Showing 1 of 119 conversations about:
Kavik
4313
Feb 14, 2018
bookmark_border
@Deaomega1214A different question if you don't mind
You mentioned low magnetism due to low carbon content. Is there any hope of this blade staying hanging (tip up) on the average magnetic wall mounted board, the kind that has the magnets covered by a thin layer of wood over the whole surface? (ie: no direct metal to magnet contact)
Feb 14, 2018
JonasHeineman
5947
Collaborations
Feb 14, 2018
bookmark_border
I have two knives made from BD1N (slicer and bread knife below) and use this exact type of board to hold them tip-up. In comparison to this knife, they are much slimmer but have lighter handles. My guess is that it will be just fine, but I'm happy to test it out and report back.
search
Feb 14, 2018
Kavik
4313
Feb 14, 2018
bookmark_border
Thanks Jonas. Not a make or break kind of thing, but just something I was thinking about while we wait :)
Feb 14, 2018
Axeguy
1204
Feb 14, 2018
bookmark_border
Nice collection Jonas! And all lined up on the wall, perfectly set up for throwing...lol! (Kidding) When I see what you’ve got there, it adds a whole new level of appreciation when I read your knife posts. Cheers, Brother!
Feb 14, 2018
Kavik
4313
Feb 14, 2018
bookmark_border
Even if they ARE a bunch of very western handles on very Japanese blades 😂😂😜
@JonasHeineman can you tell us what #2 and #4 are?
P. S. On Android, using Chrome, tagging people by using the @ sign then picking the name from the pop up totally screws up the text entry. In mobile mode it just closes the firm without saving changes. In "desktop mode" it let's me type one word after that then closes and saves. Just an fyi for your tech people 👍
P. P. S. Then if i edit again to fix a typo after getting the tag working, the tag disappears when i hit submit again
Feb 14, 2018
Deaomega1214
470
Apogee Culinary Designs
Feb 14, 2018
bookmark_border
That of course would depend on the strength of the magnet. However in my own home the seem to stick fine.
Feb 14, 2018
Kavik
4313
Feb 14, 2018
bookmark_border
Yes, of course dependant on that :) Thanks
Feb 14, 2018
harrisonh
51
Mar 11, 2018
bookmark_border
carbon content has nothing to do with magnetic nature. this is NOT a low carbon content knife. BD1N has about.9 carbon vs .5 for "german steel".Magnetic ability is due to type of steel in terms of austentite, martinsite, ferrite, etc
Mar 11, 2018
Kavik
4313
Mar 11, 2018
bookmark_border
Hmmm, okay. Not a metallurgist, was just asking that in reference to this comment from the maker- "The carbon is also very low. This alloy has some of the lowest magnetic properties out there."
I thought it had something to do with carbon, since low carbon stainless tend to be less magnetic? But, as I said, not a metallurgist lol
Mar 11, 2018
Deaomega1214
470
Apogee Culinary Designs
Mar 11, 2018
bookmark_border
I’m afraid you are incorrect. The higher the carbon content vs the Chromium content has a direct corolation to how susceptible the alloy is to becoming magnetic. You also can’t just say that all German Steel is .5% cabon, that just isn’t true.
Mar 11, 2018
Deaomega1214
470
Apogee Culinary Designs
Mar 11, 2018
bookmark_border
Here is an article that shows conclusively that Carbon level does correlate to magnetisim. Please see page four. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/13/nbsbulletinv13n2p173_A2b.pdf
Mar 11, 2018
Kavik
4313
Mar 11, 2018
bookmark_border
Found an article here on carbon content effects on magnetism: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1660436 Cutting edge research from 1971 😂
Edit: hahaha Deaomega beat me to it by less than a minute..... With what I'm assuming is a more in depth (and more current haha) article than the one i linked to
Mar 11, 2018
harrisonh
51
Mar 12, 2018
bookmark_border
chromium over 13% is considered "stainless" (really less stain) regardless of the carbon content. "German steel" is a generic term for DIN 1.4116 steel. "4116" steel is .5% carbon. I used to be a brand ambassador in my MUCH younger days for one of the "top two". Here is the chemical composition of "German Steel. http://zknives.com/knives/steels/steelgraph.php?nm=4116
And the BD1N you're using is not "low" in carbon. It has as much carbon as many popular steels such as VG10 and AEBL and more carbon than AUS8.
you guys are taking carbon content alone yet disregarding other properties of steel. Ferratic steels have 12 to about 25% chromium.
