Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#81

Post by mirimir » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 6:10 AM UTC

ballooney wrote: post #77

mirimir wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?

That is the case, yes.

Cool. I guess it's just that there's a lot more demand for gun barrels than swords in recent centuries. So there's not much practical experience, and the delusion persists that the old ways are better.

But still, the patterns can be beautiful. I've seen blades with patterns that resemble engravings. Maybe the approaches could be merged, to yield modern performance with classic beauty.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#82

Post by colechristensen » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #76

colechristensen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that Damascus steel was a technology from before there was much metallurgy knowledge. These days we have a molecular knowledge of steel and can control and test the microstructure at that scale. If you really want the best knife you look to metallurgists not artisans. Whatever you could do with Damascus steel you could do better with modern alloys and science. There's nothing wrong with the old ways, but…

For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?

Yes, but it's also difficult to say there is strictly a modern/classical dichotomy and which method or material would belong in which bin.

Someone could certainly do some studies comparing methods and results, but anything of that matter would be very easy to bias.

What is clear is that classical methods are being employed by artists and not scientists. Mythology and visual appeal are being used to sell things, not quantifiable facts.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#83

Post by mirimir » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 6:24 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #82

mirimir wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?

Yes, but it's also difficult to say there is strictly a modern/classical dichotomy and which method or material would belong in which bin. Someone could certainly do some studies comparing methods and results, but anything of that matter would be very easy to bias. What is clear is that classical methods are being employed by artists and not scientists. Mythology and visual appeal are being used to sell things, not q…

Yes, I get that.

What matters now is mostly appearance. And maybe vague stuff about ability to keep an edge. But back in the day, you were in deep shit if your sword shattered. Or even got notched, if that put you off the flow.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#84

Post by hef19898 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 7:57 AM UTC

scns wrote: post #79

hprotagonist wrote: post #6

pattern welding is, effectively, a solution to a problem we don't have any more. When steel quality varied widely between batches, you needed a reliable way to mix it up so that the overall properties of the resulting object were predictable. This evolved into a more sophisticated technique that gave you not only predictability but differential properties (harder steel at the edge, more ductile in the spine) and a pr…

I know this does not have anithing to do with knives but Samurai swords are made from four different kinds of steel. The core, back, sides and the cutting edge. The sword is straight when forged and the arc comes from the hardening when the cutting edge expands more than the rest. Source: witnessed in person the first time when a katana was forged outside of japan at a festival at the japanese culture institute in co…

From a pure material perpective, the issues, also for the Japanese, was poor steel and iron ore quality (as an other comment stated above). So in order to get all you inpurities out of the final product, melting processes weren't up to the task yet, you are basically obliged to pattern weld the shit out of your steel.

Particularly in Japan, this was compounded by having iron ore mostly as part of a sand-ore mixture (without magnets getting the pure ore out without mixing it with sand is close to impossible). As a result the Japanese came up with a very smart forging technioque to solve that problem. And the swords, at least the high end ones, are pieces of art. Not fielding full-plate armor like the Europeans did, cutting remained a desired quality for a soldiers side arm. So they stuck with it. Simultaniously, the Europeans developed spring steel and weapons developed in a totally different direction.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#85

Post by roel_v » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:02 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #81

ballooney wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the case, yes.

Cool. I guess it's just that there's a lot more demand for gun barrels than swords in recent centuries. So there's not much practical experience, and the delusion persists that the old ways are better. But still, the patterns can be beautiful. I've seen blades with patterns that resemble engravings. Maybe the approaches could be merged, to yield modern performance with classic beauty.

But why? The hypothetical people who would actually fight with such things today don't care about how it looks. Go to a gun show or AR15 enthusiast forum and compare how those guns look with those that people in the military or SWAT teams use. Playing with guns/swords is fundamentally different from actually relying on them not to die. And then you have the people who like knives/swords for how they look, and would like to be able to argue that 'their' sword/knife also has the most utility if it were to be actually used. But they already do that, and are fully convinced of it, too! And the lack of actual substantive evidence (even if one could devise a single optimum function by which to measure each knife/sword...) is what keeps all these people, and the whole industry, going. So it's in nobodies interest to have one single 'best' thing. (and that's even ignoring that the amount of idiocy and stubbornness in such communities is staggering - look at the comments on the OP!)

