Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 347
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    69
    Posts
    7,377

    Default

    Rob

    I feel a few comments need to be made in the light of developments on this thread and indeed with the menace of Sawmillcreek looming in the background.

    Firstly I would like to thank you for taking such a huge amount of time in preparing your testing and subsequently posting the information here on the Forum. I do know how long this takes and how much effort is involved.

    Sometimes I think we, actually all of us, forget that this Forum is a facility for discussion. It would be hopeful to think that all out comments are going to be favourably received, but I do believe we have a right to expect some civility. My perspective is that all your testing has been performed with integrity foremost in your mind.

    It does seem to be very unfortunate that some people are so blunt in challenging findings. I have noticed that it is a very prevalent trait amongst the "cousins." Don't worry: Australians can be blunt too and the Woodwork Forums have had their fair share of stoushes!

    As to the testing itself I do see an inconsistency with the apparent hardness of the plates and the ability to file them. I remember being told in carpentry to measure several times and then step back and see if it looks right. If it still doesn't look right, measure yet again. If we need a difference of RC15 between the plate and the file, something may not be quite right with the findings as that would indicate a maximum of RC50 for the sawplates.

    However the relativity may still be there between the plates. I am assuming that any discrepancy is the same for each plate. Consquently the plate that came up with a low hardness is still an issue even if the value itself is incorrect. I'm not sure if I have explained that satisfactorily.

    Not everybody is set up to conduct laboratory style testing. Readers must accept that testing is available at a "entry level" basis. I think it is up to you regarding publishing names. In these times where litigious activity is a profitable sideline for many, I would be keeping such information under wraps until I was sure I could back up statements. It is not quite the same as if you buy a power tool and it fails (smoke escapes from the motor for example).

    Again, you have my thanks for attempting this testing and enduring what must have been a very trying and disappointing time. I am a registered member of Sawmillcreek, but I have never posted there and in truth rarely visit: Normally it would only be if a link is provided. I am afraid that attitudes such as displayed on that Forum are not conducive to interaction. I doubt I will be inclined to contribute there until such time as the culture changes, but I am not anticipating they will miss my presence .

    Regards
    Paul
    Last edited by Bushmiller; 15th Jan 2015 at 07:08 AM. Reason: Misprint on figures. Max plate hardness of RC50.
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    I doubt I will be inclined to contribute there until such time as the culture changes, but I am not anticipating they will miss my presence .

    Regards
    Paul
    Well, you might be in luck! I have nearly ceased posting there (and intend to entirely), and I think George's interests are more in the area of metallics and as time goes on, you'll run into him only if you frequent machinists forums. It will be free to go back to "no questions asked, any answer is correct" status after that, with an occasional barb probably shot by Warren Mickley (a consummate professional) and perhaps some of the other professionals who go in and out.

    A bit of disagreement is what lubricates the brain to buckle down and really think.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,287

    Default

    I just added some info into Robs Disston D-8 replica posting.

    Stewie;

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,024

    Default

    Okay, now on to the subject of the ethics of my withholding the identity of Maker 3. In principle I agree with Stewie. Everyone should have the benefit of knowing who Maker 3 is with the very important proviso that I only tested one saw from each maker. Unfortunately I do not live in a country or state where such honesty goes unpunished.
    I refer you to this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-j...-fooddef_1-20/

    For those who don't want to read the linked transcript the synopsis is: Oprah Winfrey said some things on her television show that the Beef Industry didn't like. The subsequent court actions proceeded for years and consumed millions of dollars in legal fees.
    Lawsuits of this type are now called SLAP's. In fact there is a Wikipedia page devoted to them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg..._participation

    I do not have millions to spend on attorneys.

    I understand that many of you are not aware of the legal situation where I live but let me assure you that such laws are being used by monied interests to bring spurious lawsuits against people who complain.

    Thus I'll throw down the gauntlet: If any of you want to fully indemnify me for any losses, including my time (at the rate I earn in my real profession, not my saw making) that I might incur as a result of such suit being filed against me then I'll fess up. Be aware however that you might lose everything you own including your money, your business, your job, your home, your family and every material item you posses.

