Ed Fowler

[Ben B]

By all means - enlighten everyone!
Seems this has become a free-for-all anyway.

I suppose I was asking for that

What I meant was that there are many people out there that believe that science is absolute. Science is about observing a phenomenon, making a prediction (hypothesis), devising an experiment to test the hypothesis and seeing if it matches the observed phenomenon. Over time, a hypothesis can be shown be be valid in all observed experiments but it is always acknowledged that someone might come up with a better hypothesis that can explain the phenomenon and then predict something unexpected. This is then experimentally tested and the process goes on. And essentially never ends.

I would argue that any time that you repeat a process to see if you get the same result, you are doing science.

 

[Matthew Gregory]

Daniel: U.S. Steel patented a multiple quench process years before I stumbled on to it. The reason they do not use it is because it is not economical. That level of quality costs to much, industry simply buys a new part.

The expense of the methods were likely not the greatest reason this procedure was abandoned. Industry manufactured better materials which greatly outperformed steels like 52100. What costs more Ed, the development of procedures for particle metal technology, or multiple quenching?

We tried to put a $ cost to our work and Rex came up with an east $75,000 in the past 16 years.

That much, eh Ed? $4687.50 seems like a pretty low rate per year... besides, why should the time and expense lend any credibility to the perspective? Tai's been making blades without spending money for ages, do his knives fail to perform?

Opinions of other metallurgists are just that opinions, I have found that most only regurgitate what they read in the books.

Strange how all those goofballs that have made STUDYING METAL their life's pursuit are totally misinformed. They must not share the same passion you do, Ed. I suppose they're all just in it for the paycheck.


Mr. Winkler, your poise and grace displayed here has presented you in a new light for me - thank you for your posts!

 

[Mace]

Nice thread Sam! I hope your reading all this.
I'll take #63!! Thanks for the chance!:thumbup:

Now lets all wait for Tai Goo(who said he should stay out of this on like page two) to get the last word in and then we can all let this thread die!
Mace

 

[Phil Dwyer]

This getting out of/staying out of/slaying the box stuff is probably one of the biggest boxes we've got going....

I try to remember there are usually many levels to group dynamics and dialoging:

• content, topics, issues
• communication processes, methods and medium of exchange
• ideologies, disciplines, cultural and generational backgrounds
• etcetera

Content is often eclipse by some of the other aspects. This is perhaps most noticeable when the other aspects start becoming the content.

 

[NickWheeler]

I'm not so sure about the notion that ~multiple quenching isn't done in industry because it isn't cost effective.~

I spoke to one of the metallurgists at Pacific about that (they work with 52100 in bearings all the time) and asked about this very thing. He said, "When you're putting an $80,000 bearing into a $20,000,000 paper machine, don't you think we'd run it through multiple hardening cycles if we felt that would somehow benefit it?"

Of course that's not the be all end all of it...but I know as knifemakers we tend to think of things in small potato versions versus true industry type of figures.

 

[Tai Goo]

Now lets all wait for Tai Goo(who said he should stay out of this on like page two) to get the last word in and then we can all let this thread die!

I meant stay out of the ABS... but was wavering over this topic.

I would argue that any time that you repeat a process to see if you get the same result, you are doing science.

Ben, by that definition even animals are scientists.



You can "apply" science to knifemaking, baseball and horseback riding (or just about anything), but that doesn’t make them "about" science.

We can choose to look at knifemaking however we like,… art, science, craft or whatever, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right for everyone.

I don’t like the way science is abused,… as a marketing strategy and as a means to denigrate others who we may be in competition with.

Knifemaking isn’t art or science,… it’s better than art or science!

 

[Karl B. Andersen]

...................True knifemaking can't be science, there's simply no reliable way of predicting how a knife will turn out.

Craig, ol' buddy, I hope I can get you to elaborate on that just a little bit.
Or, maybe that's not exactly what you meant.
Because it seems I spend almost all day - every day - of my knife making career doing exactly that! "predicting how a knife will turn out".
I decide what I want to make, or take a customer's request, and then go out to the shop and make THAT! With a great deal of predictability.
And I know many, many other makers who do the same thing.
When an ABS "smith" decides to create a performance knife to pass the ABS performance section, then he makes a knife that will DO THAT!
Is that not predicting how that knife will perform with reliability?
If we couldn't make what our customers want, with regularity and predictability, no one would buy knives from us.

 

[DWinkler]

Thank you Ed for your explanation. I will certainly consider ordering your DVD’s.

I know you have simplified the process procedure here but there are still a few details I will have to get a little more clear on to accept your test results as a controlled study and not random luck.

