I believe he said a few months on the yacht, plus during sharpening, and also during the "line for line" cuts. So you're saying he learned nothing really valuable during this period of daily use, but...

In real life cutting, it's seldom that you cut enough material to really dulll your knife but that's precisely how you find out edge retention. With the steels we have today, you have to cut A LOT to really dull the knives with say, even S30V or M390.

I took this as you saying it's hard to do enough cutting in daily life to make a judgement on steels based solely on that daily performance; seems to me that Stuart agrees, and his point was (correct me if I'm wrong Ack-Atack,) that this means the difference in most steels is therefore negligible for most people using knives in daily life.

Your point seems to be that people should then do additional testing that does not reflect real life use, and then base their steel choice for daily use on that non representative testing. To me this goes under the heading of skewed testing producing skewed results, which you were against?

Now it's a preference thing at what sharpness you like your knife to be, some people touch up often (butchers?) and these types of users will obviously like less wear resistance steels(grindability?), and that's fine really. Others don't like to touch up in the middle of a day or even a week's work and these people may appreciate a more wear resistant steel.

Isn't this a cart-before the horse situation, in that butchers touch up their knives BECAUSE of their knife choice (soft steel, poor sharpening, tradition/convention) not choosing their knives based on their love of steeling? If the sorts that don't touch up their knives daily or weekly had butchers knives, wouldn't they too be touching up a lot more often?

[Stuart Ackerman]

I see where the confusion crept in...
My "line for line" description was not meaning line as such, but did include rope, but mostly food prep and wood cutting, as he and his crew travelled along the coast of Africa, visiting ports, harbours, bays and rivers...they dived in the sea itself for food, and all cutting on boards were on teak boards...

I wanted the washing of blades to prevent finding out that 420 was more stainless than 440C...

[chuck_roxas45]

I don't understand why you're making this point; yes bad testing will produce bad results. Are you worried that Kylie will skew his testing and therefore conclude a mystery steel is better than your favourite? That's only a problem if people fail to understand the testing and its inherent biases, and then the lack of understanding is the problem, not the testing.

Because bad testing might be masqueraded as good and fair testing. Testing with sub 10° angles for instance. Better than my favorite? I have lots of steels I like for their different characteristics. Such characteristics are inherent in them from their chemical makeup and enhanced with proper heat treat and correct geometry.

If I can find a steel that's "better" at a certain property than what I like for that property, you can bet your noodle that I'll prefer it. One thing that makes me skeptical is ONE guy telling the mainstream that a steel they find lacking in a certain property, is actuall better at than property than what the majority has experienced. The catch is that you have to sharpen to levels which the majority of people don't find suitable for them.

I believe he said a few months on the yacht, plus during sharpening, and also during the "line for line" cuts. So you're saying he learned nothing really valuable during this period of daily use, but...



I took this as you saying it's hard to do enough cutting in daily life to make a judgement on steels based solely on that daily performance; seems to me that Stuart agrees, and his point was (correct me if I'm wrong Ack-Atack,) that this means the difference in most steels is therefore negligible for most people using knives in daily life.

Your point seems to be that people should then do additional testing that does not reflect real life use, and then base their steel choice for daily use on that non representative testing. To me this goes under the heading of skewed testing producing skewed results, which you were against?

Not at all, since Cliffy always focuses on the "placebo effect" when people admire the edge retention of steels that are not HIS favourites. So non representative testing, as you call it will show a steels true qualities. I'm all for double blind tests that have "sane" parameters. Since you will already have data from "non representative tests", you can choose the steel for your particular purpose based on the data already gathered. It's a better way to choose a steel IMHO, than hit and miss tries.

Isn't this a cart-before the horse situation, in that butchers touch up their knives BECAUSE of their knife choice (soft steel, poor sharpening, tradition/convention) not choosing their knives based on their love of steeling? If the sorts that don't touch up their knives daily or weekly had butchers knives, wouldn't they too be touching up a lot more often?

Well, you're right there. If butchers can have the edge they want without touchups, I bet they'd go for it BUT since they go through knives fast, I bet cost efficiency will be a factor for them. But let me understand you better, what steel do you think butchers should be using? Or what do you think is an ideal steel for butchers?

[chuck_roxas45]

I see where the confusion crept in...
My "line for line" description was not meaning line as such, but did include rope, but mostly food prep and wood cutting, as he and his crew travelled along the coast of Africa, visiting ports, harbours, bays and rivers...they dived in the sea itself for food, and all cutting on boards were on teak boards...

I wanted the washing of blades to prevent finding out that 420 was more stainless than 440C...

Thanks for the clarification.

[Cliff Stamp]

Are you worried that Kylie will skew his testing and therefore conclude a mystery steel is better than your favourite?

