Canola oil advantages

[sunshadow]

That's a knife that cuts both ways Rick. It seems that the vast majority of loud voices are extreme purists in either direction. For every one person that's downplaying or ignoring the reasons for commercial quenchants, there's someone that assumes anybody that uses canola or any non-commercial quenchant is inherently an inferior knifemaker. Which is deeply ironic if you look at the pedigree of many of the unequivocal masters that have and still do use such alternative quench mediums.

I don't have a dog in this fight, since I firmly believe that both sides are taking too much on faith, but it does look ironically like every other argument in america. There's no middle ground with us, it's always "I'm right, and you're wrong.". Even if we pretend to play nice.

What has been conveniently ignored in the other thread that spawned this one is that I USED to quench in canola oil thinking that it was good enough, that there no reason to switch, my knives were pretty darn good. Then I got a deal on a 5 gallon bucket of Parks 50. I didn't think much of it until I went to sharpen the first knife I hardened with the Parks. It felt harder on the diamond stones and when I tested the edge it was popping hairs after the blue DMT stone, wheras the Canola hardened knives sharpened in the same way were not popping hairs until after the red stone (the next grit). I did a test run of two blades at the same time, one hardened in the canola, one in the parks, and the Parks blade once again took a better edge and seemed to hold its edge longer. I used to be an advocate of vegetable oil quenching until I got a bucket of Parks and tried it. I do not do an edge quench, I do a full immersion point first quench.

-Page

 

[Seals]

Ya know,you could probably run straight canola oil in the Beamer and not notice a bit of difference in performance (for quite some time,maybe never).I run the latest and greatest synthetic by Castrol myself.You?

Thanks, but you are not off topic. I use the RT to pick up quenchant occasionally.

 

[BMK]

Part of the reason why commercial quenchants were engineered is certainly money. So far, I have not seen definitive evidence that there are other reasons for their development.

Totally agree Tai..... you can use old plow disks, a brakedrum coal forge and a barrel of rainwater to quench in and still be very interested in every finite aspect of bladesmithing! I am one of those guys who is starting to get interested in the metallurgy but am not yet able to put it all into practice and see for myself, the results in my work. One could say I might as well be using canola because it works in the practical sense and none of my customers can tell the difference, anyway! That is the reality of my current station. Hopefully, one day I will be able to say "Here.... THIS is why I do things this way." and not have to paraphrase what I've read in books or on the internet.

As it stands, I would be totally happy making great knives using canola oil as a quenchant... but I'm also intrigued as to WHY commercial quenchants were engineered, if not to provide something that organic oils cannot.

 

[Rick Marchand]

That's a knife that cuts both ways Rick.

Very true...

 

[Rick Marchand]

Part of the reason why commercial quenchants were engineered is certainly money. So far, I have not seen definitive evidence that there are other reasons for their development.

I'm not sure how to answer that, Jeff. I can't force you to open a book or do a search on the internet... I urge you to, though.

 

[javand]

Hey Page, just wanted to clarify that I'm certainly not pointing any fingers at you or anyone else.

I'm mostly just commenting on the culture of opinions, and the idea that things are either inherently right or wrong, good or bad. As I've said before, I think this whole subject is highly complex.

 

[BMK]

Are there pictures? How much of that data comes from sources that have absolutely no interest in the quenchants "studied". I will follow your advice and do some reading though - thanks. I would like to see two identical blades quenched in different fluids and someone say "WOW, look what the blade that was quenched in liquid "X" can do!

I'm not sure how to answer that, Jeff. I can't force you to open a book or do a search on the internet... I urge you to, though.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I would like to see two identical blades quenched in different fluids and someone say "WOW, look what the blade that was quenched in liquid "X" can do!

Read back to Sunshadow's post... It's a start.

 

[sunshadow]

Hey Page, just wanted to clarify that I'm certainly not pointing any fingers at you or anyone else.

I'm mostly just commenting on the culture of opinions, and the idea that things are either inherently right or wrong, good or bad. As I've said before, I think this whole subject is highly complex.