For example:

You state you are using a torch as your heat source. I used a torch for years for heat treating and got acceptable results but the process was not consistent. I was never skilled enough to judge the heat of the steel since everything was always changing. The distance of the flame to the blade, the speed of movement of the torch, outside air temperature and the possibility of a breeze cooling the steel. Have you developed a system to improve these variables?

You mentioned using magnetism as a measure. I know that steel becomes non-magnetic at a certain temperature but how do you use that, physically, to determine the time between loss of magnetism and grain growth? When I used the torch method I held the blade with one hand and the torch with the other, how do you use the magnet?

It is my understanding that steel will lose carbon with every heat cycle. This is why when I forge a blade I try and go to the forge as few times as possible. The same with heat-treating. I believe it shows up as a hard scaly layer on the surface of the blade. So, does this mean since you are achieving no measurable loss of carbon you are forging at a low temperature? Or is there something else going on here I just don’t understand? 52-100 is hard to forge anyway. I can’t imagine hitting it at a low temperature.

Daniel

 

[Rick Marchand]

A question... When we talk about improving the steel by squeezing every ounce of refinement out with multiple quenches, soak times, etc... What kind of perceivable improvements have we made? Is it a difference of chopping through 80 2x4's as opposed to 75?

Example...

With all things equal and done properly... What kind of performance increase (and in what area) is there between a single quenched blade of 52100 and a multiple quenched piece?

Is there a measurable amount.... 3%... 5%.... 15%??


Rick


PS. This thread is all over the place.... but I kind of like it... a freeform debate of several issues. I hope it stays civil and open.

 

[butcher_block]

I'm not so sure about the notion that ~multiple quenching isn't done in industry because it isn't cost effective.~

I spoke to one of the metallurgists at Pacific about that (they work with 52100 in bearings all the time) and asked about this very thing. He said, "When you're putting an $80,000 bearing into a $20,000,000 paper machine, don't you think we'd run it through multiple hardening cycles if we felt that would somehow benefit it?"

nick,
and i don't think that industry heat treats by torch and selective hardening is done with alloy and depth of hardening

i also bet that the testing of those bearings goes way farther then jsut now and then destructive test. X ray on every one that goes out the door to look for faults maybe ?

 

[Tai Goo]

I think what Ed does is Ed's business, and don't have any problem with anyone showing enthusiasm for their own work. His job as a writer is to write things how he sees it and that's fine too. That's what he gets paid for.

Obviously, there is a market for Ed's work, but I don't think anyone should feel they have to justify it with science.

I think we should just leave Ed alone, and worry about ourselves.

 

[RogerP]

This getting out of/staying out of/slaying the box stuff is probably one of the biggest boxes we've got going....[/I].

I was thinking the same thing. Those who loudly trumpet how very far outside the box they are often lack the perspective to see that they are doing all that chest-thumping from within the cozy confines of a different box.

I spoke to one of the metallurgists at Pacific about that (they work with 52100 in bearings all the time) and asked about this very thing. He said, "When you're putting an $80,000 bearing into a $20,000,000 paper machine, don't you think we'd run it through multiple hardening cycles if we felt that would somehow benefit it?"

Kinda scary to think of all that useless regurgitated book-learnin' being relied upon in an application such as this.

Roger

 

[Karl B. Andersen]

Tai, your last two posts have shown distinct clarity and common sense.

"We can choose to look at knifemaking however we like,… art, science, craft or whatever, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right for everyone."

"I think we should just leave Ed alone, and worry about ourselves."

You feelin' ok?

 

[RogerP]

^^^ I dunno, I think Daniel asked some good questions and I'd certainly be interested in the answers. Besides, hasn't Ed always said that he welcomes open and candid discussion on knifemaking methodology?

Roger

 

[Phillip Patton]

Those who loudly trumpet how very far outside the box they are often lack the perspective to see that they are doing all that chest-thumping from within the cozy confines of a different box.


Roger

This should be in someone's sig line. :thumbup:

 

[cdent]

Craig, ol' buddy, I hope I can get you to elaborate on that just a little bit.
Or, maybe that's not exactly what you meant.
Because it seems I spend almost all day - every day - of my knife making career doing exactly that! "predicting how a knife will turn out".
I decide what I want to make, or take a customer's request, and then go out to the shop and make THAT! With a great deal of predictability...

Hi Karl,

Maybe bingo! here. If the the steel moved, hardened or machined some form or another of predictable changes based in science occurred. If an adhesive cured or a handle stayed on etc., etc., science was involved.