Kyley can't do that even if he wanted to because :

a) he has no idea who would evaluate the knives when he decided to do it

b) does not have direct control over who does it or any veto ability on the results posted

Now saying Kyley is "biased" is one of those statements like "Evolution is only a theory".

If you are ignorant of the academics you can be influenced by such statements, if you are not then the statement is nonsense at best, just silly at worst.

Everyone is biased, even scientists, there is a huge body of research on scientific methods to remove the biases that we all have and prevent them from dominating the results.

If you want to make a meaningful statement about bias you have to note the specific influence which is causing the sample descriptor to deviate from the actual population descriptor.

For example if Kyley hand picked people to evaluate the knives then you could claim bias because you could make the argument that he could skew the results as how he wanted (or at least influence them significantly) by picking people which are likely to give those results

[chuck_roxas45]

HHmmmm I wonder if we have a bogus account here Cliffy.

cue for new guy....

But then all you really need to do is to test whatever steel it is you like against steels that the mainstream data says is "better", at angles like 30° inclusive and test to dull. I betcha you get more people listening to you then Cliffy.

[kbuzbee]

blah, blah, blah

HHmmmm I wonder if we have a bogus account here Cliffy.

You're killing me here, Chuck!

I kinda choked on my coffee just a bit, there.

Ken

[chuck_roxas45]

You're killing me here, Chuck!

I kinda choked on my coffee just a bit, there.

Ken

I'm sure Cliffy is too honest to do that. I just hope we'll see him testing steels at 30° inclusive. :)

[me2]

He does. They are in the older reviews. Here are a couple of examples.

http://www.cliffstamp.com/knives/review ... beret.html

420HC compared to S30V at 20 degrees off the Sharpmaker medium and fine stones.

http://www.cliffstamp.com/knives/review ... nglas.html

1095 with a 19 - 20 dps edge compared to 440A and N690 with smaller angles.

He also runs them much lower.

http://www.cliffstamp.com/knives/reviews/aj_paring.html

Note the fairly rough cutting which was done with an edge at about 6 degrees per side.

[sal]

Hi BrutallyEffective,

Welcome to our forums.

sal

[Cliff Stamp]

They are in the older reviews.

The current discussions usually feature blades with thinner edge cross sections than the older ones. If you look at most of the knives being discussed now they are almost all zero-ground so the edges are in the range of 3-6 dps for most of them unless the blade has very thick stock where it drifts up to 7-9 dps.

These are all sharpened with a true micro-bevel which is mainly for ease of sharpening though it does influence edge durability but not dominantly. As the micro-bevel is < 10 microns wide it can't stabilize in thickness a steel which isn't inherently stable and thus the edge will jud fracture through the micro-bevel itself.

I have experimented with using thicker edges on the steels with low edge stability and while they stop fracturing the cutting ability and edge retention is decreased below that of the steels with high edge stability and thus I have a knife which doesn't cut as well or as long which doesn't have a lot of value for me.

I normally don't even run something as heavy ground as a Mora unless it isn't really a knife to be used for cutting and is more of a scraping/prying/digging type tool.

Even the chopping blades I use are only slightly heavier, they will be in the range of 8-12 dps depending on what I use them for and again have a true micro-bevel. But of course I don't use blades generally with low edge stability for large chopping blades because they force thicker geometries and have the lower performance as noted in the above.



That is my SB/Delica :

-full zero grind
-no secondary bevel/transition

The edge just picked up an extra 1-2 dps from the slop which comes from sharpening on a medium soft waterstone.

I usually carry another knife as well for the non-knife work, digging, prying, scraping, etc. Right now it is a stock Candiru which itself is a little over built unless you are doing really heavy work like hammering it through bone or chiseling apart cement.

[chuck_roxas45]

See? I know I'd get goobledygook. 30° inclusive edges don't cut well? In what universe? I'm estimitating 90% or more people use bevel angles of over 20° or over on their pocket knives(and pocket knives are usually what we are talking about here, Junglas indeed!) and they do just fine. That's probably the reason why these same people find that high carbide volume steels hold their edge better than low alloy steels.

...

I have experimented with using thicker edges on the steels with low edge stability and while they stop fracturing the cutting ability and edge retention is decreased below that of the steels with high edge stability and thus I have a knife which doesn't cut as well or as long which doesn't have a lot of value for me.

....

But aren't you recomending YOUR results for the mainstream? And yet you "test" knives with parameters that nobody uses?

Doesn't that make the rest of us just gullible customers falling victim to Sal's marketing with just the placebo effect? With only the great Cliffy seeing through the hype and trying to free the unwashed masses from the hyperbole? You're going to sell something at some point Cliffy, I just know it's coming.