    So now who is willing to step forward?
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob streeper View Post
    Okay, now on to the subject of the ethics of my withholding the identity of Maker 3. In principle I agree with Stewie. Everyone should have the benefit of knowing who Maker 3 is with the very important proviso that I only tested one saw from each maker. Unfortunately I do not live in a country or state where such honesty goes unpunished.
    I refer you to this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-j...-fooddef_1-20/

    For those who don't want to read the linked transcript the synopsis is: Oprah Winfrey said some things on her television show that the Beef Industry didn't like. The subsequent court actions proceeded for years and consumed millions of dollars in legal fees.

    I do not have millions to spend on attorneys.

    I understand that many of you are not aware of the legal situation where I live but let me assure you that such laws are being used by monied interests to bring spurious lawsuits against people who complain.

    Thus I'll throw down the gauntlet: If any of you want to fully indemnify me for any losses, including my time (at the rate I earn in my real profession, not my saw making) that I might incur as a result of such suit being filed against me then I'll fess up. Be aware however that you might lose everything you own including your money, your business, your job, your home, your family and every material item you posses.

    So now who is willing to step forward?
    In your estimation, do you feel that possibly the highest profile and most public case of the oprah beef debacle (IIRC that was in reference to BSE) is a reasonable comparison vs. mentioning the hardness of a saw plate?

    Did you at least tell the manufacturer that you tested a saw plate of theirs in the 30s? Comparing this to the beef case (or the later pink slime case) is a bit dramatic.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,024

    Default

    For those who are disturbed by my results on the Disston saws, remember I was fully up front about my realization on the limitations of testing under the handles.
    The occasionally vituperative rejection of my results, rejections which I note were unsupported by carefully qualified data such as mine, remind me of the Procrustean bed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,250

    Default

    It's been interesting Rob, but it's getting a little too weird for me. I hope you get your data corrected and show users relevant numbers for the disstons, it will help your credibility. If you don't, that's up to you.

    Good luck with the saw making.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corneel View Post
    These look like reasonable numbers. 50-51 for 1095. One point less when sanded and 2 to 3 points more when work hardened. I wonder if this work hardening is only at the surface and won't change the ability to file very much?

    Here is some old data I found when googling arounf on the old tools list.

    http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.p...ubmit_thread=1

    The old saws all register lower values then your 1095 sheet. He also uses one of the N-tests. You can read about that lower down in that thread.
    Hi Corneel,

    Interesting. However it must be borne in mind that the values are averages of only three data points. We have no way of judging the spread in the data. The region of the saws that was tested is also unclear. Am I missing something?

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D.W. View Post
    It's been interesting Rob, but it's getting a little too weird for me. I hope you get your data corrected and show users relevant numbers for the disstons, it will help your credibility. If you don't, that's up to you.

    Good luck with the saw making.
    That's what I call 'vituperative', 'sanctimonious' could also be fairly used in my opinion.
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob streeper View Post
    Hi Corneel,

    Interesting. However it must be borne in mind that the values are averages of only three data points. We have no way of judging the spread in the data. The region of the saws that was tested is also unclear. Am I missing something?

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Yes I think you are missing something. It certainly isn't a scientific report and he is a bit foggy in some of his formulations, but lower down in the thread you can read these explanations:

    3 whacks at 1 spot on 1 sample. Average the 3 tests and that's
    1 reading. Then we took other readings on different areas of the
    sample. Eliminated highest and lowest, averaged the rest and that
    is the number given on the list.

    [...]


    The saws had an even hardness. 3 tests on one spot done on 4
    different areas of the same sample. The average of the 3 tests
    varied only by 0.3 HRC from one area to the other. The D8 had
    higher variance but I don't have the numbers here.
    And what's more, his numbers don't seem so strange to me. I have two Disston D8's, a bunch of English saws and also made a couple of backsaws myself from 1095 steel plate. So I have some experience filing sawplates. The D8's don't feel very hard or brittle to me. They're just good saws with a nice spring temper, don't wear very fast and haven't shown any problem with setting the teeth.





