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

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#91

Post by pluma » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 9:31 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #89

pluma wrote: post #88

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. 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.

Yeah, I think point 2 is still relevant, but intentionally damaging the opponent's sword is pointless. Ideally the fight doesn't last long enough for the accumulated damage to matter and focusing on damaging the sword is a worse strategy than focusing on incapacitating the person holding the sword (who by the way might still be dangerous without the sword).

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#92

Post by Pristina » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 9:32 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #83

colechristensen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What scenario am I in where I would have a sword, have it shattered and be in trouble?

In war, people mostly use polearms. In a sword fight, as has been shown in many HEMA videos i have seen, it's over in a single exchange. At that point it doesn't matter if your sword is shattered or not. And the idea that your sword being notched will 'put you off the flow' just doesn't buy it for me.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#93

Post by mirimir » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 9:41 AM UTC

pluma wrote: post #91

mirimir wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I think point 2 is still relevant, but intentionally damaging the opponent's sword is pointless. Ideally the fight doesn't last long enough for the accumulated damage to matter and focusing on damaging the sword is a worse strategy than focusing on incapacitating the person holding the sword (who by the way might still be dangerous without the sword).

Well, there is the move of capturing the opponent's blade against the guard, and then closing to stab with one's knife. The risk there is that your guard will fail. But if the opponent's blade breaks, they're likely in worse trouble.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#94

Post by qarioz » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:16 PM 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.

Cheap Casio has better accuracy than any mechanical watches.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#95

Post by ummonk » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #87

ummonk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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?

We do know generally how they were made. Wootz was crucible steel. It's just not a living tradition and we don't have documentation of the exact details.

In recent years, some people have been able to figure out the process, making use of impurities present in the original wootz, to create blades that chemically, structurally, and visually resemble the original wootz blade. The methods they have come up with are probably the same methods used to make original damascus blades; we just can't confirm that since the original process isn't documented well enough to know exact details.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#96

Post by dmix » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 3:47 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #58

I just watched a recent documentary on an attempt to recreate Wootz steel. Worth checking out if you're interested in the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP8PCkcBZU4

Al Pendray in the documentary also wrote a book about Wootz and explained why he believes the technique was 'lost to history':

> The smiths that produced the high-quality blades would most likely have kept the process for making these blades a closely guarded secret to be passed on only to their apprentices. The smiths would be able to teach the apprentices the second and third points listed, but point one is something they would not have known. There is no difference in physical appearance between an ingot with the proper minor elements present and one without. Suppose that during several generations all of the ingots from India were coming from an ore body with the proper amount of minor elements present, and blades with good patterns were being produced. Then, after a few centuries, the ore source may have been exhausted or become inaccessible to the smithing community; therefore, the technique no longer worked. With time, the smiths who knew about the technique died out without passing it on to their apprentices (since it no longer worked), so even if a similar source was later found, the knowledge was no longer around to exploit it. The possible validity of this theory could be examined if data were available on the level of carbide-forming elements in the various ore deposits in India used to produce wootz steel.

http://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/2017/06/knifemaking-legen...

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#97

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 5:18 PM 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.

https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/citizen-finedevice...

http://cfd.citizen.co.jp/english/prod-tech/product/pdf/datas...

This $0.79 (yes, 79 cents) quartz crystal is specified at 5 ppm (parts per million), or 0.432 spd.

That's its manufacturing tolerance by the way. With proper calibration, you can get it better than that. (Ex: a microcontroller tuned against an atomic clock, you can add / subtract cycles to get higher accuracy. Like, every million cycles, add or subtract a 5 cycle offset to correct for any manufacturing error).

The temperature turnover point is guaranteed to be 25C +/- 5C. Which means the crystal won't drift due to temperature somewhere in the 20C to 30C range.

Quartz crystal clocks from cheap Casio watches are basically all you need with modern technology. Low cost, low-drift, super cheap, high-reliability from manufacturing, cheap electronics (just a counter + a cycle offset if you calibrate), cheap calibration (atomic clock radio signals from any 1st world country is free).

32768 is the perfect number for 15-bit register. Move the second hand every 2^15 cycles (aka: every 15-bit overflow), possibly with a bit of offset if you have a calibration routine somewhere.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#98

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 6:14 PM 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…

> 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?

I dunno, I did a bit of fencing and I know there are all sorts of ways to bind the blade and counterattack simultaneously.

In fact, the a HUGE portion of the Die Blume des Kampfes (historical weapons manual) clearly includes a variety of sword-binding techniques. See the pictures yourself if you don't believe me:

http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes#Sword

It would seem that binding, blocking, and counter-attacking is a fundamental skill of historical sword fighters.

In my experience, it is virtually impossible to avoid the opponent's blade like a Hollywood sword master. Swords are surprisingly light when held with two hands (even a 5lb Claymore moves very quickly, even in the hands of a weakling!!), far faster than you can move your torso or even legs.

EDIT: Lots of other stuff here, but I was ranting. So I deleted it.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#99

Post by SamReidHughes » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #97

SamReidHughes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/citizen-finedevice... http://cfd.citizen.co.jp/english/prod-tech/product/pdf/datas... This $0.79 (yes, 79 cents) quartz crystal is specified at 5 ppm (parts per million), or 0.432 spd. That's its manufacturing tolerance by the way. With proper calibration, you can get it better than that. (Ex: a microcontroller tuned against an atomic clock, you can add / subtract cycles to g…

I specifically specified mechanical watches. You can even match plain quartz oscillators with new exotic mechanical escapements, such as one from Zenith Defy Lab.

You can get temperature compensated quartz watches that run at 10 or 5 spy. Note that watches spend a lot of time above 30C. There's not much point in calibrating relative to an atomic signal in a watch unless you're already thermocompensated.

It's arguable there's also no point unless you have hand correction tech (seen in some Casios and Citizens) too.

Re: Ask a Knifemaker: The Truth About Damascus Steel

#100

Post by rstuart4133 » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 6:30 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #51

21 wrote: post #17

> When it comes down to it, most of today’s super exotic alloys will outperform any pattern-welded steel ... A well-made Damascus blade will stay sharp for longer than most production quality knives, but if you’re looking for the ends-of-the-earth best performing blade steel, look elsewhere Can someone link/name one of these super exotic alloys knifes?

Some examples would be CPM S30V, S35VN, S90V, and S110V; CPM 3V, 9V, 10V, 15V; A2, D2, O1 and S7; VG-10. Some of these are arguably "more Damascus than Damascus", in a sense that they're also mixes, but on a much finer level. For example, S30V - a relatively affordable "super steel" - is one of those known as "powder steels" due to the way they're made, achieving extreme uniformity and purity of the alloy even at mic…

What I'd give to have that performance in a folding fish filleting knife. Resharpening after every 2nd fish when you have 30 fish to do gets tiresome after a while.

I tried to find such a beast, but either they don't exist of my google failed me.