It is funny, knifemaking has been shrouded in such a curtain of folklore, mystique, hype and hucksterism. It is the only commonly manufactured tool where typical performance demands on the actual article are so far below the performance capabilities of the material used that people have been able to successfully get away with completely ignoring the relevant metallurgy of the materials used and still not have their product fail and become successful pandering to the ignorance and mysticism.

Metallurgical engineering is the scientific pursuit of achieving the highest possible performance from your metal. There are some to whom the terms "Scientific" "Engineering" "Metallurgy" and such are dirty words, then there are people who will try to learn from the people who engineered the steels, the people who developed the processes and materials that make possible things like jet engines that can achieve 50,000 duty cycles (ignition, takeoff, cruising, landing, cooloff) without spewing red-hot parts through the engine casings from the 20 tons per square inch loading at 1800 fahrenheit that rotors are subjected to (granted that is not blade steel, that is the alloys I was working on at my last job)

Metallurgy is complex, what goes on in the crystal structure of steel is predictable if you understand the metallurgy and the physics involved. It is much simpler to find a buddy and waste bandwidth mocking attempts to educate than to actually learn about the materials. As a chapter president of the ASM International it is my duty to try to promote education. Sadly there are a few here who will go to great lengths to promote ignorance.

-Page

 

[Mike Davis]

Are there pictures? How much of that data comes from sources that have absolutely no interest in the quenchants "studied". I will follow your advice and do some reading though - thanks. I would like to see two identical blades quenched in different fluids and someone say "WOW, look what the blade that was quenched in liquid "X" can do!

Do a search on here on the NUMEROUS tests performed by Kevin Cashen....You will find what you are looking for and much more.

 

[javand]

Quenching two identical blades under the exact same conditions with two different fluids is exactly the sort of thing that oversimplifies things IMHO, and is exactly the sort of thinking that has people quenching in cold quenchants that have been heated.

The heart of this argument, to me at least, is that it's not even remotely that simple. Although this approach would explain the dramatic differences in results from one quench medium to the next, it's based off the assumption that you're doing everything else perfectly. Isn't there some old-adage about a bad workman blaming his tools?

It's pretty obvious to even a layman like myself, reading through the various HTing information, such as Houghton's own packet, that almost every specialized engineered quench fluid has it's own set of specific operating caveats, beyond simply what steel it's best for. They don't simply have slow, medium, and fast oils. They've got a whole line to meet a huge range of conditions, processes, and methods.

Anybody who wants could make a 1095 blade that would crack or break when quenched in P50 under reasonable conditions. In fact, we've got a standardized set of design doctrines proliferated regularly to avoid those mishaps. Leaving X amount of sacrificial material, sanding to X grit before quench, etc. Yet if your design or aesthetic choices negate or preclude the possibility of those precautions, P50 can suddenly seem less optimal.

All that to say, just because something works great for your process, or looks perfect in a controlled and highly limited laboratory test, doesn't mean it's the end-all. From the aforementioned Houghton on Quenching: "Cooling curves produced under laboratory conditions must be interpreted carefully, and should not be considered in isolation." In fact the entire document in rife with caveats and disclaimers, espousing the infinite complexity of quench mediums, of which they seem to have a near infinite supply.


I still believe that P50 is the preferred quench medium for 1095/W2 for me, but I also believe, that if I was more skilled, it would be water/brine instead, and if anybody wants, comparisons of water vs fast oils are easy to track down, and the results aren't totally obvious. It's not a black and white at all.

 

[BMK]

It's complicated and arcane...I know.

Quenching two identical blades under the exact same conditions with two different fluids is exactly the sort of thing that oversimplifies things IMHO, and is exactly the sort of thinking that has people quenching in cold quenchants that have been heated.

The heart of this argument, to me at least, is that it's not even remotely that simple. Although this approach would explain the dramatic differences in results from one quench medium to the next, it's based off the assumption that you're doing everything else perfectly. Isn't there some old-adage about a bad workman blaming his tools?

It's pretty obvious to even a layman like myself, reading through the various HTing information, such as Houghton's own packet, that almost every specialized engineered quench fluid has it's own set of specific operating caveats, beyond simply what steel it's best for. They don't simply have slow, medium, and fast oils. They've got a whole line to meet a huge range of conditions, processes, and methods.

