The other night, on a whim (and the individual who knows why will hopefully get a chuckle out of this) I went searching for "Koan of Forging" and landed this:
http://www.hypefreeblades.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=286
It is a worthwhile read from the standpoint that those metallurgical smiths among us on BF (and have already chimed in on this thread) should choose to voice their own qualms over the "given" standards, and even more cathartic for a beginner such as I see the noted experts themselves unsure.
However, to that end, it should be no surprise that Stacy hold to the book for treating 1095 and the good professor voice the opinion that if we hold a grind to greater than the dime's width we'd be able to use quicker, riskier quenching mediums.
I'm forging my first W2 blade, the edge is currently 1/8th and as I forge juggling thoughts of #50 and Kevin's words, "Water, and if you wait long enough, it's free." While I can speculate and weigh my options, there's the given fact his words are spoken in the tone of someone tired of the debate after a long studious career and obligations elsewhere after so many beginners skip searching and have to ask.
Bringing in another chapter in an already on going volume that would make Tolstoy blush.
And the same goes for Tai.
He at least has a sense of humor about it.
In this trade we must be wary we sit atop the shoulders of giants.
Studies that reveal ultimate processes are good, as we all learn from them-but using "ultimate" practices is usually impractical.
Mr. DeShivs is correct in this, as was well debated in Tai's "Pet Peeves" thread in Around The Grinder.
Science is not about absolutes, but the promise for an understanding of only just so many "whys" and "hows."
There is a fundamental issue, however, in that the answers only provide the doorway to further questions.
In this respect, we must respect what defines an expert is the number of failed attempts. For everyone one success we must have failures to understand the whys and hows.
We've seen one Kung Fu reference here, another in the thread I linked, and I'll do so here now:
I seek not to know the Answers, but understand the Questions
The biggest issue any of us can have in this field is just so many consistent answers:
"Is optimum performance needed here?"
"Where in the solution do I need a weaker constitution to avoid frailty?"
"Can I do this?"
As has been voiced in so many words time and again, we can precipitously calculate only so many variables to provide so many predictable outcomes on so many desires--there is no precise way to narrow to a specific that will produce a singular outcome consistently time and again.
