Spyderco Forums

SolidState wrote:

Bill1170 wrote:SolidState, why are you so angry?

Hey Bill,
It's not anger. Perhaps frustration, but not anger. Sometimes it is just plain painful to spend a good fifteen years working on problems with your entire heart and soul - literally becoming a peer with those who do the same and define the field- only to be told by an armchair quarterback that you don't have any clue what you're talking about, or that you don't know how to come to a conclusion. It is probably the most insulting thing that someone can do.

The other major aspect of the frustration is that the amount of misinformation in the field is so pervasive and horrifically immoral that it calls the rest of our work into question. Having someone disseminating that crap as if it is equivalent simply highlights all of the failures of science education in America, and also highlights the failures of our entire system in which any person's feelings are supposed to be deemed as equivalent to actual data. It's a sad state of affairs, it is depressing, and it is why actual scientists don't talk to people about their work - PR firms do - which furthers the downward spiral. It is also why so many of us commit suicide in the long run. Spyderedge is literally the worst type of advocate nanoscience - or science for that matter - could ask for because he embodies the genre of only reading what you want to believe and disregarding data without definitional reason. His activity embodies not searching for boundaries between fact and fiction while presenting fiction as fact. It is the antithesis of scientific morality.

Okay, I understand better your frustration. I am keenly aware of the lack of science literacy in today's America, and stand ready to learn. It just seems you might be a more effective ambassador of the scientific method by separating out the harshest feelings from the wealth of knowledge you wish to share. None of us know close to everything about what is possible, and a good place to begin is with what we DO know right now, as a species.

Great Scott!!! 4 pages and over 60 posts to this most technical thread :eek: And every post is a really good one worth reading. I actually figured on maybe a dozen responses at the most :)

Covering blade steels of the future, abrasives out of a science fiction movie and a plethora of side bar subjects>> I would have never imagined so many of you to be major tech heads :cool:

It almost make me want to put up a Periodic Table of the Elements :eek: or a picture of my main man Albert Einstein :D

But if any of the rest of you guys have anything to contribute by all means lay it on us

SolidState wrote:It is probably the most insulting thing that someone can do.

That's the internet, have you not seen how often people will reject metallurgical data, and just sweep science aside when discussing steels, heat treatments and knives?

It is the antithesis of scientific morality.

I think there is a leap here as you are presenting two extreme ends of the spectrum.There is a large difference between an overly passionate fan and someone intentionally spreading misinformation for some self-serving purpose. Here is the thing, you know your conclusions are justified because of work you have done, but how does anyone else know yours are justified and something else that someone else claimed isn't? Not everyone can put in the foundational work to separate it out on a basic level by looking at the methodology.

Kevin Cashen once noted that often times what he said about forging would be ignored for the exact problem you described. His argument based on metallurgy and someones opinion based on not much of anything at all would both just be looked at as "stories" and people would often just pick as true whichever story had the better ending. Cashen's was pretty boring in that respect as forging was just a shape operation and that it damaged the steel which had to be undone in subsequent thermal processing. But there are people who tell much more exciting stories of how forging does things like super-pack steel, and make blades lighter, faster, stronger, etc. .

While I am not saying it isn't true, simply responding by saying "Listen to me, I am an expert ..." is pretty much one of the most anti-science stances you can take. While it can be frustrating when someone responds to a justified claim with nonsense (Someome rejects an ERV argument for evolutionary lineage and responds with there are no crocoducks), if you oppose that by trying to argue from authority then it is just one logical fallacy applied on another. Where are the peer reviewed papers which support your claims? Just take a step back and look at it from the perspective of a neutral observer.

SolidState: Which of my statements is somehow distorted or untrue?

The case that I made for what I am speaking about is this:

1 Molecules can function as machine parts, as shown by nature: enzymes, ribosomes, proteins, microtubules, and the like.
2 Molecular machines can be programmed to perform useful work. We see this through the biological world, and, through our already crude molecular machine parts that have been synthesized, and which are becoming more advanced.

Show me where I made a pseudoscientific statement. If I was mentioning something such as gravity control, or quantum teleportation of macroscopic objects, that would indeed be pseudoscientific.

All I am discussing is positional chemistry. It's already been done with scanning probe microscopes. Honestly, I am being very, very, ultra-conservative in my postulations. 1 I am not saying we can do this today. 2 I am not mentioning using nanorobotics to resurrect cryogenically-suspended dead people like some of those Singularity/Transhumanist people make claims about.

Think about taking scanning probe microscopes that have molecular-engineered tips, shrinking the entire system of hardware down to the microscopic level, and add the versatility of ribosomes and DNA, and that is what you have here. Think motorized, programmable DNA made from materials operating in a non-aqueous enviroment. I am not discounting the hard work and laborious things you and others in these current fields have done and are doing. Are you saying people such as Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, and Robert Freitas, are teaching pseudoscience? How is exploratory engineering pseudoscience? Is this like people attacking Charles Babbage when he came up with the concepts of mechanical computer logic gates in the 19th century? This technology is like the electronic computer was in the 1950s. Look what happened by the 1970s.