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#86

Post by roel_v » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:03 AM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #78

colechristensen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that Damascus steel was a technology from before there was much metallurgy knowledge. These days we have a molecular knowledge of steel and can control and test the microstructure at that scale. If you really want the best knife you look to metallurgists not artisans. Whatever you could do with Damascus steel you could do better with modern alloys and science. There's nothing wrong with the old ways, but…

Actually some people do go for Rolex because +/- 2 spd guarantees much less of a hassle than certain other mechanical watches' upper bound of +5, +6, or +10 spd.

If someone wants to know the exact time, they don't get a mechanical watch. Everything else is post hoc justification.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#87

Post by roel_v » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:24 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #49

grzm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes exactly this point: > "First, let’s do a little freshening up on what exactly “Damascus steel” is. Damascus, Wootz, and patternweld are all names given to different types of steels and blades. Basically, the idea is that two or more steel alloys are forged/cast together through various methods to give the wavy artistic pattern that comes from such a layering process. Unfortunately, the technique for…

> "The other type of pattern-welded steel is the so called “Damascus steel”. Originally used in middle eastern sword making, the method has been lost since about the 16th century. That's simply wrong. It wasn't pattern-welded. It appeared similar to pattern-welded steel, but was manufactured without any pattern-welding.

"but was manufactured without any pattern-welding."

How do we know? I see this claimed a lot by those into the mystique of Damascus, but if we don't know how they were made as you claim, then how do you know they're not pattern welded?

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#88

Post by pluma » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:39 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #76

colechristensen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that Damascus steel was a technology from before there was much metallurgy knowledge. These days we have a molecular knowledge of steel and can control and test the microstructure at that scale. If you really want the best knife you look to metallurgists not artisans. Whatever you could do with Damascus steel you could do better with modern alloys and science. There's nothing wrong with the old ways, but…

For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?

> For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them.

You're thinking of theatrical fencing. All that cling-clang-cling makes for great visuals and sound but is undesirable in real combat.

Unless you have two knights in full armor clobbering each other over the head (at which point a mace is probably more efficient than a delicate sword) sword-on-sword contact is a means of last resort when you can't move out of the way.

Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him?

In fact, blocking is what sidearms are for. Grab a dagger or a buckler and take down the opponent's sword without binding yours. If swords do touch in combat it's usually at an angle and just enough to deflect the blow without overcommitting too much to risk wasting a the chance to get in a counter.

(full disclosure: I'm talking about European medieval swords and from having watched experienced HEMA fighters)

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#89

Post by mirimir » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:53 AM UTC

pluma wrote: post #88

mirimir wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?

> For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. You're thinking of theatrical fencing. All that cling-clang-cling makes for great visuals and sound but is undesirable in real combat. Unless you have two knights in full armor clobbering each other over the head (at which point a mace is probably more efficient than a delicate swo…

Those are good points. From Stephenson's Mongoliad, I get that binding the opponent's sword, and closing, are key moves. But I'm most familiar with Japanese style, from studying Aikido. We sometimes practiced with wooden bokken. And yes, any blade-blade contact is glancing.

But still, stuff happens.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#90

Post by mirimir » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 8:57 AM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #85

mirimir wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool. I guess it's just that there's a lot more demand for gun barrels than swords in recent centuries. So there's not much practical experience, and the delusion persists that the old ways are better. But still, the patterns can be beautiful. I've seen blades with patterns that resemble engravings. Maybe the approaches could be merged, to yield modern performance with classic beauty.

But why? The hypothetical people who would actually fight with such things today don't care about how it looks. Go to a gun show or AR15 enthusiast forum and compare how those guns look with those that people in the military or SWAT teams use. Playing with guns/swords is fundamentally different from actually relying on them not to die. And then you have the people who like knives/swords for how they look, and would l…

Yeah, I guess. Me, I just have a military-issue machete. It isn't pretty, but it's tough, and holds a good edge. All I've killed with it are weed trees, though ;)