Best This/Best that Questions

[One]

We see a lot of confusion and conflicting information when questions about steel selection and heat treating are worded, “What’s the best this or best that?”. What’s best depends on a number of things, personal opinion not being the least of them,… also specific circumstances, guiding philosophies, variables etc. People get frustrated by the multitude of conflicting answers, which most often leave them scratching their heads and lead them back to square one. This makes it evident that although heat treating usually involves a lot of science, in and of itself it is not an exact science, but more of an art. The misconception that heat treating is an exact science also leads to a lot of confusion and argumentation.

On the other hand if questions were worded more like, “What are some acceptable steels for such and such type of knife?“, or “what are some acceptable quenching mediums for such and such type of blade?”, or "what hardness range is acceptable for such and such type of knife?”,… and "why?", the tone would be much different and a lot of the bickering and confusion could be avoided. This would also empower the asker to make his/her own choice on what’s “best” based on the information and his/her own circumstances, perspective, preferences, philosophies and goals etc.

My personal feeling is that much beyond being acceptable, it’s all just a matter of opinion anyway.

If we ask a heat treating question with the word “best” in it, we shouldn’t be surprised when the answers that come back are all just a matter of opinion,… and that the “experts“ seldom agree. In essence, asking what’s "best" is asking for opinions and generally leads to arguments between those who pretend to know.

... Outside of basic principals of metallurgy, it's very subjective.

(Edited to say that, I'm sure we could also disagree on what is acceptable, what works, what doesn't work etc., but too a lesser degree with less offence and defense. There would still be room for opinions and healthy discussion.)

 

[Mr.Svinarich]

Eloquent and concise, thank you for sharing this.

 

[Don McNeil]

Well put Tai...I remember getting berated not too long ago from someone when I suggested my method for heat treating 5160. When I first started using 5160 from Aldo I found that one quench and one temper was leaving the edge soft. I started doing a triple normalize;quench; and temper which I had heard others doing. My results were very much improved. But someone decided to tell me that I basically needed to invest in better equipment and that I should not be giving such incorrect advice. And also that if I had heat treated the steel correctly one quench cycle was enough. Now I have been in the construction trades for a very long time and I have been making blades for a bout three years now so I have a pretty thick skin so I was able to let those comments just roll off me. Others may not be able to do that and I thin we do people (especially new makers) a dis-service by making them feel like they aren't smart enough or well enough equipped to make knives. Sorry for the soap box but I see this type of activity on a lot of forums and I think it leaves a bad taste for some people and instead of helping new makers they are alienated. Not Cool...

 

[Doug Lester]

Good point. I think the root of the problem is when people start wanting to make the best knife. Laudable, but they don't realize that triggers other questions, like best for what or best in what manner. Then there is also the question of does it have to be the best, can't it be good enough? As in are we letting the best be the enemy of the good? With all the trade-offs that a knife maker faces in producing a knife it is almost impossible to say what a "best" knife would be.

Then we have the personal prejudices of individual makers. They have their favorite steels and processes and, especially if they are espoused by some saint of knife making, anything contradictory is heresy. Here we need to tread carefully. Some of this orthodoxy has basis is solid science. Some is based on the misunderstanding of the science. Some is based on tradition and old wives' tales. Others on flights of fancy.

Doug

 

[Kevin R. Cashen]

There are other forums out there that say they are question and answer for giving tips on the craft, but that is lost in the large percentage of posts that end up being carping, sniping or picking at the semantics and nuances of how people post rather than what people post. Many folks have left those places to come to forums like this one, where they can get a straight answer without all the social drama, please let’s keep that in mind guys.

Compared to things like design considerations, aesthetic choices, knife use philosophies and many others that truly are artistic and subjective, heat treatment should be a welcome relief in its repeatable and verifiable principles which can be clearly defined and dealt with. Let’s just enjoy one little corner of the internet that values that quality shall we?

 

[One]

As in are we letting the best be the enemy of the good?

Good point and great question!

Personally, I trust "good", but question "best". "Good" to me means that it does what it's supposed to do the way it's supposed to, and then some. It works!... I'm not sure what "best" is either and think there are always a few trade offs.

 

[One]

Compared to things like design considerations, aesthetic choices, knife use philosophies and many others that truly are artistic and subjective, heat treatment should be a welcome relief in its repeatable and verifiable principles which can be clearly defined and dealt with.

True, there are repeatable, verifiable metallurgical principals, which can be defined, understood and dealt with in heat treating,... The art is in how they are interpreted, applied, played out and executed under any given set of circumstances or parameters. This part can vary and is usually a matter of opinion or choice.

I agree totally that the focus should be on understanding the principals,... not what is necessarily best in every or any set of circumstances. The problem that I see is that people often tend to prioritize, filter and manipulate the principals in order to theoretically prove their approach and/or assessment is "best" in all cases,... or just out of nessesity.

What's "best" isn't an objective question.

 

[Brad Lilly]

Good points have been made in this thread. There is a wealth of information on the web about steel choice and heat treating, some good some not. To the new knifemaker the information can cause overload. I honestly think a lot of the threads that start with "what is the best steel or heat treatment for..." are from a sincere desire to get solid useful information out professionals.

“What are some acceptable steels for such and such type of knife?“, or “what are some acceptable quenching mediums for such and such type of blade?”, or "what hardness range is acceptable for such and such type of knife?”,… and "why?"