SEF, you might be interested in this : http://www.nanotechnology.cz/storage/NANO07.pdf" target="_blank which is a recent conference on nanoscience and technology which includes many papers on nanoscience in steels.

Cliff Stamp wrote:SEF, you might be interested in this : http://www.nanotechnology.cz/storage/NANO07.pdf" target="_blank which is a recent conference on nanoscience and technology which includes many papers on nanoscience in steels.

It might seem to the casual observer that you might be shilling, this is the 3rd thread now that you have posted this stuff in, seems you are really pushing this stuff really hard.

I know you can't be spamming the forum.

Ankerson wrote: It might seem to the casual observer that you might be shilling, this is the 3rd thread now that you have posted this stuff in, seems you are really pushing this stuff really hard.

Jim, they are not the same articles, they don't even have to do with the same principles.

I recently posted :

-a reference to an article on how UHC steels can be hardened so as to obtain superior mechanical properties in response to a question from a user about the properties of UHC steels and further explained why they have the properties they do based on the hardening

-a conference about current research in nanoscience in response to a discussion and question about nanostructured steels from another different poster showing where we are and the questions being considered

-I started a thread on UFG in steels and linked articles on it

All of these are peer reviewed and published materials articles on different aspects of materials, not all of them are even about steels, and the ones that are are not all about the same aspects, they include things like :

-how UFG size influences the type of martensite formation (lathe vs plate)
-UHC steels can have super mechanical properties and not the common belief in being brittle
-how wear resistance in standard materials testing is strongly influenced due to work hardening
-the benefits of multiple quenching in achieving superior properties
-how martensite can be a better basis for the final HT than spheroidized steel

and numerous other aspects of metallurgy.

I don't "shill" for science as shilling means you have an undisclosed promotional bias. I am pretty open about the fact I would assert science is a way of learning and openly promote the idea that better knives can be made through applying science. In general if I am going to make an assertion about steel, I would justify it on a scientific basis therefore it would be expected that my arguments have scientific references.

Now if you want to say that I am biased because I use science to justify things then sure, I am biased in that I regard science as a way to generate knowledge. Similar if that fits your definition of shill then yeah, I shill for science every day and twice on Sunday as it is one of the ways I would assert people can learn and further I would argue if people used more science in discussions and less irrational arguments then there would be more learning and less misinformation.

In regards to spam, spamming is unwanted (and generally) commercial posting of an identical (or very similar nature) which isn't requested. It doesn't fit what I am doing at all unless you want to argue that this forum isn't a place to actually present scientific material and that it is unwanted. If that is how you view spamming, then yes, I spam scientific knowledge on this forum, on my form, on pretty much any other forum where people are discussing how conclusions can be reached from observation.

As always, if Sal doesn't want to see actual science being discussed, and doesn't want to see arguments supported by peer reviewed and published articles, then no problem, he can just let me know. Feel free to report this post for science spamming/shilling/bias.

Cliff Stamp wrote:SEF, you might be interested in this : http://www.nanotechnology.cz/storage/NANO07.pdf" target="_blank which is a recent conference on nanoscience and technology which includes many papers on nanoscience in steels.

Thank you very much! I will check that out. Appreciated =)

I for one greatly enjoy, and learn alot from Cliff Stamp's informative posts on metallurgy and the physical science behind it.

SpyderEdgeForever wrote: Thank you very much! I will check that out.

I am working through it now, a friend of mine gave me a printed copy for Christmas, there is some really interesting material in there.

Cliff runs the forum. He can do whatever he wants.

Blerv wrote:Insane wear resistance is possible with the ceramics of today. Unfortunately that's just part of what makes a good knife.

On paper something like obsidian is vastly superior to ancient bronze and irons. Problem was it had problems from durability to sharpening that made metals a welcome change.

This is basically what you'd get with a tungsten blade unless they changed something. If you drop a tungsten ring it'll shatter in a bunch of pieces, probably worse than ceramic blades.

Evil D wrote: This is basically what you'd get with a tungsten blade unless they changed something.

Modern carbide blades can be made much tougher, see for example which is an interesting video as it is a reality show where a traditional knife maker squares off against a bunch of engineers to make the best blade to cut a piece of metal pipe :

https://youtu.be/UyCuR16HUBc" target="_blank

The engineers eventually use carbide.

Modern ceramics and carbide are way tougher than they used to be due to compositional changes which allow them to respond to impacts and absorb the energy.

Ankerson wrote: It might seem to the casual observer that you might be shilling, this is the 3rd thread now that you have posted this stuff in, seems you are really pushing this stuff really hard.

I know you can't be spamming the forum.

People often refer to this forum as "Sal's House."

Cliff is clearly a Friend of the House and quite welcome here.

It would be interesting if you could offer some kind of actual coherent criticism of the discussions here if you or whoever else have some beef. The butthurt man-child poo throwing that has been going around lately is really lame.

Just some reality

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone!!

"The butthurt man-child poo throwing that has been going around lately is really lame. "

That's exactly what he did in that thread yet he gets a pass as always. Really surprises me that the forum let him slide like nothing happened.

Yeah, I brought it over here but so what, he trashes the entire forum and it's all milk and cookies but I stand up to him and I'm the bad guy.

I suppose if I don't like it, why come back. There's the door so to speak.

Apophis wrote:

Ankerson wrote: It might seem to the casual observer that you might be shilling,

People often refer to this forum as "Sal's House."

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone!!

Hey come on guys & gals can't we disagree with someone without being hostile? And Brother you're absolutely right!! This is Mr. Glesser's living room so to speak and he deserves respect due him, his family and the great Spyderco Company and their great employees that make this possible. And please!! let's don't lose sight of that either. We really are priviledged to have a great forum where like-minded folks can chat and compare notes in a friendly atmosphere. Sure we're not all going to agree on everything and there is nothing at all wrong with challenging someone or demanding proof>> but we don't want to be hostile because I do feel that is disrespect to Spyderco and the Glesser Family who have just been great to all of us in my opinion.

There are not many forums where the people at the top interact with us end line consumers and even consider many of our suggestions. Hey there are people I've met here on the forum that I don't like much>> but I just simple ignore and avoid them.

FCM415 wrote:"The butthurt man-child poo throwing that has been going around lately is really lame. "

That's exactly what he did in that thread yet he gets a pass as always. Really surprises me that the forum let him slide like nothing happened.

Yeah, I brought it over here but so what, he trashes the entire forum and it's all milk and cookies but I stand up to him and I'm the bad guy.

I suppose if I don't like it, why come back. There's the door so to speak.

I thought it was pretty assuming really, Cliff trashed the whole forum then when he was called out for it acted like he was the Victim and people were picking on him. :rolleyes:

And he got away with it again...

It really was amazing to watch, it really was.

FCM415 wrote: That's exactly what he did in that thread yet he gets a pass as always. Really surprises me that the forum let him slide like nothing happened.

Yeah, I brought it over here but so what, he trashes the entire forum and it's all milk and cookies but I stand up to him and I'm the bad guy.

I suppose if I don't like it, why come back. There's the door so to speak.

I like you FCM, you're a good guy. I think Jim is a good guy too. I just don't understand the animosity. No one is perfect, so while I understand that people may not agree with everything he has to say, I can't understand the desire to drive away a member who consistently provides some of the most detailed, informative, and thought provoking content here.

I was in and out of the Delica thread on page 1 and wasn't really following along after that, so I was refering more to all of the personal attacks and the mystery "dabble in red" troll who appeared a few weeks ago just to harass Cliff.

I skimmed through the recent comments in that warranty thread and while I agree that there may be some opportunities in the delivery, I have a hard time viewing any of the actual points made as objectionable. Especially as they were made in a general sense. It seems to me that he is passionate about that stuff because this place is important to him and because he has so much respect for Sal and Spyderco. Just urging everyone to be the best that they can be, so this place continues to be one of the best forums out there.

Anyway, I'm a member on Cliff's forum and have stood up for him here a few times, but if that makes me a part of a gang trying to "take over" this forum it's news to me. I've never pm'd or emailed with him. There's no collusion or conspiracy. I'm just willing to stand up and say the information this guy provides has been personally very helpful and I think the work he does is fascinating and I don't want to see it stop.

Hi Nate, I get all that. Driving Cliff out of the forum is the last thing on my mind. I also followed the drama with Cliff a month or so ago and the several before that one and it never seemed from the responses that the desired end result was to get him out or anything like that. If anything, other members are getting driven out by this witch hunt of his. I know how much he contributes on this forum, and that has nothing to do with what got me so riled up. There is an irony here in that by him calling out the entire forum in a thread that by all accounts actually went pretty well, he is the one that is censuring the forum unnecessarily. I do realize that my delivery needs some work... Cut out the harsh words and my points would be clearer. The way I took it, Cliff showed a great lack of respect by throwing everyone under the bus in a thread that was largely respectful to a very upset OP, I (in my on way) responded in kind. This is not the first time either. Yes, Cliff is not going anywhere, don't worry. I understand that and why that is but a line had to be drawn somewhere... He was in my opinion, way out of line.

I was always more of a don't throw stones if you live in a glass house sorta guy. :)

Everyone needs to look at themselves in the mirror, me included because nobody is perfect in the end.

But then I am smart enough not to go on a forum and blast the whole forum and it's members knowing what the expected outcome will be.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would even do that in the first place. :confused: