Cheshirechappie
Established Member
SammyQ":ta0bj17b said:CC!! Slap your wrists right now!!That's not wot I said!
Sam
Well, maybe so - but it's wot I said!
"I only sharpen to what's needed for the task"
- Thread starter D_W
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Well, maybe so - but it's wot I said!
SammyQ
Established Member
David, I fully "get' your points. I would add that, as wood is such a hetergeneous ( Down,Jacob!!) material, even within a species, one might even argue against the validity of applying statistical rigour to testing it.
The metal of blade x or y is a different matter, as any one batch (pour) of steel must be inheritently identically composed; ergo, with sufficiently stringent process control, most batches of same would be close enough to be subject to apply empirical, repeatable testing?
I am loth to pursue this mathematical justification to the nth degree, 'swatting fruitflies with a steam hammer' seems a good metaphor ](*,) but the observed trends as you summarised them are still valid. [Yes, hair-splitters out there, not "valid" in a purely Gaussian test context].
Sam
The metal of blade x or y is a different matter, as any one batch (pour) of steel must be inheritently identically composed; ergo, with sufficiently stringent process control, most batches of same would be close enough to be subject to apply empirical, repeatable testing?
I am loth to pursue this mathematical justification to the nth degree, 'swatting fruitflies with a steam hammer' seems a good metaphor ](*,) but the observed trends as you summarised them are still valid. [Yes, hair-splitters out there, not "valid" in a purely Gaussian test context].
Sam
Agreed...It's probably not possible to read through the whole thread, but the rotating of irons 5 to 8 times before they're even dull isn't to eliminate some of the same variability within the same batch of wood, but literally to eliminate the variability within each small unit of the same board (from inch to inch,etc).
Even the blade issue is interesting. One would assume that the industrial process are more reliable than a guy like me heating an iron by color, dipping it in oil (ok, more than just dipping) and tempering in a kitchen oven with a thermometer, but I've found that I can be more consistent than some advertised ranges (I may not be able to if my process and familiarity was changed). The process, industrially, has potential to be more accurate than me, but in practice, things slip.
The 3V iron that I tested was sent to me as an iron 61 hardness. This was requested vs. the typical 59 (that is given as mandatory for knife users). It was treated by either paul bos or someone else similar and sent back with its order details. If we fall asleep at the switch, we can just believe that number. I had put the chinese iron in this test because i knew they wore well and they're exceptionally cheap. it'd be a great whiz-bang kind of thing if they matched the most expensive irons we could find, but they didn't. Bill (the chemist) really wanted to know what they are (I said I suspected hard M2 based on how they feel on sharpening stones and how they wear, but one can never be too sure). I was also confused by the fact that they don't seem to hold on to a wire edge the way you'd expect M2 to, so I wasn't sure, but I've ground them to orange on a glazed grinding wheel in the past to see if they reharden in the air like HSS does (they do).
The person who provided the 3V iron requested I send it to Bill to be tested with others (I didn't feel like doing the testing, I'm interested in the result - what can practically be used by someone who is looking at these irons and being told all kinds of conflicting information). Bill didn't want to test it, but gave in, and he tested one of the chinese irons (not my exact one, but they have similar feeling characteristics). The 3V tested as 59, and then bill recalled that they did have a batch (he was woven in when those irons were being made 10 years ago as a better alternative for the well heeled to A2, which is kind of like changing wet socks for a pair of newer wet socks) that they specified at 61, but the heat treater messed them up.
So our 61 hardness iron with proof of treatment/order at 61 is actually 59. The 61 hardness chinese iron isn't quite M2 (which doesn't bother me, I can't tell the difference and I didn't think it was vital for this test) and its lack of desire to hold wire edges was easily identifed when finding out that it was 65 hardness on the business end and still above spec right next to the braze).
I am an applied mathematician of sorts by profession. I got into this hobby thinking I had a leg up on understanding things any time data or specifications was available, and I got trapped in a lot of the same marketing things other beginners do (finer faster stones, etc), but learned over time I could gain more in the shop with observation and paying attention (to results and effort, and economy of effort) than I could trying to push things into specification and perfect control. Moving forward with what's likely and acquiring more skill, etc, is much faster and with a better payoff than trying to figure out how to make sure everything is absolutely definite in all senses (practically not possible).
if I had planed the beech board that resulted in V11 going 1700 feet, the next one that resulted in V11 going 2200 feet and the sap of a third that resulted in CTS-XHP going over 4000 feet with different irons, and thought that i had relevant results just because I used boards of similar density from the same batch, we'd have gotten some pretty bad results.
