Talk:Knife

Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

	WikiProject Echo      (Russian)
	WikiProject Echo has identified Knife as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.

	WikiProject Cutlery
	This article is within the scope of the Cutlery WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of knives, swords, and blades. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I don't think the term "pattern welding" was understood by the writer of this article. Pattern welding mixes different types of metal (not different types of [i]steel[/i]) for purely cosmetic purposes, not to harden the blade or resist corrosion. You may have been thinking of Wootz steel. 72.82.193.162 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Revisions of the Blade section

This article needs a lot of work -- I tagged it with the "needs to be rewritten" tag. I'm a new user so I'm not too familiar with Wikiformatting so that tag may not be in the right place, but among the issues I discovered included incorrect speculation on the uses of serrated vs. plain edge blades, disordered formatting and information, unsubstantiated claims, unreliable references (lifehacker.org - no pages) and generally poor and inconsistent information. I fixed what I could but didn't have time to look up all the references of my sources as a number of them are on paper and I don't have immediate copies.

Other areas in this article that need to be worked on: the various types of knives cite no sources, the definition of a switchblade knife repeats itself several times throughout the course of the article. I think that knife patterns and knife legislation should be merged into this article, that the section on fixed blade knives should be merged with the diagram that shows the construction of a fixed blade, and that folding knives should have a separate section that also labels and diagrams all parts.

I will try to look for more reliable sources when I have the time. Mistsrider (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 September 16: major revisions

I have massively reworked this to change to neutral pov, remove speculation, tighten up formatting, correct grammar and unify style. If people have more suggestions for improvements that they are not interested in actually doing themselves, please comment -- I'm happy to work on this.

When I get some free time, I plan to add more references and possibly reorganize the entire article. Dsrtao 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Knives

Is anyone aware of what a certain type of knive is called when the handle is perpendicularly placed to the length of the blade? This type of knife is held with a closed fist and the knife extending through the fingers? A great example of what I am talking about can be seen in the movie Platoon, when Corporal Barnes pulls a knive out at Charlie Sheen's character and cuts below his left eye. Please let me know as to what this is, and if you feel it should be included in this article...

I've mostly heard it called a punch dagger, or punch knife. There might be a more technical term, though. It's similar to an Indian katar, though smaller and held differently.

They also call this a push dagger. It is similar to katar, but the katar is basically a blade with a handle going perpendicular to the blade, supported by the 'tang' if you will. The Energy sword used in Halo is similar in design to a katar, but on a larger scale. Some smaller fighting knives that go through the fist are usually called fighting claws, and are held between the fingers, resembling claws. Some other knives that are actually aupposed to be skinners, are reminiscent to the karambit, and have a forward curving sickle blade and a finger loop. I have a knive that is actually a skinning knife, but looks like a push blade. I hope this has helped a little.

~push dagger or push knife Cablemonkey 604 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

another type of knife not mentioned (and which does not fit inside the three types suggested) is the balisong. which although it does keep the blade inside the handle when not in use, yet does not properly fit within the folder type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.10.213 (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting with knives

This is a bad strategy for men. In most legal systems, a man using a knife is punished as if he used a gun, and therefore would be safer if he used a gun.

Women are almost always forgiven for using knives. A woman should stay away and simply slice quickly at any part that comes within reach, especially hands. If she can cut tendons or arteries on the inside of the hand or wrist, she may escape. She should be alert at 6 meters, show the knife and warn at four meters, and slice at two meters. She should practice with a helper and a rubber knife.

These statements, in addition to being weird, are POV and unattributed. Will someone please attribute them? - Montréalais

Sure, glad to. I wrote them. They're a rewrite and summary of a more-extensive discussion in Don Paul's Knife Bible, the source of most of the other information in the article. Fighting is a significant practical use of knives. Don Paul is a retired special-forces soldier, an expert in this field. I don't see how his expert opinion on tactics violates NPOV. It's not advocating either side of a contentious social issue (that I know). I think that I'll leave someone else to decide, however- if you're a third party, and think that a description of knife fighting should be present, please put one back in, and attribute your sources here. User:Ray Van De Walker