  11. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob streeper View Post
    Hi Corneel,

    Interesting. However it must be borne in mind that the values are averages of only three data points. We have no way of judging the spread in the data. The region of the saws that was tested is also unclear. Am I missing something?

    Cheers,
    Rob
    His three values are more relevant, and his hardness testers (the C tester), miles more accurate. I think you are getting swept up in what you can plug into your statistical program without understanding the validity of the data.

    You may note his comment that except for the D8, the saws have even hardness. We don't know if that's at three places along the tooth line, three along the spine, but a betting man would assume not 3 different areas under the handles (anything is possible, though).
    The saws had an even hardness. 3 tests on one spot done on 4
    different areas of the same sample. The average of the 3 tests
    varied only by 0.3 HRC from one area to the other. The D8 had
    higher variance but I don't have the numbers here.

    Three tests of three strikes with the mean of each of the three tests varying by 0.3 HRC is very little.

    Now, you've mentioned you won't test the saws at the tooth line because you don't want to put dings in your saws. There are, however, numerous sales of junk saws on ebay that are just blown out versions of otherwise professional saws. I would imagine you could probably find half a dozen saws shipped to you in one of those lots for $50 and get relevant data, something that a meaningful conclusion would be drawn from. I'll bet you could easily find five people who would send you ten bucks on paypal to fund finding saws that are otherwise a no-sale that you can strike at the teeth. I sure would. I don't know if I have some old main line saws that could be sheared (saws with kinks, etc) that you could test, but I might. If I do, I will send the parts of their plates that fit in a flat rate box or mailing tube, just in the interest of getting relevant data.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,024

    Default

    Okay David, here's the C scale analysis. I used the same pieces of 0.035" 1095 that I described above.
    I recently had to move my B/C tester and never checked it. Today I did a quick calibration check and found it was off. I adjusted some and got the machine linear albeit with a non zero intercept and a slight deviation in the response slope. Easily corrected numerically and a very time consuming job to adjust the tester mechanically so I did the correction numerically. Ambient temperature was 17 oC.

    Everything worked fine and the results are convergent with the N45 results.




    https://video.search.yahoo.com/video...&hsimp=yhs-001
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,024

    Default Want to form a peer reviewed tool making journal?

    I just had a thought ladies and gentlemen, given the amount of work I put in on this hardness analysis and the complexity of other projects I see posted on this site would anybody be interested in forming a group to prepare article type postings here?
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,287

    Default

    Hi Rob. If this thread is an example of the group activities you have in mind, you can count me out.

    Stewie;

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Age
    69
    Posts
    6,125

    Default

    Hi Rob,

    I'm all for researching materials and methods to make better tools, but I don't see the need to be quite so academic about it. You don't need to defend every statement you make, you just need to understand that there are others who have knowledge and experience that should be listened to, thought about, and digested. It's not about statistical analysis of the data, it's about understanding and interpreting the data.

    All of this thread could be summarized in just a short post. Something like, I have found that hammered saw plate exhibits a higher surface hardness. Then you could go on to describe ( in brief ) the measurements. I wouldn't even report the other sawmakers plate hardness results.

    Like Stewie, I'm more interested in making saws, and what makes a saw perform and feel right. It's about touch and feel, things that aren't so easily measured.


    Ray

Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hardening & Tempering
    By Dovetail in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 8th Feb 2014, 11:07 AM
  2. Case hardening
    By Pete F in forum METALWORK FORUM
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18th Nov 2011, 10:05 PM
  3. Induction hardening
    By morrisman in forum METALWORK FORUM
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2nd Oct 2011, 09:59 AM
  4. brass hardening
    By Eldanos of KDM in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 8th Jul 2010, 12:56 PM
  5. Timber hardening
    By boris in forum FINISHING
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31st Jan 2004, 11:01 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •