Surfingringo wrote:Accept their opinion or try to change it.
That is a false dichotomy, but in order to actually see the other option you have to have an objective view of truth.
Chum posts here at times, he also posts on T0.1M about issues such as morality, religion and other topics which are far more controversial than the scratch resistance of metals. I don't accept his perspective, however I don't try to change it either. Discussions don't require either of those.
Donut wrote:
Then you'll always have those people who just like the sound of the name better or like how they appear on social media, which has nothing to do with science.
Of course, but that is again a different type of claim, you are not talking about the analog of the performance of the knife in that type of claim, you are talking about something like the weeaboo effect of owning it.
Now if someone wanted to make the statement "It doesn't matter what is on a patent application, the only way for you to know how cool it makes you feel to own a knife is to own it!", then of course material science doesn't try to figure out how owning a knife makes you feel part of a clique.
It could be that he's familiar with 1095 and that it works "well enough" at the price point.
As I have noted before there is a difference in stating a preference and talking about material properties. Is it not clear to you that :
-I like 1095 in fillet knives.
and
-1095 has higher corrosion resistance than 440C
are two very different types of claims. One is a subjective preference and one is a claim of an objective fact. Materials science deals with if one is true or not. The other one is true simply by being stated and it is explored in evolutionary psychology for the why and experimental psychology for the what.
Hence the well known quote "You are entitled to you own opinions, just not your own facts." .
Cliff Stamp wrote:
It is probably the conclusion that they expect to see and differences in their constraints.
I don't believe the biases are dominant based on what both have described as both of them are taking steps to minimize conclusion bias. However the methods are not the same and there are differences in the steels used, the sharpening - essentially everything is different. However the point of it is that they are talking to each other to try to understand why they are reaching different conclusions and thus actually learn what they are really saying as they can't actually be in conflict unless one (or both) are insane and not reporting what they are observing.
Cliff Stamp wrote:
420HC seems to get a bad wrap getting bundled with the other 400 series steels.
Hence why 420V was renamed. If you want to see interesting work on 420HC class steel then look at Verhoeven's work comparing it to 52100 / 1084.
I honestly believe that the general conclusions of steel could be gathered, if the data pool was large enough and the method of gathering the information was sound... and you could get useful information out of it. All of the people carrying and using all of this steel seem to generate far more testing and conclusions than the dozens of people doing more strict testing.
Hence why I have been sponsoring passarounds since the late 90's. The problem in most cases is getting people to report information in enough detail to make sense out of them as it isn't trivial to try to correlate the performance to what is causing it.
Maybe we should start a thread where you were using a knife and it performed different than you were expecting.
There is an entire thread on the forum where I describe experiments which "fail" in the sense that they can not even be completed because the performance of the knife was so different that the original scope of work can't be completed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1nPXrV--g" target="_blank
I originally planned to do a low performance benchmark for high sharpness slicing wood :
-cut pine
-stop when the knife would not shave
-use a very cheap/basic steel
-coarse apex
The last two conditions were set to allow the performance to be so low I could do the work a number of times fairly quickly. However as it turns out, even with the most basic steels I had which are literally $1 stainless steel knives then 1000+ slices into pine would not remove the shaving sharpness.
Even with a very similar steel, in a very sharp cheap knife, with a very poor choice apex finish (420HC/Leatherman Crater/Norton Economy fine) it still took 1100 (100) slices to remove the shaving sharpenss when I switched to hardwoods over pine.
If I switch to a more sensible apex finish (much higher polish) and jump up the knife even a little (Normark EKA 12C27) then 2000 slices won't remove the shaving sharpness and the edge retention is essentially infinite because the edge would get damaged long before it would slowly wear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVzJiZF5YeE" target="_blank
Here I originally planned to cut used carpet until I could not cut it any more. The problem is that never really happened. After 1000 slices the original knife used could still do semi-precise cutting let alone cut the carpet. I then repeated it with two other knives to confirm behavior.