And yes, I know deaomega works for apogee. In fact it worries me. I guess I just made up my mind about the drop. WILL buy more some sheaths, though!
Mar 12, 2018
harrisonh
51
Mar 12, 2018
bookmark_border
yeah, I have a few dragons and I guess the laws of physics are different in Jonas' house and my house---- than deomegas house. I guess in deomegas house .5% is somehow higher than .9%
I've got tons of vg10, sg2, cpms35vn, aogami, shirogami, hap40 and they all work perfectly well with magnets.
Mar 12, 2018
Kavik
4313
Mar 12, 2018
bookmark_border
Not to stir the pot again, but I feel the same about certain aspects of your comments.
Appreciate the extra info you bring to light with your thoughtful comments. It prompted me to do a little more research myself, and I'm finding the same- that bd1n is considered a high carbon steel? https://www.cartech.com/en/product-solutions/cartech-cts-bd1n-alloy/ http://www.zknives.com/knives/steels/steelgraph.php?nm=bd1n
Mar 12, 2018
Deaomega1214
470
Apogee Culinary Designs
Mar 13, 2018
bookmark_border
Wow that is really cool that you worked for ‘“one of the big two”. I worked for Wusthof myself from 96-2002. Was honored to be personally trained by Wolfgang Wusthof and Hans Rathsak . They taught me everything I know about German steel. I would appreciate it, if you would not misquote me. I didn’t say that .5% is less than .8%, I said that not all German steels are .5%. Also 11% Cr is now the legal minimum for steel to be called stainless not 13%. Also, compared to many steels out there. .8% is very low. ZDP 189 is over three%. I also never said that our steel isn’t magnetic. I said it isn’t as magnetic as hi carbon steel. Actually the other reason it isn’t as magnetic is because it has 19% CR. Normally this amount of Cr would weaken the steel, but the addition of Nitrogen during the processing, had a very unusual effect. It made the steel stronger instead. This meant that we didn’t need to add extra carbon to balance the Cr. BD1N also has tungsten in it which affects magnetisim as well.
Mar 13, 2018
Kavik
4313
Mar 13, 2018
bookmark_border
Seems to be another case where terms are being used rather subjectively. As a layman with access to Google, the most reputable looking sources I can find list High Carbon Steel as being .55 or .6 and up. Which would put .8% well into the accepted norm for the term "high carbon steel", regardless of what other "super-carbon" steels exist out there, wouldn't it?
The link I provided, in my last message, to CarTech's site specifically describes it as "CarTech® CTS® BD1N alloy is a nitrogen-bearing, high-carbon chromium martensitic steel that is balanced to provide superior hardness capability to CarTech CTS BD1 alloy." Oddly, CarTech doesn't list their definition of High Carbon steel in their Glossary, but they have a listing for Low Carbon that specifies .3% or less
Therefore, a bit confusing to hear a knife manufacturer describe the same steel as being "very low" in carbon (again, from a layman's perspective. As you did say you try describing things in ways the average consumer could follow, I would think that would mean using a socially accepted definitions of terms we're all familiar with, like "high carbon")
And, from AGRussel knives for the Yaxell Dragon knives description (description credited as being from Stratus Culinary) "Each blade is constructed of Carpenter CTS-BD1N alloy blade steel, an American made nitrogen-bearing, high-carbon chromium martensitic steel, capable of achieving a Rc. of 60-63." To add further confusion on my part...
Mar 13, 2018
Deaomega1214
470
Apogee Culinary Designs
Mar 13, 2018
bookmark_border
I agree terms get very confusing. In the case of stainless, to balance the Cr, they would add carbon. This was referred to as high carbon stainless. You are correct any thing over .3% was considered high carbon. However that definition was created over 75 years ago. As I wrote earlier, these days there are steels like maxemet and ZDP189 that have 2.15 and over 3%. I'm sure when they wrote that definition, had they known the future, they would have rethought what the thought was high. Just like AG Russel still lists our knives under our old company name before I got rid of my partners. Things change, and definitions don't always stay current.
The way to best summarize this is to compare steel to chocolate cake. There are a lot of chocolate cakes. Some are good, some are great, and some are amazing. We can debate the ingredients all day long, however in the end, they are all chocolate cake. It is important to keep it fun.
