Ed Fowler

Text book science and metallurgy can also be used for marketing and promotion, and passed off as some kind of magic... the "myth of magical science".

A fact is just a fact. It's how you interpret the facts and use them that's important.

Knifemaking is not a science!... "knifeology"?
 
Tai Goo said:
Text book science and metallurgy can also be used for marketing and promotion, and passed off as some kind of magic... the "myth of magical science".

A fact is just a fact. It's how you interpret the facts and use them that's important.

Knifemaking is not a science!... "knifeology"?
Click to expand...

I'm sure glad Newton didn't think this way. (Sir Isaac, not Ron)

Roger
 
We're not doing science,... we're making knives.

Performance is subjective, and has more to do with personal preferences, tastes and opinions than science.

I think science has been abused,... and used more for "shameless self promotion" than any thing else.

A good knife speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
Tai Goo said:
We're not doing science,... we're making knives.

Performance is subjective, and has more to do with personal preferences, tastes and opinions than science.

I think science has been abused,... and used more for "shameless self promotion" than any thing else.

A good knife speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

I'm content that you feel that way, Tai. I'm just so very glad that so many others don't.

Roger
 
OK,

Metallurgy and heat treating is chemistry, edge geometry is mathematics, balance is physics and design flow is art.

Magic is how one presents it.
 
Well, maybe it's just me,... but, I think ALL "knife science", is just about as junky as any science gets. :)

If you think knifemaking might be a science,… try going to any university in the country and getting a PhD in “knifeology”. :D
 
Last edited:
You are correct, I was referring to David's post #153 in my comments on Damascus.
I believe almost every knife or "knife steel" I have ever seen advertised has implied some semblance of cut.

When I was told it "was pretty but would not make much of a knife" I believed the man. He had spent most of his life making and repairing tools for the gold mines, working in the blacksmith shop of many mines and mills. He knew well how to make tools for hard work, it had been his job for over 50 years. His job security depended on the performance quality of is work.

Thirty years later I fell into the legend of the superior qualities of Damascus. It would take 5 years of making and testing Damascus steel, both of my own making and some of others to discover that Sid's advice was sound. The best Damascus will not match or even come close to the performance qualities of the best carbon steel, or many of the other factory steels be they forged or stock removal.

Multiple layered, pattern welded Damascus is pretty, backed by a lot of legendary properties, but in my experience just doesn't cut it. Art yes, but not what I call high endurance performance blades.
 
I spoke with JD Smith an ABS Mastersmith from Roxbury, MA few weeks ago. He also teaches at a College or University there. The institution at which he teaches awarded their first degree in Swordsmithing to one of his students. The student is now working toward his master’s degree.

Maybe Knifeology will be next.
 
Ignore me, I'm a total newb...however I greatly respect Tai Goo's work as well as Kevin Cashen, Daniel Winkler and many of the other "ABS side" guys on this thread. I can't help but ask though as I'm reading all of these replies if the "science guys" and the "art guys" are just not talking past each other about different aspects of this craft.

It seems to me that knowing how something happens doesn't necessarily explain what occurs. It is, obviously, possible to know what happens to steel of various chemical make ups when particular heat treat methods and other variables are applied. You can also, obviously, know what the particular properties of a certain design or style might do by testing, even in a so called "pseudo-scientific" method. I think even the "art" guys would admit that you aren't going to make a 2" dagger and call it a camp/chopper. All of that, and more though, is irrelevant to the reality that a knife is more than the sum of its components.

If that were not true, then a manufacturer who had precision CNC machinery and following the results of scientific measurement, test and metallurgy could repeatably and fairly easily create the perfect knife for any given situation. If that were true, then why would any of you who desire to make a perfect knife continue in a way that's bound to fall short? We all know that's not the case. So if that's not the case then what's the argument about? One side is arguing that it IS possible to know scientifically and objectively what is happening during each portion of the building of a knife. The other side is arguing that none of that matters to the building of a knife. The end result is that both are true, in as much as it only matters to the maker of the knife if he has made what he desired and is pleased with the result.

It seems the non-argument is about who's right in how they view their view of what a knife is. Unfortunately for everyone, that's an argument that can never be won. What we all want in a knife is, at the end of the day, totally subjective. I think that's the "box" Tai wants to stay out of, however I don't think that the ABS is the "box" that he and Ed Fowler believe it to be. You only get stuck in a box if you climb in it first.
 
2knife said:
Interesting. What do you feel is BS?

On the one hand, you hold him in esteem as a bladesmith but where do you feel he is wrong?

Can you justify the belief that the multiple quench method does NOT add any significant advantage, as a matter of fact? Ed has probably destroyed a few hundred knives in the process .. you think solely to build a case for "hype"?

Also, I am still interested to know whether in blacksmithing you feel there is historical evidence of a multiple quench being employed .. your knives are inspired from the historical genre, maybe there's some history to it?
David
Click to expand...

You sure are a lot better at asking questions than answering them, David. It must be so very frustrating for you to be unable to simply lock the thread when the responses don't accord with "your" particular viewpoint.

Roger
 
David,

I personally have seen no reference to multiple quench prior to modern knifemaking. It may be there; I have just not seen it.

I did not say I thought Ed’s writing was BS, just I heard conversation that went that direction. Ed is very vocal and has a public platform. If anyone thinks that does not come with a price they would be wrong.

I admire Ed for how he is up-front about his knifemaking beliefs. I don’t think he or anyone else knows everything but he is very vocal and does sometimes come across as the authority. Most all of the Bladesmiths that have been around a while, including Ed, have way’s of doing things that may be contrary to the way someone else does the same operation. Ed has written a lot of stuff and without going back and reading again I would have trouble coming up with a particular point. As I could Tai or Kevin or any others that frequently make public their opinions. However with all he has written I think I could come up with something.

A few examples:

· I don’t think that hidden tang knives are as strong typically as a comparable full tang.
· I don’t think that sheep horn makes the best gripping handle.
· I think cross guards generally get in the way.
· I don’t see advantage to a blade without a choil drop.
· I don’t think working knives for working people should cost thousands of dollars.
· I don’t see an advantage to a multiple quench.

All of this does not mean I don’t like or respect Ed, it just means he and I have differences and Ed is on a pedestal looking like a target because he put himself there.

I feel sure Ed has done a tremendous amount of research to justify the reasons to use a multiple quench. Based on my own studies, tests and conversations with metallurgists I see a much greater potential disadvantage than advantage using this practice. To much unnecessary time at high temps gives you more opportunity to make a mistake. The perceived benefit is not worth taking the chance, for me. I feel this practice is hype because I don’t feel it is necessary and it is used as a selling point claiming superior results.

Cutting competitions require a maker to put his money where his or her mouth is. They are not perfect testing grounds but do compare material, method and design publicly and fairly against another. Makers that feel they don’t have time for this may want to reconsider. It is a lot of fun and a great learning experience.

Daniel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top