Anybody who wants could make a 1095 blade that would crack or break when quenched in P50 under reasonable conditions. In fact, we've got a standardized set of design doctrines proliferated regularly to avoid those mishaps. Leaving X amount of sacrificial material, sanding to X grit before quench, etc. Yet if your design or aesthetic choices negate or preclude the possibility of those precautions, P50 can suddenly seem less optimal.

All that to say, just because something works great for your process, or looks perfect in a controlled and highly limited laboratory test, doesn't mean it's the end-all. From the aforementioned Houghton on Quenching: "Cooling curves produced under laboratory conditions must be interpreted carefully, and <b>should not be considered in isolation</b>." In fact the entire document in rife with caveats and disclaimers, espousing the infinite complexity of quench mediums, of which they seem to have a near infinite supply.


I still believe that P50 is the preferred quench medium for 1095/W2 for me, but I also believe, that if I was more skilled, it would be water/brine instead, and if anybody wants, comparisons of water vs fast oils are easy to track down, and the results aren't totally obvious. It's not a black and white at all.

 

[javand]

Yep. I'm bowing out, enjoy the bickering friends. It's obvious that both groups are convinced that they're right, the other's wrong, and there's no room for any opinion in-between.

Jeez!

 

[me2]

For the one who asked, no, Parks 50 is not the standard industrial quench for steel. Different oils work for different steels and have different advantages for whoever is using them. For what it's worth, I hardened my first 2 blades, from Starret O1, in a mixture of olive and vegetable oil, and was within 1/2 point of the target hardness put on the side by the manufacturer after tempering. Even with that, there's no way I believe it was hardened to its full potential.

Just so I'm clear, we have 9 pages on this thread, an entire other thread locked, studies of vegetable based quenchants from what look like 2 different sources (or maybe the authors mentioned/referenced both worked on the same study), anecdotal evidence from both sides, and an engineered quench oil based on plant/vegetable sources, but no one has pictures and/or hardness tests to confirm we're getting the microstructure we're after? It might be that one of the greatest advantages of canola oil is faith.

 

[Stacy E. Apelt - Bladesmith]

javand touches on a part of this debate that is often missed.

Just as the use of engineered quenchants and their parameters has changed over time, people forget that steel has changed over time , too.

Read any old blacksmith/knife book and you will surely read that old files and car springs make the best knives.
Was that a lie?....NO !
It was based on the springs and files of the day. Springs were almost surely made in the USA from 5160 steel, and files were made from good quality W1 or W2 steel, or 1095 for the cheaper ones.
Today springs are made in China from a continuously varying mix of scrap steel and the final alloy can be anywhere from 5160 ( unlikely) to 9260, ...or who knows?????
Files are made the same way, even by good name companies. The steel used to strike the blanks is not nearly as tightly controlled as it used to be. Many files are lower alloy steel with case hardened teeth.
Part of this situation is that in days past, a car lasted 20-30 years ( driving on much rougher roads) and a file was given to your grandson ( and used heavily for metal reduction). Today, a car lasts 6-8 years driven on smooth highways, and a file is often thrown away after a year, and normally only used to smooth up rough edges. There is no impetus for the manufacturers to go overboard on the material quality, when the product meets current demand.

The very process of steel manufacturing has changed, with scrap steel being a large part of the mix in a smelt. Gone are the days of making virgin runs of steel at the mills...gone are those mills. Today, the bulk of the world's steel is made in the orient with whatever scrap is on hand. Nothing is wasted, and little is spent on refining the scrap. As long as the 1095 made has .90-1.00% carbon, that is good enough for most every industrial use of that steel type. No industrial manufacturer cares a hoot about the small amounts of up to twenty elements in the mix, and they are happy with the .35% or more manganese, as it makes manufacturing easier. Most specs are given as minimum values, and can vary a lot above those minimums. Only a few things are ever given as a maximum value...usually sulfur and phosphorous.
Knifemakes use approx .00000017% of the steel made, so you can figure out how little they care about our problems and desires. ( 116,000,000MT produced vs 2MT used for knives annually)

Then you flip to the pages in those books on quenching, and they talk about brine and water...as well as mixes of axle grease, bacon fat, and kerosene. Again ,this wasn't some cruel hoax...it was based on the fact that steel used to be far less alloyed than today. Quench a simple mix of 1% carbon and 99% iron in rainwater and you get a unmatched blade edge, often with an auto-hamon. Quench modern off the shelf 1095 in water and you will most likely get two pieces of blade.

