- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,155
Regarding IDIOT tester.
- Thread starter nozh2002
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
As far as I remember lots of folks in this and other thread were very dismissive of any testing that was not done in "repeatable and controlled manner". Which IMHO simply excludes hand testing, including those tests done by makers.
Actually this one is an interesting statement too. Because some of the folks were speculating that faulty HT could be the culprit or the serrations could be the reason. You and some others think S30V itself is the reason?
Probably because certain knives are marketed as survival and tough, do it all tools. Otherwise why waste 0.25 inch steel to make a good cutter, it's simply inefficient. So, ppl who had to fork out 400$+ for their survival knife expect more than cutting.Possibly because they are knives for cutting and not masonry chisels.
You mean he quoted very well?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,018
If all of the aspects that make a steel "tough," and thus make a knife "tough" are intrinic properties of the steel- knowable by the specifications of the steel and how it tests out at the foundry/factory, and unaffected by the design of the knife (we'll call this the "read it off of the spec sheet" school of toughness)- then Noss' tests add nothing as all is already known from the steel spec sheet.
If what makes a knife "tough" is a combination of the aspects of the steel that make it "tough" as well as design considerations (in other words- "toughness" is intrinsic to the knife, or the "wholistic" school of knife toughness), then Noss' tests add nothing because they are not sufficiently controlled to tease test and tester variability from sample and population variability.
If what makes a knife "tough" is the interaction between it and its human operator (this is the "machines are worthless because humans can't match machines" school of toughness), then Noss' test add nothing as each operator would have to test his/her own knives, as the operator is a critical part of the "toughness" equation.
I favor the second scenario where "toughness" is an intrinsic property of the knife, taking into account properties of the steel as well as design aspects of the knife. However, no matter how you cut it, Noss' videos add little to our understanding. They may be entertaining, but so is Seinfeld.
Broos, Bors, you are both correct-
Incite- verb. to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
Insight- noun. the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively.
Broos, you are correct that Bors meant insight, but he was much more correct with incite, even if the verb was used as a noun.
If what makes a knife "tough" is a combination of the aspects of the steel that make it "tough" as well as design considerations (in other words- "toughness" is intrinsic to the knife, or the "wholistic" school of knife toughness), then Noss' tests add nothing because they are not sufficiently controlled to tease test and tester variability from sample and population variability.
If what makes a knife "tough" is the interaction between it and its human operator (this is the "machines are worthless because humans can't match machines" school of toughness), then Noss' test add nothing as each operator would have to test his/her own knives, as the operator is a critical part of the "toughness" equation.
I favor the second scenario where "toughness" is an intrinsic property of the knife, taking into account properties of the steel as well as design aspects of the knife. However, no matter how you cut it, Noss' videos add little to our understanding. They may be entertaining, but so is Seinfeld.
Broos, Bors, you are both correct-
Incite- verb. to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
Insight- noun. the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively.
Broos, you are correct that Bors meant insight, but he was much more correct with incite, even if the verb was used as a noun.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2000
- Messages
- 3,794
Dunno about that school, I don't claim machine tests are worthless, and let's leave Noss and his tests out of this for a minute.
I do question how close or realistically machines can match different cutting tasks such as whittling, boning, etc.
Chopping does look easy to model with a machine, with one vertical swing motion, but that model works for first 3-4 swings even if that. Once human fatigue set in, it's very hard for me to imagine human operator continuing same precision strikes for hundred times.
Again, this doesn't invalidate machine test results, but tells very little about human/knife interaction. Machine test tells you what it is. That the knife in question can do this and that when used in very strict and controlled manner.
Also, what your hypothetical, or practical(since mythbusters already built that rig) chopping rig doesn't account for is the knife handle feedback to the operator's hand/palm. Which is again significant factor. Can easily cause changes in force and angles.
Also handle ergonomics. That chopping rig will not tell how comfy the handle will be during prolonged use.
E.g. a while back I got 18" HI Ang Khola. Because there was a small sharp spot on the brass cap which I didn't notice initially, but it was pretty much impossible for me to make more than 20-25 chops. First 3-4 went ok. Later that spot was biting my palm pretty bad, so I had to adjust grip, etc. Needless to say precision and force were affected significantly. However, a rig would go on indefinitely. yes, I do realize that was a particular problem with one kukri, however on design flaws can occur on any knife and rig test won't catch it.
Even for prolonged cutting, ergonomics do make big difference. Catra machine works pretty well to give data about knife wear resistance and edge holding on certain medium(s). Which is good, no problems there. I got some hard data and I can compare steels based on that. However, for all I know that blade could have no handle attached to it at all during the test. And later either I find out myself that it's a good or a bad one, or someone will do the hand test and report it.
I don't know how easy/difficult will it be to create whittling simulator, and if someone creates chicken boning machine or automatic fish filleter those probably will be very welcome, for knife testing and restaurants. Although, still doesn't mean it'll model human operator behavior closely.
Agree, those has to be taken into account. However, whether or not Noss or someone else wants it, those properties won't be taken out of picture unless the tester alters the knife HT or design on purpose. You know what steel and HRC was used for a tested knife. So, depending on what you see in the test you can decide is it valid for the given knife or no and so on.
In the end, to me a knife is a system, which combines steel, handle, geometries(of handle and blade), HT, edge properties and such.
Machine can model and test well some of those, but those knives that are designed to be used by humans need more than machine testing.
