Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101

Thread: saw plates old VS new

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Kees Heiden View Post
    In the last test Rob is using a real Rc tester.

    My quick little test obviously doesn't really proof much. It proofs mostly that I don't have very sensitive fingers.
    Ahh, I missed that comment at the end. I'm not sure what it proves because I don't know if you hammer like rob hammers, or if your steel would still be easily fileable at any moderately increased hardness.

  2. #32
    For comparison, the data that was provided in an "old tools" list around 1999 or 2000 from a C tester under the supervision of a professional (for anyone perplexed by the stanley results, note the irons are the laminated versions and not later versions):




    Plane irons HRC
    Record #7 T14 Tungsten steel, laminated 63.2
    Stanley #4 SW laminated 62.6
    Stanley #5 SW laminated 62.3
    (Rev. Hock says 62 for his blades)
    (LN states 60-62)

    Saws
    No.7 Disston Philada 48.5
    D8 Disston Philada 44.0
    No.12 Disston Philada 48.5
    #4 Backsaw Disston Philada 48.9
    Bow saw blade, no mark, 24 x 1 in. 52.0

    (3 for $1.50, drive by...)
    (LN Ind. dovetail saw suppose to be 52)

    Chisels
    Marple Blue Chip 58.8
    TH Witherby Warranted bevel edge 62.4
    Stanley #720 60.8

    #66 beader blades
    orig. Stanley reeding 54.5
    LN router blade 62.0

    #45 blades 62.1-63.2
    #46 blades 63.5-63.7

    EC Atkins No.5 scraper blade 51.4

    (and a link to that whole archived discussion)

    http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.p...ubmit_thread=1
    Last edited by David Weaver; 01-15-2015 at 7:28 AM.

  3. Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    Let's examine why that is. Here's a quote from your first post:


    The entirety of the "controversy" is over that incorrect quote and the data that you've suggested that proves it. You have tested old saw plates under the handle, but not at the tooth line. Subsequently you admitted those saws can be filed, which proves (whether you like it or not), that they are softer than the 58 values you show in your table (substantially so unless you can only file a few teeth before ruining a file), and you stated that you wouldn't damage your saws by striking the tooth line.

    The tooth line is where the hardness matters.

    What you have done is akin to striking a chisel at a tang or a plane iron at the wrong end, then proving that there's little variability between your strikes at the wrong end and then declared something about plane irons based on those statistics.

    I have offered to help you find some vintage saws that you can strike at the tooth line, and I have not heard anything back from you. Your conclusion will change because people have studied this before, including the old tools list individual who struck saws with a C tester under the supervision of an engineer who uses the same device.

    You have not reconciled with the fact that your conclusions is either wrong (if the data strikes are not accurate due to a limitation with your tooling testing surface hardness) or misleading (suggesting that a saw that might be overhard under the handle but not at the tooth line provides relevant data for your conclusion if you choose to take the higher value under the handle).

    I am challenging you to get it right, as you state that you have done the best you can, but that is not true. Doing the best you could would be guarding the quality of the data that you're sampling in the first place, and taking strikes under the handle of a saw is not your best effort.

    Since it is already well known that vintage saws are not harder than 1095 that is shipped in the 50 hardness range, I will continue to challenge you until you either understand why the data isn't useful and your conclusion is misleading (and certainly casts aspersions on folks like ron bontz and others who make fine saws - none of whom I have ever bought a saw from nor do I have any relationship to) and admit that it is, or you do something to get a more relevant reading, and then incorporate that into drawing a conclusion.[/COLOR]
    David,

    I don't want to get into another battle with you. In my testing I've reported more data points than any other source that anybody here or on the Woodwork Forums ever has before. The reason that I haven't contacted you about taking the samples is that I'm not sure what your intentions are and I don't at this time want to give you my address. This is because you have been so vociferous in you denunciations of my data and I think somewhat unfair to me. If you continue talking to me reasonably, and I don't mean that you must agree with me, I may take you up on your offer.
    I acknowledged the limitations of testing under the handles and in fact I was the first to point it out to the community - don't I at least get a little credit for having done so? In addition, I started the conversation about saw plate hardness despite the fact that I knew that there would be differences in opinion. There is really very little data on saw plate hardness available. More work needs to be done.
    I just had another thought. I have a Disston No. 4 backsaw that likely was made some time in the WWII era. Were the blades of the backsaws hammer tensioned? Does anybody know? If not I could do C and N scale testing on that saw and report it. What do you think? The only data I have seen on a backsaw is presented at the Disstonian Institute in the discussion of saw steel and that saw was made in the 1800's and was reported to be very brittle.

    Cheers,
    Rob

  4. David,

    Let's discuss the tooth line issue for a minute. I agree that the teeth are 'where the rubber meets the road'. However there are some problems with testing very close to the teeth.

