Heat Treatment - Crystal Weaving Foundation

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

BluntCut MetalWorks heat treated steels attributes (referenced context below) are based on my Crystal Weaving Foundation(CWF). CFW has graduated into a small contribution to science. It will open a door to go outside of the current industry ht box/room - a broad area and depth to be explored by all of you.

Science Freedom - details of CFW 'how' & 'why' are to be widely presented and it should be easily replicated & applied. Applicability will stretch across the entire steel industry, where cutlery/edge-tool is a small sector in it. 'How' will be a general ht formula, and 'why' if you would like to understand chemistry & physics aspects/science of it.

This post (across multiple forums) declared my intention. I haven't shoot the 'how' video nor write up yet, so welcome to suggest better format etc..

Best regards,
==Luong

*** Hardness/strength 2+rc exceeded mfg's max rc is just an easy quantifier - other attributes are also important ***

BCMW 20160702 ht results

CPM-M4 69rc - https://www.alphaknifesupply.com/zdata-bladesteelC-M4.htm
Elmax 65rc - https://www.alphaknifesupply.com/Pictures/Info/Steel/Elmax-Typical.gif
S110V 65.5rc - https://www.alphaknifesupply.com/Pictures/Info/Steel/CPMS110V-DS.pdf
CTS-XHP 67.5rc - https://www.alphaknifesupply.com/zdata-bladesteelS-CTSXHP.htm
CPM 10V 69.5rc - https://www.alphaknifesupply.com/zdata-bladesteelC-A11.htm

29 minutes video - sorry, 2nd is fuzzy due to over heated camera
Whittled: oak, bamboo, lignum vitae argentine (LVA) and thin metal tube (at end of fuzzy video)
Chopped: oak, LVA

https://youtu.be/b21Rg8D97Ig

Edges after whittled thin metal tube (in video)

BCMW 20160615 66+rc W2 chop test at cryogenic(LN2) temperature - ** as stated - it's more than just hardness/strength ***
https://youtu.be/5-mVEp7BiLo

 

[marcinek]

And you used steels of different hardness, and used blades of different geometries.

Are you claiming that this is some sort of controlled experiment?

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

I believed, I said - you can get type of results, once I publish the 'how' part.

And you used steels of different hardness, and used blades of different geometries.

Are you claiming that this is some sort of controlled experiment?

For more context please read this thread - http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1400800-BCMW-ht-3V-chopping-tests

and perhaps this one too - http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/1406383-High-hardness-choppers

 

[Shorttime]

And you used steels of different hardness, and used blades of different geometries.

Are you claiming that this is some sort of controlled experiment?

Now now, Marcinek. Let's not be too hard on the fella. Factory HT is not the end-all of thermal processing, by any means! Busse and Nathan Carothers have done some amazing things with their choices of steel, and there are many here who are always looking for more toughness and edge retention. Give the man a chance.....

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

While waiting for declaration period to expires.

If you have time to burn, you might enjoy this 11 minutes video entertainment

BCMW 20160706 cut old ironing board with 8670 steel blade at 64rc

Using Crystal Weaving Foundation ht to hardened this blade.

8670 Steel, 64rc, 0.10" thick
~0.015" behind edge thick
~30* inclusive sharpening bevel (15dps)

For these kind of abusive testing, please keep in mind 40* inclusive angle is about 2.3 times stronger by steel volume of 30*. This blade sharpened at 30* which is a very thin angle for this type of usage/abuse. Also its behind edge thickness (shoulder of sharpening bevel) is only ~0.015. This edge geometry is commonly used by pocket knives.

https://youtu.be/CR3iq7LIxwU

edit to add: btw - this blade in untempered - just like other blades shown above (except for cpm rex 121 got tempered for lawn edging test).

edit2: My 3v 65+rc CWF (also untempered) chopper is en route to Nathan.

 

[flatface77]

Are you that madman who ran AEB-L up into the mid 60s & chopped with good results with it? I'm really liking what I'm seeing here. Can't wait to see what happens when you start messing around with folder blades.

 

[Petunia D. Feeble]

I want an Opinel No. 8 at 66rc. Make with it!

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

Is this the video - Luong/me demoing a thin 65rc aebl chopper (also untempered)?

https://youtu.be/Rr-VeMCy1T4

Once, I show 'how' - everybody can make ht like this. Of course folder makers can do this too. I am quite certain, my skills in folder making is sub-par.

Are you that madman who ran AEB-L up into the mid 60s & chopped with good results with it? I'm really liking what I'm seeing here. Can't wait to see what happens when you start messing around with folder blades.

 

[marcinek]

Now now, Marcinek. Let's not be too hard on the fella. Factory HT is not the end-all of thermal processing, by any means! Busse and Nathan Carothers have done some amazing things with their choices of steel, and there are many here who are always looking for more toughness and edge retention. Give the man a chance.....

Well, I happen to think if someone is claiming to make a "small contribution to science," then one needs to do a controlled experiment. If you change more than one variable in an experiment, like type of steel AND geometry, then what you have done is not a controlled experiment. It becomes subjective.

And there is nothing wrong with subjective results gained from experience, we give them all the time.

But they are just not science.