As a scientist I am sure you know tons of examples where flawless and perfect designs in the lab had to be either scrapped or completely overhauled because they didn't work in real world for various reasons.
nozh2002
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,736
I remember after we had special class on logic in 7th grade we drive crazy our not math teachers with similar method. And I had a lot of fun that time, but did not do it any more.
Noss videos is only and most informative evidences we have right now available. Instead of "breaking wind", it will be much more useful to provide different practical evidences. Any human can talk and write, but it require real dedication and effort to actually do something, which only few actually can and Noss is one of them, I think to question him, first someone need to show some effort, some dedication - something which make this individual step on the same level to be able to talk to Noss in a first place as an equal.
Thanks, Vassili.
P.S. How representative this statistic is - matter of acceptance, this is not political poll, after all. But it is only existing statistic, so far and it is hard to ignore!
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,724
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 5,171
Seinfeld tested/used knives?
What episodes so I order them.
What episodes so I order them.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,931
It was the second season I think - Seinfeld did objective & quantified testing, and Kramer and Newman did the subjective testing.
The objective testing proved the dangers of double dipping, and the subjective testing gave a very rough idea of the knife's ability to pry open and demolish a mailbox (Newman called it toughness).
I assume that was a comment towards the value of repeatedly and randomly smashing hardened steel into hardened steel and learning something from it - I question this also. It is not aimed towards all subjective reviews.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2000
- Messages
- 45,835
I hardly see how beating the crap out of a bunch of knives elevates someone to a pedestal. I expect there are a lot more folks here on BFC who are greater steel/knife "experts" than noss4. If I wanted to know about a knife steel's "toughness" (whatever that means), I think I'd try the Makers forums first.
The knives are tested. Not the steel the knives are made off. This is why I like tests were I can see a knife being used. I dont care about the toughness of a steel (or the opinion of a steel expert about the toughness of that steel) if the knife itself breaks.
Likewise I dont care that a different sample of the same knife design might have performed better if the manufacturer askes a premium because he claims his knife is better than other knives out there.
Noss is testing knives that are intended for hard use and are promoted as tough, strong, robust or whatever the manufacturer chooses to call them, by actually using them to the point of destruction. Some knives last longer than others. I find that useful information.
Everybody can see exactly what he is doing and is perfectly free to replicate any of his test or devise a different test for a specific knife.
Rafael
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,724
I don't see how absolute control in testing can ever be achieved. After all, the exact same piece of material can't be cut twice at the exact same time. So unless the sample size is infinity, perfection in testing cannot be achieved. Silly complaints, absolutely. And obviously not an argument that variables should not be controlled as much as possible. But regardless of how well you control your tests, someone can still come along and argue that they are inconclusive.
Now, if Noss destroyed one knife with a hand grenade and another by feeding it into a wood chipper and tried to draw comparisons, it would be truly laughable, though a lot more fun to watch Or if Noss tested one knife by batoning it with a 20lb sledge hammer through petrified oak and another one with a tack hammer through pine and tried to make comparisons, this would also be absurd. Could he better control variables in his testing, absolutely, but are they utterly without merit, well I guess that's a judgment call. His results so far seem to conform quite well to what we know about the intrinsic, pre-heat treated, properties of the underlying steel and to the testing results of a former BF member.
As far as sample size goes, from what I've read the high speed offset crash test performed on automobiles is usually done to only one of each vehicle tested. Now think of all the variables that are involved and are very hard to control in a test like that. Should those tests too be laughed at when you purchase your next family car?
Obviously variables could be better controlled but I'm sorry completely dismissing Noss's tests as laughable really sounds to me more like a case of sour grapes or perhaps sandy vag***.
Now, if Noss destroyed one knife with a hand grenade and another by feeding it into a wood chipper and tried to draw comparisons, it would be truly laughable, though a lot more fun to watch
Or if Noss tested one knife by batoning it with a 20lb sledge hammer through petrified oak and another one with a tack hammer through pine and tried to make comparisons, this would also be absurd. Could he better control variables in his testing, absolutely, but are they utterly without merit, well I guess that's a judgment call. His results so far seem to conform quite well to what we know about the intrinsic, pre-heat treated, properties of the underlying steel and to the testing results of a former BF member. As far as sample size goes, from what I've read the high speed offset crash test performed on automobiles is usually done to only one of each vehicle tested. Now think of all the variables that are involved and are very hard to control in a test like that. Should those tests too be laughed at when you purchase your next family car?
Obviously variables could be better controlled but I'm sorry completely dismissing Noss's tests as laughable really sounds to me more like a case of sour grapes or perhaps sandy vag***.
nozh2002
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,736
On my own experience - when I introduced thread cutting sharpness test in Russian forum 2005 not too much concerns were about how scientific it is. But I found myself - mentally ill American spy and terrorist, traitor who hate everything Russian, pig who shit in the house etc... I was banned not only to write in that forum but read it as well. I t is way more rough then what Noss can hear here in most extreme "wind breaks".
Thanks, Vassili.
Thanks, Vassili.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 9,092
I guess the lack of a "language barrier" made it that much easier for them to see just how full of yourself you really are...
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 21,205
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 1,730
Possibly because they are knives for cutting and not masonry chisels.
Possibly because sharpening stones are intimidating......
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 9,092
Oh, you mean you were talking about yourself...
- Status