These are the perfect questions for the new knifemaker to ask. They show some thought has gone into them before the standard "what is the best steel"

 

[Don McNeil]

Good points have been made in this thread. There is a wealth of information on the web about steel choice and heat treating, some good some not. To the new knifemaker the information can cause overload. I honestly think a lot of the threads that start with "what is the best steel or heat treatment for..." are from a sincere desire to get solid useful information out professionals.



These are the perfect questions for the new knifemaker to ask. They show some thought has gone into them before the standard "what is the best steel"

Agreed...so when we are faced with these questions of best...steering them toward the correct questions will help them immensely. And most people here will and are doing that but there are still some that get so caught up in their own technical interpretation of what "best" is. Frankly I think some new makers faced with those explanations may quit before they ever start.

 

[Mark Behnke]

Best This/Best that Questions

These questions are asked about many aspects of knifemaking, blade grind and edge type, profile shape, thickness handle construction etc.
Seems to me this thread would get a greater audience and do a lot more good if moved to New to Knifemaking or Knifemakers Shop Talk

 

[Kevin R. Cashen]

Best This/Best that Questions

These questions are asked about many aspects of knifemaking, blade grind and edge type, profile shape, thickness handle construction etc.
Seems to me this thread would get a greater audience and do a lot more good if moved to New to Knifemaking or Knifemakers Shop Talk

Needless to say, I think that is a grand idea! Which of those forums would benefit the most?

 

[One]

Either one.

 

[Roger]

I don't think there is any 'best'. It's what an individual gets the 'best' results from. The question should be, "When (whatever) what method do you use? Teach me all the various methods and I'll figure out the 'best' way for me to do it.

 

[Drew Riley]

I agree that "what is best" is often subjective, and must often be dependent on a number of factors and criteria that can easily and widely vary from maker to maker, or application to application.

For example, questions of "best grind" should really be changed to "preferred grind" or "personal favorite grind", and have a specific application in mind.

To put it another way, back when I worked construction, some guys preferred a 12 oz. hammer, some a 16 oz., and some a 20 oz. hammer. The all put the nails into the wood, and none of them necessarily did one job better than another. The ultimate effectiveness of the hammer really depended not on its weight, shape, composition or otherwise, but on the individual swinging it.

Now, that's not to say that a 20 oz. hammer won't drive a nail in "faster" or "easier" than a 12 oz. hammer (this is where science/physics tend to "weigh in", pun intendid), all other things being equal, but I've noticed some carpenters tend to still work better and longer with a slightly lighter hammer, while others worked better with a heavier hammer.

[/analogy]

I would also like to add, specifically in regard to heat treatment: The science doesn't flex or change (isn't subjective), only the equipment/tools, techniques, materials, and the ability of the knife maker to apply these appropriately.

The "art" comes in controlling what you can change (quench mediums, temperatures, soak times, materials, etc....) in order to yeild results that can't be changed, or in other words, must strictly adhere to those given changes.

I think the main challenge for most makers isn't so much the "science" of heat treating, but whether or not they are actually understanding and working within those boundaries.

Just my $.02

 

[One]

I would also like to add, specifically in regard to heat treatment: The science doesn't flex or change (isn't subjective), only the equipment/tools, techniques, materials, and the ability of the knife maker to apply these appropriately.

The "art" comes in controlling what you can change (quench mediums, temperatures, soak times, materials, etc....) in order to yeild results that can't be changed, or in other words, must strictly adhere to those given changes.

The "scientific principals" (or metallurgy) haven't changed in on long time and probably never will within the context of conventional knifemaking in our lifetimes. This is no different in any of the other classic or traditional "arts and crafts",.... sculpture, ceramics, glass, fibers etc. The "principals" are pretty much fixed and static. The principals won't "do" anything by themselves. However, I don't see how you get through the process of actually creating an art/craft object, without some experimenting, testing, doing some real science on your own, making decisions for yourself and the science is not necessarily static or dead in that sense. There always seems to be that aspect to it and some subjective considerations (matters of opinion, taste, personal preference/perspective etc.) to knifemaking and heat treating as well. It's not "art vs science", but rather "art and science" or "science and art". Generally speaking, I guess you could say the science represents the objective side and the art more the subjective side.

When those two things go hand in hand with the goal to create an object of subjective expression, (functional or non functional), we generally refer to it as an art/craft of some type,... fine art, industrial art or design, folk art etc.

... Although the metallurgy is objective and fixed, I think history shows that there are also subjective considerations or personal decisions/opinions to be made in heat treating and performance, in context with knifemaking. This is probably the main reason why the general consensus and logic is that heat treating is more of an art than a science. I don't think this will change in our lifetimes, but the big push has been to make heat treating more "scientific" than it has been,... I don't see anything wrong with that as long as we don't lose site of the "art" and the freedom of expression it represents.

 

[One]

... I might also add that the superficial “trappings of science”,... equipment, gadgetry, esoteric language, the walk/talk etc., do not make one approach or person more “scientific“ than the other. Science rests on certain philosophical beliefs, logic and methodology that can be incorporated and used anywhere and everywhere by anyone at any time,… not just by an elite few with white smocks and a lab full of microscopes and test tubes on a full moon.

Science is for everyone, and so is art. We all get to play!