The thrill of going 4000 feet with the last iron was pretty quickly squashed by O1 going just over 2000 feet on the same board after going 800 on the board where LV's iron did about 1700.
Even the blade issue is interesting. One would assume that the industrial process are more reliable than a guy like me heating an iron by color, dipping it in oil (ok, more than just dipping) and tempering in a kitchen oven with a thermometer, but I've found that I can be more consistent than some advertised ranges (I may not be able to if my process and familiarity was changed). The process, industrially, has potential to be more accurate than me, but in practice, things slip.
The 3V iron that I tested was sent to me as an iron 61 hardness. This was requested vs. the typical 59 (that is given as mandatory for knife users). It was treated by either paul bos or someone else similar and sent back with its order details. If we fall asleep at the switch, we can just believe that number. I had put the chinese iron in this test because i knew they wore well and they're exceptionally cheap. it'd be a great whiz-bang kind of thing if they matched the most expensive irons we could find, but they didn't. Bill (the chemist) really wanted to know what they are (I said I suspected hard M2 based on how they feel on sharpening stones and how they wear, but one can never be too sure). I was also confused by the fact that they don't seem to hold on to a wire edge the way you'd expect M2 to, so I wasn't sure, but I've ground them to orange on a glazed grinding wheel in the past to see if they reharden in the air like HSS does (they do).
The person who provided the 3V iron requested I send it to Bill to be tested with others (I didn't feel like doing the testing, I'm interested in the result - what can practically be used by someone who is looking at these irons and being told all kinds of conflicting information). Bill didn't want to test it, but gave in, and he tested one of the chinese irons (not my exact one, but they have similar feeling characteristics). The 3V tested as 59, and then bill recalled that they did have a batch (he was woven in when those irons were being made 10 years ago as a better alternative for the well heeled to A2, which is kind of like changing wet socks for a pair of newer wet socks) that they specified at 61, but the heat treater messed them up.
So our 61 hardness iron with proof of treatment/order at 61 is actually 59. The 61 hardness chinese iron isn't quite M2 (which doesn't bother me, I can't tell the difference and I didn't think it was vital for this test) and its lack of desire to hold wire edges was easily identifed when finding out that it was 65 hardness on the business end and still above spec right next to the braze).
I am an applied mathematician of sorts by profession. I got into this hobby thinking I had a leg up on understanding things any time data or specifications was available, and I got trapped in a lot of the same marketing things other beginners do (finer faster stones, etc), but learned over time I could gain more in the shop with observation and paying attention (to results and effort, and economy of effort) than I could trying to push things into specification and perfect control. Moving forward with what's likely and acquiring more skill, etc, is much faster and with a better payoff than trying to figure out how to make sure everything is absolutely definite in all senses (practically not possible).
if I had planed the beech board that resulted in V11 going 1700 feet, the next one that resulted in V11 going 2200 feet and the sap of a third that resulted in CTS-XHP going over 4000 feet with different irons, and thought that i had relevant results just because I used boards of similar density from the same batch, we'd have gotten some pretty bad results.
The thrill of going 4000 feet with the last iron was pretty quickly squashed by O1 going just over 2000 feet on the same board after going 800 on the board where LV's iron did about 1700.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The would-be perfectionist may get stuck with his perfect routines and obsession with details, whereas chap working for max speed and just good enough result, can always slow down and do it better, if called upon. So it's not about perfection it's about optimisation - getting best value/effort ratio.D_W":8pal2934 said:
Wrongfoot
Established Member
I enjoyed reading this from the beginning...
Is this supposed to be as hilarious as it is? Some sort of performance art? :lol:
Is this supposed to be as hilarious as it is? Some sort of performance art? :lol:
SammyQ
Established Member
No Mucker, I found your information useful; made me pause and consider. No joke.
Sam
Sam
Wrongfoot
Established Member
I didn't say anyone's content was wrong or not useful.
Some of the passion and prose style is definitely entertaining though, that combined with the interactions and disagreements was great fun. Mostly because no-one lost it and was rude.
Please don't be offended. I was just cheered up by the forum content after a tough day.
Some of the passion and prose style is definitely entertaining though, that combined with the interactions and disagreements was great fun. Mostly because no-one lost it and was rude.
Please don't be offended. I was just cheered up by the forum content after a tough day.
