To be picky, "also" means I'm providing additional reasons, not changing the original reason. But that's a side-track.Bolstermanic wrote:Robot: "That's certainly part of it, but it is also customary for Spyderco to identify the steel. My Native says S30V and my Kopa says VG-10. I'd like my mules to tell me what they are as well. I'm kind of traditional that way I guess."
Robot, you're changing your reasons for going to war.
Yes.Bolstermanic wrote: Again, you're making the study about what's in it for you...and I suspect what you want is expensive, exotic steel at the lowest possible prices
No.Bolstermanic wrote:, preferably with a Spyderco tang stamp to keep value high, which would translate into a rare, desirable, and potentially lucrative item for you.
I don't know how the goals may have changed over time, but we can see the original goals by looking at the thread Sal started on bladeforums:Bolstermanic wrote: I'm starting to repeat, but IF some sort of "give away" is Spyderco's goal, then by all means stamp the steel with its name. If the goal is for Spyderco to understand what steels are most highly rated--in the absence of marketing hype, prejudice, and tradition--then blinded conditions is the order of the day.
A few posts later in the thread, someone explicity asked what was the goal and Sal said:Sal wrote: ...We coud probably do 1 - 4 runs per year. Each "Mule Team" knife would be engraved with the type of steel.
We would determine steel to test and Rc on the forum before making each run. We would cut them out, heat treat, tumble (cheap), grind, sharpen and ship. Some steels have to be ground before heat treat. No handle, no sheath. All would have to be pre-sold (I don't want to inventory.) which means some of the group would purchase more than one to be able to have some available for those not signed up. We would keep the cost as low as is possible. Costs would vary depending on mfg costs.
I think your ambition "for Spyderco to understand what steels are most highly rated--in the absence of marketing hype, prejudice, and tradition" is beyond Sal's original goals, which I saw as being to get exotic steels into the hands of the afis and steel junkies as cheaply and easily as possible.Sal wrote: ...I guess the goal would be to be able to provide a "piece of the stuff" in a fairly consistent format, at an affordable cost. Same thickness, same grind, same tumbling, same edge angle.
We would shoot for an Rc on which the afi's agreed. CATRA and/or Charpy might give some basis for comparison from lab testing. Real world use would be a personal experience. A topic of conversation.
Yes.Bolstermanic wrote: Robot: "But that's exactly what won't work. Any simple scheme that people can memorize breaks the blinding...but the problem is even worse than that...they're going to know what kind of steel it is when they get it, even before they open the package! The blinding code doesn't accomplish its intended application, but impedes other applications (bragging, tradition, long-term identification of steel type)..."
I see your point. If Spyderco decides to send one type of steel to users one month, and then another type of steel two months later, that would certainly cause difficulties with the study... it weakens the control conditions.
Now, now. No fair putting words into your opponent's mouth. (But congratulations on your future-telling abilities, you were mostly on-target.) ]Bolstermanic wrote: The fix is once again simple (you will say it's complex), and that is to distribute more than one type of steel at a time. You will object that (1) this means Spyderco now has to warehouse (big deal! They put a couple mules in a corner for a month) and (2) this won't allow you to ONLY purchase the hot steels you want, while ignoring the steels you've already decided you don't want (making the study, once again, revolve around your preferences).
Oh boy.Bolstermanic wrote: Let's further imagine two blow-hard forumites arguing the above case, one taking the side of the researcher ("Valid answers are needed to determine the superior drug for the good of future generations!") and the other, the side of the subject ("How dare you subjugate the needs and desires of this poor victim to your heartless and evil pursuit of science!") In a nutshell there, but for the grace of God, go we.
Thanks for the very clear explanations of what is going to happen. I learned a lot there.Bolstermanic wrote: ...Confirmation Bias...
... Case History Bias ...
Whew, thank goodness my obligation has been discharged. I'm not accustomed to giving this much free advice on study design.We can't stop people from being people. Everyone participating in the mule program is an adult. They have been warned about the mistakes they are likely to make. More reliable data will be forthcoming in the future. Your moral obligation has been discharged. That's good enough for me. It's not perfect, but re-read point 5.
I was considering a career in research. Now I'm reconsidering...Bolstermanic wrote:For the few spectators who have tuned in throught this conversation, what Robot and I are doing is a pretty close duplicate of what happens whenever a serious study is proposed in the sciences or in academia. Usually the study design is presented to a "murder board" staffed with smart people who try to tear the study to pieces. So this sort of wordy, adversarial mental combat is merely standard operating procedure in the sciences. Whatever bloody remnants of the original idea that remain standing, become the basis of the next revision of the study. Eventually you get to a point where the lines are hardened, people start repeating what they've already said, and the study is either aborted, or goes forward with modifications.
wow Zen....*choke*.....that was beautiful.....zenheretic wrote:...
Send me your ground, your polished,
your tempered steel yearning to cut free.
The shiny mules of your foundry store.
Send these, the stainless, rockwell hardened to me,
I lift my knife arm aside the mules more...
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], The Mastiff and 9 guests