Surely more appropriate in an article on knife fighting, possibly with a link from this page. Trewornan 15:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think most people will be surprised to land at this article and see a discussion of knife fighting, rather than cooking knives. 18.24.0.120 03:17, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually I was flabbergasted by the absence of knife fighting. At the very least there should be some form of mention and a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.10.213 (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to fix the knife types section. The table and right-alignment of the explanatory text is terrible, and those knife types don't seem very comprehensive. I get the feeling someone just copied small sections out of the book cited at the end of the article. --Thorne

Category: Knifes ? Eesh. And yes, Thorne is quite right, I'm putting this on cleanup. Rhymeless 03:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've created a Category: Knifes, and have began adding pages to it. The section on knife sharpening needs signifcant cleanup (yek!) Drhaggis 04:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Use as weapons in declining?

for the most part the role of the knife has really remained the same most troops use it as backup weapons I don't think ancient or medievil troops used them much either becuse weapons like knives and swords were usually more expensive than an axe or a club DudtzImage:Kardos.jpg 7/22/05 6:23PM EST

Knives are still used extensively, but they were never really used as stand-alone weapons. Most knives were used for utility, cooking, hunting and skinning. Sometimes they were used in battle as a last ditch weapon, for the club, pole-arm, and sword were more practical. Typically a knife was used as a companion weapon, or simplay as an acceptable weapon. You could not legally carry a sword in many places, and sometimes the only weapon a person could carry was a knife. This is true in certain times in European and Japanese medieval periods.

It is not always true that swords were more expensive than clubs or axes. In many cases, some of the more affordable weapons were swords, but the disadvantages of using a sword are really too great. A sword is a thin (relatively) and awkward piece of metal. A club at least has weight behind it, and an axe can deliver powerful blows that only a few swords can reproduce. Early swords were basically clubs with an edge, but you could probably rend a person to pieces better with a club. Some swords and knives, such as the falcata, kopis, and the khukhuri have a forward angled blade that increases the impact, much like an axe. Swords with a single curved edge were actually more popular because they could cut easier, and they were cheaper to make. The downside is that they have a harder time of dealing with plate and chain armors, and often times could get stuck, caught, or twisted.

[edit] Cleanup...

I'd be happy to do some cleanup work here, but I'm not sure what is appropriate. Much of the article is very casual and colloquial in tone, and I would think it should be more structured... Is this the kind of revision that is required?

- Yes! The article could definately use a revision in basic tone, wlthough please do your best to keep all information currently included in the article. Thank you. Rhymeless 03:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Thanks, I would suggest that keeping all information is not so important as organizing the information logically, and linking to where more information can be obtained. For example, removing most of the text on the Kukri knife, but providing a link to the (very good) article for this particular knife.

Also, sometimes opinions are presented as fact... this probably isn't a great idea to preserve. For example, there was a reference to the 'fact' that 'most' knifes need to have their handles modified, as they are too small. As a knife collector and pretty big (6'5") guy, I just don't find this to be true. So changing the text to something like "the handle can be modified to improve grip" seems more neutral and useful. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, just honest and trying to be helpful... --El-Spectre 07:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed with El-Spectre. I'm a knife owner, sharpener and hobbyist. I checked this topic out to see how evenly-edited the sharpening section would be. The ultimate editor would be well-advised to know that the world of knife sharpening is actually pretty controversial. Lots of people use lots of different sharpening equipment in many many different ways. It was informative to know the original authors' perspectives on sharpening but I wouldn't go so far as to say that those opinions were comprehensive. There exists, still, great debate on whether or not to use oil or water on arkansas stones. There also exists great debate on how to test for sharpness, on what steels are for (honing, sharpening or edge shaping), as well as many other aspects that previous authors/editors currently present as established and cut and dried. I'd like to see less opinionated and more open opinions, offering a better perspective on current debate. --Perigee 14:57, 21 Sept 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: the statements at the very beginning of this discussion page.

Those statements are not only weird, but dangerous! I, Like Montrealais, live in Canada. I find those statements to be frightening, also. That, however doesn't mean to say I am any fan in particular of the Law and Law Enforcement professions, made up as they are of much the same type found in control of Third World or worse Nations(Iraq, Saudi Arabia, et al...).

