HRC Database

[Cycletroll]

I believe you mean 62-63

[Deadboxhero]

Anyone tested Magnacut Spyderco HRC ?

Asked this a while ago, but looks like it's a trade secret. Gemini AI said its likely to be 72-73 and according to Larrin Thomas, it's most balanced at 72.5.

Stop using AI please, it's not accurate enough to be used for things like this and will just mislead you.

[kobold]

lol, what is that thing good for?

[Naperville]

lol, what is that thing good for?

What is AI good for?

Just my understanding. They are trying to make it 'reason' but I don't think they are there yet. They are begging, borrowing and stealing everything including copy-written documents, books, whatever they can get their hands on to train the various AI systems.

Well, computers do NOT reason at all. They calculate. YES they can do that very well. Hand a computer a math problem that is not quantum and a $50 to $150 calculator can beat most humans.

I think AI will not advance until quantum becomes a reality everywhere. Logic and Reasoning done by humans is not a YES or NO, it involves many maybes. They cannot honestly train AI the way that it needs to be trained at the moment, and I doubt it can THINK or REASON at this time. It just looks for patterns in text that you feed it and regurgitates it.

AI isn't useless. It may be a decent search tool but until it can think and reason it is DUMB.

[Cycletroll]

Anyone tested Magnacut Spyderco HRC ?

Asked this a while ago, but looks like it's a trade secret. Gemini AI said its likely to be 72-73 and according to Larrin Thomas, it's most balanced at 72.5.

Stop using AI please, it's not accurate enough to be used for things like this and will just mislead you.

I'm finding AI to be pretty useless. It gets technical questions and especially medical ones wrong about 90% of the time.

[Chris_in_Texas]

Anyone tested Magnacut Spyderco HRC ?

Asked this a while ago, but looks like it's a trade secret. Gemini AI said its likely to be 72-73 and according to Larrin Thomas, it's most balanced at 72.5.

I don't think that would be a real HRc for Magnacut. According to Larrin in his post on it, Shawn Houston (BBB) was able to reach 65.5 HRc max. He stated that 62-64 would be a practical upper limit. My Microtech tested at 61.5HRc with testing.

Maybe @sal could help...

Larrin's article on the testing of his steel:
https://knifesteelnerds.com/2021/03/25/cpm-magnacut/

[LorenzoL]

There are many different ways to get the same hardness but not all are equal because the hardness is only measuring the sum of the constituents in the microstructure not the individual components that contribute the most to strength or toughness or the lack thereof.

A great example is work that was done by Santiago in 1979 in the following diagram.

The graph shows different heat treatment conditions with the force required to fracture over the hardness HRC.



Rockwell hardness is essentially like measuring the body weight and while like with humans higher body weight can correlate with higher levels of strength It's pretty obvious that just having extreme bodyweight is not going to make anyone a world-class powerlifter in itself.



If we could measure body composition It would be a more accurate predictor than just body weight alone.

I'm not saying the consumer needs to do exotic testing on their knives to see the microstructure just purchase from reputable brands and don't get so hung up on being plus or minus one HRC difference.

Very good points, thank you for your insight.

[Synov]

lol, what is that thing good for?

What is AI good for?

Just my understanding. They are trying to make it 'reason' but I don't think they are there yet. They are begging, borrowing and stealing everything including copy-written documents, books, whatever they can get their hands on to train the various AI systems.

Well, computers do NOT reason at all. They calculate. YES they can do that very well. Hand a computer a math problem that is not quantum and a $50 to $150 calculator can beat most humans.

I think AI will not advance until quantum becomes a reality everywhere. Logic and Reasoning done by humans is not a YES or NO, it involves many maybes. They cannot honestly train AI the way that it needs to be trained at the moment, and I doubt it can THINK or REASON at this time. It just looks for patterns in text that you feed it and regurgitates it.

AI isn't useless. It may be a decent search tool but until it can think and reason it is DUMB.

I think the human brain is just using pattern recognition as well, just in a more complex way that better models formal logic than current AI, giving it the illusion of something categorically different. Formal logic is essentially mathematical and computers do it quite well. Formal logic is YES or NO, while informal reasoning is more probabilistic, as is AI.

[Naperville]

lol, what is that thing good for?

What is AI good for?

Just my understanding. They are trying to make it 'reason' but I don't think they are there yet. They are begging, borrowing and stealing everything including copy-written documents, books, whatever they can get their hands on to train the various AI systems.

Well, computers do NOT reason at all. They calculate. YES they can do that very well. Hand a computer a math problem that is not quantum and a $50 to $150 calculator can beat most humans.

I think AI will not advance until quantum becomes a reality everywhere. Logic and Reasoning done by humans is not a YES or NO, it involves many maybes. They cannot honestly train AI the way that it needs to be trained at the moment, and I doubt it can THINK or REASON at this time. It just looks for patterns in text that you feed it and regurgitates it.

AI isn't useless. It may be a decent search tool but until it can think and reason it is DUMB.

I think the human brain is just using pattern recognition as well, just in a more complex way that better models formal logic than current AI, giving it the illusion of something categorically different. Formal logic is essentially mathematical and computers do it quite well. Formal logic is YES or NO, while informal reasoning is more probabilistic, as is AI.