    It's reported that Disston punched teeth and that will work harden at least part of the steel around the teeth. Setting also work hardens the teeth and the areas adjacent to them. I have no idea how far the work hardening extends but perhaps we'll get lucky and an expert will weigh in here.
    A second problem with testing at the tooth line is that the metal is warped some due to the punching but also due to the setting. Warped surfaces will spring under the tester point and the readings will be incorrect. Warping causes the readings to come back falsely soft.
    Another issue is the surface finish of the steel being tested. If you look at the surfaces of hardness testing blocks you'll see that they are very finely dressed. The reason they are dressed is that surface roughness will also throw the readings off. Rough surfaces also give back soft readings.
    Ideally, we need to test a saw lacking set, something like a Disston 77, that has as close to a new finish as is possible. Unfortunately testing such a saw will ruin it's collector value.

    We also don't have an appreciation for specifically where the Disston blades were work hardened. Was it an inch from the teeth, two inches, or just along the back of the plate? Does anybody know? I've read that they were worked along the back but the D-7 saw I have was tested in about the middle of the plate, albeit under the handle. I was able to test there because the handle extends so far down the back of the plate. The readings were still high.
    The alternative is to take a saw that is in good shape, lacking corrosion, bends or any scratching and test it but I don't have an old Disston in that kind of condition.

    I'll do some more on my Disston's and sample down the plate as far as I can and report the results while staying under the handles.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Last edited by Rob Streeper; 01-15-2015 at 8:00 AM.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    Ahh, I missed that comment at the end. I'm not sure what it proves because I don't know if you hammer like rob hammers, or if your steel would still be easily fileable at any moderately increased hardness.
    David and Kees,

    I purposely kept my hammering fairly light. If you look at the pictures I took of the back side of the test specimen of 1095 I posted on Woodwork Forums you can see quite clearly that the surface wasn't dented. However the distortion did extend all of the way through the plate, I wanted to show that and that's why I photographed the back side of the test sample. Heavier impact is a future study.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Streeper View Post
    David,

    I don't want to get into another battle with you. In my testing I've reported more data points than any other source that anybody here or on the Woodwork Forums ever has before. The reason that I haven't contacted you about taking the samples is that I'm not sure what your intentions are and I don't at this time want to give you my address. This is because you have been so vociferous in you denunciations of my data and I think somewhat unfair to me. If you continue talking to me reasonably, and I don't mean that you must agree with me, I may take you up on your offer.
    I acknowledged the limitations of testing under the handles and in fact I was the first to point it out to the community - don't I at least get a little credit for having done so? In addition, I started the conversation about saw plate hardness despite the fact that I knew that there would be differences in opinion. There is really very little data on saw plate hardness available. More work needs to be done.
    I just had another thought. I have a Disston No. 4 backsaw that likely was made some time in the WWII era. Were the blades of the backsaws hammer tensioned? Does anybody know? If not I could do C and N scale testing on that saw and report it. What do you think? The only data I have seen on a backsaw is presented at the Disstonian Institute in the discussion of saw steel and that saw was made in the 1800's and was reported to be very brittle.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    My intentions are simply to get you saw plates that you could strike in a relevant area (halfway up the plate? An inch above the tooth line?). I'd have no interest in any of this if striking under the handle gave you relevant or meaningful data, but it doesn't. You are fascinated with statistics for empirical data sets, and I assume that you use a software package in your work, and thus the familiarity. Your example about bricks is suitable here, You're effectively measuring the straps on a lifejacket to see if it floats. When I have asked you questions about following why the hardness under the handle doesn't create a meaningful dataset, you have responded with comments about the empirical statistics, which completely misses the point. I am formally educated in statistics, that's not where the problem with your results and your conclusion are (they are in the collection and conclusion drawn from the data, not in the use of the data after it's collected).

    I literally only have interest in you getting meaningful numbers and not making misleading statements. We have at least two people who have measured saws with C testers in professional labs, and both get similar results and they are not similar to yours. Your brick comment comes in again when that is the result.

    Disston backsaws are similar hardness to their large saws. I have filed many, and most are not defective like the one in the disstonian institute page. I have encountered only one like that (a jackson branded saw made by disston that isn't very hard but breaks when the teeth are set anyway). The saws of vintage age that I have found to be softer are very old english saws - like 200 years old (though that may not be universally true) - and some later low price examples (a barber and genn saw I have is soft, but not unusably so).

    My offer still stands to provide you (or coordinate people providing to you) sawplates that you can strike to get relevant data. I gathered early on that you are resistant to getting meaningful data because it will change your conclusion, especially now that you are this invested in defending the information you provided (which aside from the strikes under the handles of vintage saws seems to be reasonable). But the offer stands. Your study will have no credibility in regard to that conclusion until you correct it.