Most modern steel is made with a reasonably high amount of manganese, as well as other alloy elements. This slows ( deepens) the hardening a lot. The source of the steel, and knowing the exact alloy content are variables left out of the argument on quenchants. Quenchants that won't work well on a low alloy steel will quench the same steel with a little more manganese just fine. Maybe not quite as hard or deep as another quenchant would, but good enough to make a sharp knife.

Smith "A" may get great results with his 1095 and Canola, but breaks every blade when using brine. Meanwhile , smith "B" gets poor results with canola ,but good results with Parks #50...or even in brine.
The difference, "A" uses industrial 1095 steel from Supplier "X" and "B" uses 1095 he purchased as low alloy steel especially suited to his hamon blades. In analysis, the 1095 steel from supplier "X" may not even be 1095, but some similar alloy ( As is the case with L6 from several different suppliers).

Even Canola oil has a degree of variability in makeup from one maker to another.

The problem with comparing one set of tests with another is that there is no way to know if the materials and conditions were actually the same.

I,too find it humorous that there are 9 pages of agreement that both Canola and Commercial quenchants work, with repeated posts from those who have had their say. I can find little in the last eight pages that changes the discussion one bit. That said, it would not amaze me for this to go on to 20 pages .



I do commend you all for having a good debate on a touchy topic without getting out of hand. Group Hug!

 

[Rick Marchand]

Group Hug!

Hey, buddy.... watch the reach around!

Well thought out post, Stacy. I guess this is one of those subjects where the results speak for themselves. It reveals the diversity and variance within this craft we've chosen. We are all scrambling for those islands of solid ground in the ocean of knifemaking. Mind the lighthouses and watch out for the sharks!

Rick

 

[Tai Goo]

As it stands, I would be totally happy making great knives using canola oil as a quenchant... but I'm also intrigued as to WHY commercial quenchants were engineered, if not to provide something that organic oils cannot.

For big industry, high volume mass production, to make money and for controlled metallurgical laboratory studies,... but they were probably not engineered with custom/handmade knifemakers and smiths in mind. This is not to say that there aren't some advantages to them for the custom/handmade knife industry,... but they are certainly not a necessity.

 

[lazlo]

Part of the reason why commercial quenchants were engineered is certainly money. So far, I have not seen definitive evidence that there are other reasons for their development.

Several posters, including yourself, have indicated that they lost a couple of points of hardness with canola. What kind of evidence were you looking for?

It might be that one of the greatest advantages of canola oil is faith.

Canola oil is all hype

 

[SShepherd]

"This is not to say that there aren't some advantages to them for the custom/handmade knife industry,... but they are certainly not a necessity"
and evidently neither is a basic working knowledge of metallurgy

............keepin' it arcane yo:barf:

 

[lazlo]

It seems that the vast majority of loud voices are extreme purists in either direction. For every one person that's downplaying or ignoring the reasons for commercial quenchants, there's someone that assumes anybody that uses canola or any non-commercial quenchant is inherently an inferior knifemaker.

In the first 5 minutes of Kevin Cashen's heat treating DVD, he explains that although he uses salt pots, when he's not at his home shop, he uses commercial quench oil. Someone in the audience asks about vegetable oil, and Kevin replies that he's reluctant to discuss vegetable oil, since he's managed to offend more people discussing quench oils than any other topic. Then he states that he does not recommend vegetable oil, because he doesn't get the performance out of vegetable oil that he does with commercial quench oil.

Jeez, if BMK thinks canola oil is "good enough", and commercial quench oil is hype, he must have a brain hemorrhage when he hears about salt pots