Chris Reeve Destrution Test On Youtube?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kiahs said:
What I do know Phil is that you seem to be on some spiteful little mission to insult someone who promotes the use of an object for something other than it's primary purpose, while at the same time doing so yourself. I think there's a word for that.
Click to expand...

The fact that you can't see the difference, and equate two very different things, is something you do for the same reasons, apparently, that you express support for this type of knife abuse (as a "test" rather than as a stunt). I'm sorry that you see something "spiteful" in my disdain for those who promulgate this type of activity; I can't help what emotions you choose to project on my disagreement.
 
You have to admit the three are a clique, though.
Click to expand...

Um, they are owned by the same family. I will say that for anyone thinking Noss is Jerry in disguise, think again. You can't hold a knife, a hammer, and a shot glass at the same time. :p
 
Sharp Phil said:
The fact that you can't see the difference, and equate two very different things, is something you do for the same reasons, apparently, that you express support for this type of knife abuse (as a "test" rather than as a stunt). I'm sorry that you see something "spiteful" in my disdain for those who promulgate this type of activity; I can't help what emotions you choose to project on my disagreement.
Click to expand...

Phil, you have stated elsewhere that you feel normal batoning is considered abuse of a knife. Forgetting Noss for a second, if you can manage that, how is doing something besides the primary function of a knife different than what you do with a flashlight?:confused:
 
Sharp Phil said:
The user cannot decide to redefine the knife's function unrealistically and then expect others to adopt that standard -- not logically anyway. Words have meanings.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And you are the one who is trying to suggest a "proper" definition of knife function and expect others to adopt your standard. All Noss does is show what level of stress the knife will take, and then let each user decide whether a given knife fits that user's standards for that user's expected function.

Obviously from Noss's work, the most pervasively misleading source of unrealistic expectations is far too often the manufacturer's suggested scope of use--not the work featured on

KnifeTests.com
 
No, I'm advocating a realistic standard. I'm objecting to those who are attempting to redefine that standard using gross abuse as the benchmark. There's a difference.

kiahs said:
Phil, you have stated elsewhere that you feel normal batoning is considered abuse of a knife. Forgetting Noss for a second, if you can manage that, how is doing something besides the primary function of a knife different than what you do with a flashlight?:confused:
Click to expand...

I'm not evaluating flashlights as flashlights based on their use as striking tools. Quite the opposite, in fact; my book on the subject barely touches on the technology involved and has very little to say about the brands of lights one could use, because they're really quite immaterial to the mechanics of striking with a tube of metal. (I even point out, if I remember correctly, that one could very reasonably expect to break the light-emitting function of the light in employing it for this purpose. If I didn't say that explicitly, I sure meant to do so.) If you cannot see the very basic, fundamental difference in that, no amount of arguing is going to persuade you.
 
Last edited:
Sharp Phil said:
No, I'm advocating a realistic standard. I'm objecting to those who are attempting to redefine that standard using gross abuse as the benchmark. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

Ok STANDARDS. Big word with lots of meaning.

1. What is the realistic standard you are advocating ? Can you outline it for us?

2. What standard for testing exists that Noss is redefining ?

3. Gross abuse is not Noss's benchmark, he is testing to failure. This is a common testing method in many fields, from fasteners to cars. Many knife companies do it. So why is it not acceptable as a consumer test in knives?

Looking forward to your answers
 
Noss, keep up the good work! To the rest of you gentlemen, I do understand your point and no, Noss' tests are not scientific. But when I see two knifes beating the hell out of a piece of brick and one crumbles while the other goes on to slice some cord, it means something to me in a far more tangible way than a bunch of numbers. Couple bucks coming your way via your web-site paypal Noss for all the abuse you take.
 
set2992hg said:
Noss, keep up the good work! To the rest of you gentlemen, I do understand your point and no, Noss' tests are not scientific. But when I see two knifes beating the hell out of a piece of brick and one crumbles while the other goes on to slice some cord, it means something to me in a far more tangible way than a bunch of numbers. Couple bucks coming your way via your web-site paypal Noss for all the abuse you take.
Click to expand...

While you're at it, send 10 bucks Sparks way for giving you a forum to discuss the merits of destruction tests! :thumbup:
 
Sharp Phil said:
Gross abuse IS his benchmark, which is part and parcel of "testing" to failure.
Click to expand...

Phil it seems your issue is with testing to failure and using accelerating methods to accomplish them. Should all failure testing be eliminated by third parties if it involves "abuse" as per manufacturer's warranty?

Waiting to hear what your testing standards you are advocating and what existing standards Noss is redefining.
 
The burden of providing such definitions is not on me; it is on those who seek to redefine expectations of knife service to include gross abuse.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Gross abuse IS his benchmark, which is part and parcel of "testing" to failure.
Click to expand...

We have provided reasonable arguments for the validity of the tests, even entertained analogies to the automobile and flashlight industries. Since we are not complaining what is there for FREE and you are, claiming that they are not good, then, can you provide one or two tests protocols that can gauge the "failure point " or "ultimate capability" or how though a knife is? You don't have to elaborate an engineering thesis just what would you like to see.
 
sharp phil said:
the burden of providing such definitions is not on me; it is on those who seek to redefine expectations of knife service to include gross abuse.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the response Phil. You don't offer any answers or constructive criticisms just back seat driving.

You don't like it, we get it. Move on.
 
Last edited:
dante said:
We have provided reasonable arguments for the validity of the tests, even entertained analogies to the automobile and flashlight industries. Since we are not complaining what is there for FREE and you are, claiming that they are not good, then, can you provide one or two tests protocols that can gauge the "failure point " or "ultimate capability" or how though a knife is? You don't have to elaborate an engineering thesis just what would you like to see.
Click to expand...

I don't find those arguments reasonable or compelling. Rationalizations are not justifications.

tomcrx said:
i smell waffles !!!!! Yum
Click to expand...

No, you smell reality.
 
Sharp Phil said:
What is inflammatory about encouraging someone to support the site when they publicly state they are spending money to support a different one?
Click to expand...

That is not part of this discussion. This is not the "support BF" thread. And BTW I had a Gold/Platinum membership for couple of years, but now I have to send the funds via Money Order because 1SKS cannot take the order electronically. So I have supported BF for many years. Just in case my registered status offends someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top