I believe how the different pieces of the puzzle are put together and the differences between folks is where true art and great craftsmanship has a chance to show.

I absolutely appreciate the work and research that Ed Fowler does, but more so the willingness to share details. Not fair at all to put a price on or measure his generosity with scientific information. As mentioned elsewhere, one area that is true artistry and tough to decipher is his mastery of the torch.

While seeming pointless, I think it can be helpful to offer counter opinions to absolutes such as feelings, emotions and worth of an organization., Craig

 

[Karl B. Andersen]

This should be in someone's sig line. :thumbup:

Got one better - 9th from the top - right under Ed Fowler:

http://www.andersenforge.com/memorablequotes.html

Now here for eternity!

 

[Tai Goo]

Ed has been kind enough to share his process, the results, tried his best to try and explain it,… and from what I understand his knives perform just like how he says they will in the field.

What we may think of it, make of it, do or don’t do with it,... he has no control over and isn’t responsible for that part of it. I'm sure there will always be some differences of opinion over Ed's work, but don't see that as a bad thing. If it just gets people to think, then it has done it’s share of good.

Although, I don't agree with all the details of Ed's work, I think we see the big picture a lot the same,... and we should ALL try harder to support each other as "individuals" in spite of a few minor differences.

 

[Tai Goo]

The best any good sincere artist or scientist can do, is “be true to themselves“, and contribute their research, findings, ideas, and WORK to the community. Then,… let the community be the judge.

… AND, have the courage to let the chips fall where they fall!

Let the work stand or fall on it’s own!

If you don’t have anything NEW to contribute to your culture and society and you aren‘t willing to take some RISKS,… then, you really aren’t even in the ball game.

 

[Ed Fowler]

Thanks Dan: I will try to explain some more variables.

Hardening a blade with a torch is like developing a painting I have the freedom to chose exactly where the temps will be. The torch is my brush and I paint the color exactly where I want it. How well I have done is clearly displayed in the finished etched blade. If I failed it is obvious and easy to read. Etching all blades has been one of my most significant learning opportunities as the feedback is within days of the hardening process. Like any art or skill, practice is the way to improvement, and I through the etched blade I have a viable index of my performance available. Once I decided to etch all my blades my abilities to harden a blade with a torch improved as a result of this relatively immediate feedback.

Torch in one hand, blade in the other, magnet suspended on a flexible copper wire within inches of the quench tank. By reading the etch and comparison testing of each blade you will soon learn the differences in the steel you are using when you harden at the low end of critical, in the middle, just above critical and with a little soak above critical.

An easy example: if I quench the blade just as it starts to lose magnetism all three times, the blade with the same tempering temperature as blades forged above critical will not chip at -30 f. and is tougher than blades hardened above critical at low temp. Blades for warmer environments can be harder and. Cutting performance of the lower quenched blade at -30 will be about equal to a harder blade at 70 f.

Grain growth is not a constant, but a variable. The finer the grain, the lower the temperature at which it can grow. Rex tells me 1,725 f. is temperature where grain starts to grow, growth is also a function of time. I chose to use 1,625 f. as the maximum temperature for my forging temperature. You can predict 1,625 fairly accurately by the size of the slag particles that come off of the blade when you start to work it after leaving the forge. If the slag is very fine, like fine snow flakes I feel I am working at the right temperature. I forge until the steel quits moving, a little below critical, then immediately back into the forge. I smile when I have my forge adjusted to a temperature that time out working is about the same as time in the forge heating.

The more thermal cycles from start using virgin stock the greater the opportunity we have to develop the grain and structures we hope to achieve. At the lower temperature forging we do not experience measurable carbon loss. When hardening our blades the hardened portion comes out of the oil quench with very little scale on the sides. A blade forged at high temp. or stock removal blade usually has much more carbon on the sides. This is one of the first indicators that all has gone well to this point.

I address forging 52100 in the next issue of Blade. If you let it soak at forging temperature (for me 1,625) for a few minutes it will forge as easily as any other steel.

As usual I am directing my comments and have experience only with 52100 and 5160.
These thoughts may or may not apply to other steels.

Another variable seems to be the volume of the steel in the blade above the quench line. We have just started working with it. Maybe in a year or so we will have more information to share.

The first description I found in US literature was an experiment in the 30's about multiple quench in 5160 - it resulted in a simple footnote "this is the finest grain we have ever seen in 5160." I believe the German steel industry was working with it much earlier as were the folks forging "Wootz".

It is up to each smith to make up his mind what he want to make, we simply share our experience.

I sincerely hope I have answered your questions, the were good ones and thanks for asking.