Mar 13, 2018
Kavik
4313
Mar 13, 2018
bookmark_border
I'm afraid you've misunderstood my meaning there....terminology, in and of itself, isn't confusing. When you have a common phrase, with a textbook definition that can be looked up, that's the exact opposite of confusing. What is confusing is when people change the terms to mean what they think it should, regardless of the fact that it then doesn't match up with any documented definitions. (especially when one of the referenced definitions of the steel comes direct from the company where it originated)
As I said, the numbers I saw were .55 to .6 and up to be High. The .3 mentioned was considered Low. Then there was a middle ground in between. Minor fluctuation in the numbers between different sources, though I don't recall seeing a single one go as high as .8 in the Low Carbon definition. Again, regardless of what other extreme examples exist nowadays, the definition still has to match what's available in the research material. Maybe it's true that the books need to be rewritten, but as of now it doesn't seem that they have been.
I get that for the most part these details may not matter. I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't have a clue if the entire makeup of the steel was different than what i was told it was. And to me, I'd agree, if it works it works. But that doesn't mean it's cool to give opinion based descriptions on tangible, measurable things.
Keeping it fun; Let's say you sold me a 'chocolate cake'. I take that cake home and cut into it to find a white cake under the chocolate frosting. I come back to complain and you tell me "10 years ago maybe 'chocolate cake' meant the cake batter itself had the chocolate in it, but nowadays the cool new cakes are all about keeping the batter plain and super-infusing the icing with extra flavor. People just need to catch up to the times with how they think about cake, one day this will become the norm. Put the whole thing in your mouth and you'll still taste chocolate." You may believe that to be true....but would the average person today say you sold me a chocolate cake?
Or, maybe this is more apt (but I find the previous one to be a funnier idea, so leaving that in) Let's say you sell something advertised as a 'low sugar chocolate cake' . A customer comes in and buys it based on that description because their personal preference is to limit their sugar intake. No reason, no dietary or health concerns, it's just what they want and is the reason they chose your cake over the one from the bakery next door. In reality, your cake has at least as much sugar as 80% of the chocolate cakes in the world. MORE sugar than the one they passed on from next door. In fact, more sugar then what's found in 30% of the chocolate cakes worldwide. BUT, it has less sugar than the super decedant '7 layer dia-choco-betes molten lava cake' that is currently sold in select bakeries and restaurants. Less sugar than your great grandma's triple fudge chocolate cake. And less sugar than that one god awful cake from that one national restaurant chain, the one that's their best seller and tips the scales at 2,300 calories per slice. Do those 3 examples make your 'low sugar chocolate cake' description accurate, and all other comparisons should be ignored?
Mar 13, 2018
Deaomega1214
470
Apogee Culinary Designs
Mar 13, 2018
bookmark_border
I actually meant to say .6. Yes I make mistakes. I also understand your point. However, here is a question for you. How can the Germans claim that they use high carbon stainless if according to the other gentleman they are at .5%?
Mar 13, 2018
Kavik
4313
Mar 14, 2018
bookmark_border
Damn, was hoping we were going to stick to cake analogies lol
I wasn't picking at your use of .3, only clarified because I did quote something using that number as the max for "low carbon" and wanted to clarify that there was a middle ground before getting into the "high" definition (I know you knew this already, just wanted to be thorough for the readers)
As I said, I'm not an expert, I can't answer that with authority, but here's my take on it : the steel in question was 4116, according to the spec sheet that harrisonh linked to it has a carbon content between .45 and .55%, putting it on the cusp of, or in, the low end of the high carbon definitions I found, depending on the batch.
But that brings us back to discussing a generalized term for a steel type that has been socially accepted as being "high carbon" for generations, right? That's a whole different ballgame then trying to massage the definition for something that's only changed in the last few years.
Even if we're being strictly technical in definitions, that is at worst 1% outside of the textbook definition of "high carbon" ...vs this steel being 5% above the textbook definition of "low carbon". Rather large difference there I think.
In the end though, I can't help coming back to the fact that your description of this steel as being "very low carbon" goes against that of the creator of the same steel who calls it "a high carbon steel". That alone should be enough to understand why anyone would question it, irregardless of any other comparisons.
Mar 14, 2018
supplice
9
Apr 13, 2018
bookmark_border
this thread is making me question jumping on this drop lol whatever itll do a better job than what I got right now.
Apr 13, 2018
Deaomega1214
470
Apogee Culinary Designs
Apr 14, 2018
bookmark_border
Yes you will love the knife.
Apr 14, 2018
View Full Discussion