There Are Pandas, and Then There Are Pandas.
And this isn't either of them! The Pandas we're talking about here, are watches, not bears. And what got me thinking about them (again) was a link posted this morning by @cm.rook who pointed a few of us to the very attractive (and not terribly priced) Yema "Rallygraph" Panda which, in it's most traditional arrangement, looks like the one on the left, but can also be had in the version on the right: The model on the left is a true Panda, while the model on the right is called a reverse Panda. The reason for that distinction is clear--Panda bears, only come in the first arrangement. Now at this point, everyone should be thinking about the most well-know Panda, The Rolex Panda, which is actually a Daytona, and among Rolex Daytonas, the most famous of which is the Paul Newman Daytona, which was famous first, because it was Paul's, and second because it sold at auction for $17.8 million (US Dollars). The story of that auction is well-known so I'll only...
Nov 8, 2019
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)
@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
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
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
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!
I've got tons of vg10, sg2, cpms35vn, aogami, shirogami, hap40 and they all work perfectly well with magnets.
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
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...
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.
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?
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.