    (the part about it being possibly dangerous for me to have your mailing address is humorous)

  7. Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    My intentions are simply to get you saw plates that you could strike in a relevant area (halfway up the plate? An inch above the tooth line?). I'd have no interest in any of this if striking under the handle gave you relevant or meaningful data, but it doesn't. You are fascinated with statistics for empirical data sets, and I assume that you use a software package in your work, and thus the familiarity. Your example about bricks is suitable here, You're effectively measuring the straps on a lifejacket to see if it floats. When I have asked you questions about following why the hardness under the handle doesn't create a meaningful dataset, you have responded with comments about the empirical statistics, which completely misses the point. I am formally educated in statistics, that's not where the problem with your results and your conclusion are (they are in the collection and conclusion drawn from the data, not in the use of the data after it's collected).

    I literally only have interest in you getting meaningful numbers and not making misleading statements. We have at least two people who have measured saws with C testers in professional labs, and both get similar results and they are not similar to yours. Your brick comment comes in again when that is the result.

    Disston backsaws are similar hardness to their large saws. I have filed many, and most are not defective like the one in the disstonian institute page. I have encountered only one like that (a jackson branded saw made by disston that isn't very hard but breaks when the teeth are set anyway). The saws of vintage age that I have found to be softer are very old english saws - like 200 years old (though that may not be universally true) - and some later low price examples (a barber and genn saw I have is soft, but not unusably so).

    My offer still stands to provide you (or coordinate people providing to you) sawplates that you can strike to get relevant data. I gathered early on that you are resistant to getting meaningful data because it will change your conclusion, especially now that you are this invested in defending the information you provided (which aside from the strikes under the handles of vintage saws seems to be reasonable). But the offer stands. Your study will have no credibility in regard to that conclusion until you correct it.

    (the part about it being possibly dangerous for me to have your mailing address is humorous)
    Let me reassure myself for a while and I'll reconsider your offer.

    To a degree you're right when you point out my reliance on empiricism. I am employing the tools and techniques I have to try to understand an issue that appears to be much discussed but which has really not been subjected to much in the way of systematic inquiry. I'll keep posting my results, warts and all, because I think it's necessary to supplement the scant information available on this subject.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Streeper View Post
    Let me reassure myself for a while and I'll reconsider your offer.

    To a degree you're right when you point out my reliance on empiricism. I am employing the tools and techniques I have to try to understand an issue that appears to be much discussed but which has really not been subjected to much in the way of systematic inquiry. I'll keep posting my results, warts and all, because I think it's necessary to supplement the scant information available on this subject.
    The fact that there's little data makes it even more important that it's accurate.

    if the old saws are indeed harder (in a usefully measured area), then that is a fairly big deal. If they are not and the data suggests they are because it's from irrelevant areas on saws, or because the sample size is too small, that's a very large problem.

    We have two data sets other than yours. George provides a range from his strikes. It's still data even if he didn't supply it in a spreadsheet. The data also on the old tools list is in line with what george provided (and they are not related items, so there is independence in measurement). That poses a real problem.

    I don't think you should stop providing data, I just think it needs to be corrected so that what is collected in line with the conclusions that are drawn from it. If your means are limited, or striking your own saws at the teeth is a real problem, let me know once you're comfortable, and I'll buy one of the "opportunity lots" on ebay, label the plates and take off their handles (I could probably use the saw nuts, anyway) and send the plates in a flattened mailing tube. It will be much easier to send a half dozen or so without the handles, anyway. I believe I have two from my own stock that could be used for this, though I may have thrown the plates away in the past. I'll have to check - even if i don't, it is easy to come by more top line saws that have problems that make them duds for a user, but perfect candidates for your data collection.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    The fact that there's little data makes it even more important that it's accurate.

    if the old saws are indeed harder (in a usefully measured area), then that is a fairly big deal. If they are not and the data suggests they are because it's from irrelevant areas on saws, or because the sample size is too small, that's a very large problem.

    We have two data sets other than yours. George provides a range from his strikes. It's still data even if he didn't supply it in a spreadsheet. The data also on the old tools list is in line with what george provided (and they are not related items, so there is independence in measurement). That poses a real problem.

    I don't think you should stop providing data, I just think it needs to be corrected so that what is collected in line with the conclusions that are drawn from it. If your means are limited, or striking your own saws at the teeth is a real problem, let me know once you're comfortable, and I'll buy one of the "opportunity lots" on ebay, label the plates and take off their handles (I could probably use the saw nuts, anyway) and send the plates in a flattened mailing tube. It will be much easier to send a half dozen or so without the handles, anyway. I believe I have two from my own stock that could be used for this, though I may have thrown the plates away in the past. I'll have to check - even if i don't, it is easy to come by more top line saws that have problems that make them duds for a user, but perfect candidates for your data collection.
    David,

    Sounds fine to me. I've thought of a way to receive them. I don't know you yet and I feel the need to be careful.