I think a lot of what humans do while making decisions is pattern recognition. Even PhDs do it.

What separates the best minds from the ho hum is the ability to see when the patterns do not fit.

[Synov]

lol, what is that thing good for?

What is AI good for?

Just my understanding. They are trying to make it 'reason' but I don't think they are there yet. They are begging, borrowing and stealing everything including copy-written documents, books, whatever they can get their hands on to train the various AI systems.

Well, computers do NOT reason at all. They calculate. YES they can do that very well. Hand a computer a math problem that is not quantum and a $50 to $150 calculator can beat most humans.

I think AI will not advance until quantum becomes a reality everywhere. Logic and Reasoning done by humans is not a YES or NO, it involves many maybes. They cannot honestly train AI the way that it needs to be trained at the moment, and I doubt it can THINK or REASON at this time. It just looks for patterns in text that you feed it and regurgitates it.

AI isn't useless. It may be a decent search tool but until it can think and reason it is DUMB.

I think the human brain is just using pattern recognition as well, just in a more complex way that better models formal logic than current AI, giving it the illusion of something categorically different. Formal logic is essentially mathematical and computers do it quite well. Formal logic is YES or NO, while informal reasoning is more probabilistic, as is AI.

I think a lot of what humans do while making decisions is pattern recognition. Even PhDs do it.

What separates the best minds from the ho hum is the ability to see when the patterns do not fit.

But what if that's just another form of pattern recognition? Either the brain has some super special computational process we haven't been able to figure out in hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, or it's just simple reactive mechanisms put together in a complex way over billions of years of evolution to create a good decision making machine. I think it's the latter, which means AI has not been developed enough but it's not categorically different from human intelligence. The brain is not inherently logical or skeptical, those are just useful tools that developed in them over time. AI should be able to do the same.

[Naperville]

What is AI good for?

Just my understanding. They are trying to make it 'reason' but I don't think they are there yet. They are begging, borrowing and stealing everything including copy-written documents, books, whatever they can get their hands on to train the various AI systems.

Well, computers do NOT reason at all. They calculate. YES they can do that very well. Hand a computer a math problem that is not quantum and a $50 to $150 calculator can beat most humans.

I think AI will not advance until quantum becomes a reality everywhere. Logic and Reasoning done by humans is not a YES or NO, it involves many maybes. They cannot honestly train AI the way that it needs to be trained at the moment, and I doubt it can THINK or REASON at this time. It just looks for patterns in text that you feed it and regurgitates it.

AI isn't useless. It may be a decent search tool but until it can think and reason it is DUMB.

I think the human brain is just using pattern recognition as well, just in a more complex way that better models formal logic than current AI, giving it the illusion of something categorically different. Formal logic is essentially mathematical and computers do it quite well. Formal logic is YES or NO, while informal reasoning is more probabilistic, as is AI.

I think a lot of what humans do while making decisions is pattern recognition. Even PhDs do it.

What separates the best minds from the ho hum is the ability to see when the patterns do not fit.

But what if that's just another form of pattern recognition? Either the brain has some super special computational process we haven't been able to figure out in hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, or it's just simple reactive mechanisms put together in a complex way over billions of years of evolution to create a good decision making machine. I think it's the latter, which means AI has not been developed enough but it's not categorically different from human intelligence. The brain is not inherently logical or skeptical, those are just useful tools that developed in them over time. AI should be able to do the same.

Maybe the top 5% of those in every field are just the best at recognizing antipatterns and patterns.

I don't know how you explain the best mathematicians, physicists, chemists, inventors, etc.

Einstein? Aristotle? Hawking?

[Synov]

I think the human brain is just using pattern recognition as well, just in a more complex way that better models formal logic than current AI, giving it the illusion of something categorically different. Formal logic is essentially mathematical and computers do it quite well. Formal logic is YES or NO, while informal reasoning is more probabilistic, as is AI.

I think a lot of what humans do while making decisions is pattern recognition. Even PhDs do it.

What separates the best minds from the ho hum is the ability to see when the patterns do not fit.

But what if that's just another form of pattern recognition? Either the brain has some super special computational process we haven't been able to figure out in hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, or it's just simple reactive mechanisms put together in a complex way over billions of years of evolution to create a good decision making machine. I think it's the latter, which means AI has not been developed enough but it's not categorically different from human intelligence. The brain is not inherently logical or skeptical, those are just useful tools that developed in them over time. AI should be able to do the same.

Maybe the top 5% of those in every field are just the best at recognizing antipatterns and patterns.

I don't know how you explain the best mathematicians, physicists, chemists, inventors, etc.

Einstein? Aristotle? Hawking?

I think I already broadly explained them since we know intelligence is a spectrum and a product of evolution. Some brains will randomly be better than any other at certain tasks, but the farther away from the average intelligence they are, the fewer there will be. Thus the people most capable of revolutionary thinking will be rare and famous.

[Cycletroll]

Guys were getting way off topic here; this thread is supposed to be the HRC database for Spyderco steels maybe we should start another thread for AI discussion?