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

Easy be done at 68rc. I've 1084 & 1095 blades at working 68rc. For simple carbon steel macro indentation hardness (rockwell) is only 2-3rc higher than nano hardness. So when nano hardness >= 64rc, blade will be very wear resistance against Silicon Dioxide (aka SiO2/silicate/plant-fiber-sand, where its max hardness is around 64rc ). For higher carbide volume steels, in my calculation every 3% equate to 1rc particle strenghtening (observe by rockwell tester), so macro 69rc cpm-m4 may only has 62-63rc nano(if somehow all carbide were removed from) matrix.

CWF is basic science, no new invention of physics.

I want an Opinel No. 8 at 66rc. Make with it!

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

I afraid, you've missed the simple quantifier. This whole science can be verify by a simple certified rockwell read of (example) CPM 10V 68+rc. That hrc is not achievable by non-CWF ht. And ability to use it at 68+rc shows more than just strength.

Well, I happen to think if someone is claiming to make a "small contribution to science," then one needs to do a controlled experiment. If you change more than one variable in an experiment, like type of steel AND geometry, then what you have done is not a controlled experiment. It becomes subjective.

And there is nothing wrong with subjective results gained from experience, we give them all the time.

But they are just not science.

 

[marcinek]

CWF is basic science, ....

And even more basic science is the idea of a controlled experiment. If you are testing a hypothesis on knives having different steels AND different blade geometries (like it appears you are doing in your video)...then you are not doing science. Too many variables.

Your results, while not "wrong," are anecdotal and not scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Those are very different things.

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

You are right about anecdotal shown. Maybe drop all variables and just focus on just cpm-10v hrc <= which should be very simple to prove/dis-prove.

And even more basic science is the idea of a controlled experiment. If you are testing a hypothesis on knives having different steels AND different blade geometries (like it appears you are doing in your video)...then you are not doing science. Too many variables.

Your results, while not "wrong," are anecdotal and not scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Those are very different things.

 

[craytab]

I afraid, you've missed the simple quantifier. This whole science can be verify by a simple certified rockwell read of (example) CPM 10V 68+rc. That hrc is not achievable by non-CWF ht. And ability to use it at 68+rc shows more than just strength.

This stuff looks great. I love it when makers tweak their craft to optimize results. However, a contribution to science it is not. Maybe I am missing something but where is the scientific method? Where is the empirical data? What is the peer review process you have been subjected to? That is what makes science. Just doing stuff and calling it science doesn't make it so.

 

[flatface77]

Is this the video - Luong/me demoing a thin 65rc aebl chopper (also untempered)?

https://youtu.be/Rr-VeMCy1T4

Once, I show 'how' - everybody can make ht like this. Of course folder makers can do this too. I am quite certain, my skills in folder making is sub-par.

Is it feasible to re- treat a factory blade? If so, we could do an apples to apples comparison. I'd gladly donate a Spyderco Military to the cause for that if we could convince Jim to test it & add it to his excellent list in the Testing & Review subforum.

 

[Neko2]

:thumbup:

Looking forward to see where this is going.

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

Hearing opinions = one of many reasons for this declaration - if it's just a tweak ht for knives, CWF will stays as IP. It could be that I make a Mt Everest out of a flea hill.... where Everest = reduce transportation carbon foot print by making vehicles/vessel/infrastructure lighter.

This stuff looks great. I love it when makers tweak their craft to optimize results. However, a contribution to science it is not. Maybe I am missing something but where is the scientific method? Where is the empirical data? What is the peer review process you have been subjected to? That is what makes science. Just doing stuff and calling it science doesn't make it so.

 

[craytab]

Hearing opinions = one of many reasons for this declaration - if it's just a tweak ht for knives, CWF will stays as IP. It could be that I make a Mt Everest out of a flea hill.... where Everest = reduce transportation carbon foot print by making vehicles/vessel/infrastructure lighter.

What?

 

[marcinek]

You are right about anecdotal shown. Maybe drop all variables and just focus on just cpm-10v hrc <= which should be very simple to prove/dis-prove.

Exactly! :thumbup: The only thing that should vary is the thing you are trying to test.

The Spyderco Mule Team Project does a nice job of that....

The Mule team project was created as a simple, inexpensive venue for "steel junkies" to have an opportunity to test different blade steels themselves. Each run will have different interesting steel. Each run will have the same pattern, a fixed blade with a full tang. Each run will have the same thickness, grind, edge and will be heat treated to the optimal hardness for that steel. No handle, scales or sheath are provided. This not only saves you funds, but gives you the opportunity to make (or have made) custom handles and sheaths

http://www.spyderco.com/edge-u-cation/index.php?item=13

But, even for that there is more than one variable....steel type and hardness.

So it is a challenge. But it is necessary to call something science.

Again, though, your observations are interesting and informative and there is nothing "wrong" with them.

They are what they are...but they aren't "science."

 

[BluntCut MetalWorks]

Re-ht is possible and mostly be fine. However small risks: re-ht won't fix serious microstructure flaws, such as micro;nano cracks from prev-ht unless heat up beyond welding temperature.

Is it feasible to re- treat a factory blade? If so, we could do an apples to apples comparison. I'd gladly donate a Spyderco Military to the cause for that if we could convince Jim to test it & add it to his excellent list in the Testing & Review subforum.