    I had a laser pointer incident recently. The responding police officer told the person who pointed the laser that, if the laser had been pointed at him, the holder of the laser pointer would have been shot. Never hurts to be careful you know?

    As to your proposal, here is a picture of the surface of a hardness standard. I realize that finding a cheap old Disston with this kind of finish is going to be difficult if not impossible but we want something as close to this as is reasonable. I can of course grind and lap the surface of a blade but that will result in the readings being lower than the true hardness of the blade.

    test block.jpg

    If and when you find something send me a PM and post the pictures here so all can comment on the design of the testing strategy. Once we have a consensus I'll PM you an address. Then I'll do the testing as agreed and report the results here. In the meantime I'll tweak up my B/C tester to increase the linearity and work out some of the intercept offset I have now. Perhaps you could get somebody else from the forum to do some parallel testing on the same plates and then send them to me, or send them to me first and I'll send them to the next tester?
    Last edited by Rob Streeper; 01-15-2015 at 11:01 AM.

  10. #40
    Why do it? Because if the saws are too hard to file, workmen would've been ruining very expensive files back then. Saw shops would probably also refuse to file overhard saws. If you sent a 58 hardness saw to a saw shop (58 at the teeth) with any considerable amount of wear (supposing it wouldn't have broken teeth from trying to set it at that hardness), they wouldn't sharpen it for you, or they'd charge you for files used. An easy remedy is to find old saws that were not pitted and joint off the teeth with a bastard file. If there is any scale at the surface (but no pitting) that could easily be stoned off for a spot to test.

    I think if the disstonian institute saws were rusty or pitted near the toothline, they would've noted that. Most saws that have not seen pitting do not have roughness near the teeth.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    Why do it? Because if the saws are too hard to file, workmen would've been ruining very expensive files back then. Saw shops would probably also refuse to file overhard saws. If you sent a 58 hardness saw to a saw shop (58 at the teeth) with any considerable amount of wear (supposing it wouldn't have broken teeth from trying to set it at that hardness), they wouldn't sharpen it for you, or they'd charge you for files used. An easy remedy is to find old saws that were not pitted and joint off the teeth with a bastard file. If there is any scale at the surface (but no pitting) that could easily be stoned off for a spot to test.

    I think if the disstonian institute saws were rusty or pitted near the toothline, they would've noted that. Most saws that have not seen pitting do not have roughness near the teeth.
    Here's a lot of Disston's for sale. A couple look pretty decent at first glance. http://www.ebay.com/itm/L1322-VINTAG...item58bc5a4607

  12. #42
    I am a bit far away for logistic help but I can easilly paypal 20 dollars for the cause. I am curious too. When you two have got a deal, then send me a pm.

  13. #43
    Yes, that looks like a decent set. It will take a little stoning or sanding to get a clean spot on a couple of them, but that's not terrible, and many of those are D8s, so they are first line saws.

    I don't know that I've noticed much difference in hardness on second line saws (admittedly I haven't filed many), but the second line saws that look good are often lacking in tapering and tensioning, making for sort of a flat fat floppy saw plate.

    There's no great rush, so if someone decides they really want that lot of saws for $100, I'm not going there, but we will get something relatively soon that will work.

    I wonder if any of the folks who read this forum and flip tools would be willing to pony up a few damaged (but not pitted rust) plates if I pitched in a few bucks. They could send them to you, then.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    Yes, that looks like a decent set. It will take a little stoning or sanding to get a clean spot on a couple of them, but that's not terrible, and many of those are D8s, so they are first line saws.

    I don't know that I've noticed much difference in hardness on second line saws (admittedly I haven't filed many), but the second line saws that look good are often lacking in tapering and tensioning, making for sort of a flat fat floppy saw plate.

    There's no great rush, so if someone decides they really want that lot of saws for $100, I'm not going there, but we will get something relatively soon that will work.

    I wonder if any of the folks who read this forum and flip tools would be willing to pony up a few damaged (but not pitted rust) plates if I pitched in a few bucks. They could send them to you, then.
    That would work fine. I really do suggest that we try to find somebody to do some C scale testing in parallel with mine and if possible and appropriate based on plate thickness some N scale testing would also be interesting.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Streeper View Post
    That would work fine. I really do suggest that we try to find somebody to do some C scale testing in parallel with mine and if possible and appropriate based on plate thickness some N scale testing would also be interesting.
    I think if the discussions go on long enough, someone will come forward, though we're only going to be able to do it on the big saws with enough plate thickness (that's OK). My friend changed jobs and I lost my ability to hand things to him to take to the lab at his work. I never even thought about having saws tested back then, we were interested only in chisels and plane irons, but interested enough even to strike japanese chisels.

Posting Permissions

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