Michael 01:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] history of materials

I am not sure that iron belongs in the histrory of materials. I read that, though cast iron was very much later, high carbon steel is nearly as old as iron. All it takes is keeping it in the coals till it takes up carbon.

David R. Ingham, 6/29/'05

Well, knives and swords have been around since before neolithic man. Some early blades were blade of flint or obsidian, both of which create very sharp edges. Copper and a whole plethora of other metals were used in blades. Steel developed quite early, and one of the more interesting types of steels that came about is true damascus steel, or otherwise knows as wootz.

Tigermano 3/20/'06

[edit] Using knives

I think what is dangerous about sharpening is the knife suddenly changing it sharpness, before its users can adjust.

David R. Ingham, 6/29/'05 (2005.06.29) David, If there is that much change after sharpening, the knife would have been long overdue for a sharpening. I think it is more accurate to say that continued use of a dull knife can lead to unsafe habits of use, and vice versa. --Knife Knut 03:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, long overdue. I see people living with dull knives and not hurting themselves, they just eat their vegetable whole or smashed. Then, for example, when I visit my mother sometimes I sharpen her knives. She doesn't cut herself but some people might. It's like if you put something in the trunk of a front wheel dive car. It might be safer with the more even weight distribution but not if the driver expects it to act front heavy.

About safety, it doesn't seem that steak knives need points. Mostly though, I think that is funny—in case the cow isn't dead yet. LOL.--David R. Ingham 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't buy the idea that a sharp knife is safer than a blunt one. Surely what matters is not so much sharp or blunt the knife is as whether you're aware of how sharp or blunt the knife is. If you're used to using a blunt knife, a sharp one will probably be just as dangerous as vice versa. To take an analogy, if you're driving an unfamiliar car, it's just as dangerous if the brakes are so finely adjusted that you screech to a halt when you touch them, as if you need to stamp on them to get any effect. What's dangerous is not being familiar with the tool you're using. Flapdragon 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revised sharpening

Revised sharpening section regarding some conflicts with information presented in the book "The Razor Edge Book of Sharpening" by a company who's sole business is sharpening.

[edit] sharpening

As for sharpening, whether or not to use liquid on a hone (besides waterstones) has been a loooong debated point. There are hundreds of pages on this topic in the various knife forums and newsgroup.--Knife Knut 03:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapping and polishing are usually done with a lubricant.--David R. Ingham 17:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say "(though a poor practice)"?

(I use deturgent and water on kitchen knives.)

There's a concern about oxidising (rusting) the very delicate edge of a knife. Even stainless steel rusts enough to dull. So, some people (including me) prefer to hand-dry and oil knives after washing them.

I dry rustable steel knives, mostly for appearance. I have not noticed stainless knives getting dull from being wet. It seems to me that the chromium oxide, vanadium oxide, etc. should protect even a thin edge. Iron carbide does currode, but I don't know about chromium carbide, etc. David R. Ingham 16:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blade shapes

I think the Shapes section needs some fixing and updating.

A spey blade and a double edged blade are two very distinct types of blades. A spey blade has a different shape - it is not symmetrical and not sharpened on both sides. It was originally developed for castrating animals and is most commonly seen on slipjoints.

There is no mention of pen/spear, drop point or Wharncliffe blades - all are significant styles. An excellent reference is available.

[edit] taped penny?

my father-in-law would when he gave a knife as a gift would tape a penny to it so as to not severe the relationship.  he was polish, I thought it was a polish tradition/????

"It is common to include a penny, often taped to the blade, with a knife given as a gift which the receiver is to return as "payment.""

Common? Where? That's bizarre.

Isn't that some kind of luck thing? I have a hunch about the origins of this. My idea is that a blade is a weapon of war, and giving it to somebody was often times a message of war. So it is said that giving a knife can cut friendships, so inclusding a penny is supposed to stop this friendship cutting thing. I dunno. Just a guess.

Used to be common in Scotland. Knives, if requested as a wedding present, would always be given with a penny. My family is still quite careful about this --scruss 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of it also. --User24 13:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell's Silver Hammer

Do other tool sites have these violence related contributions? Are there strangling discussions in the anatomical hand article?

No, the knife is the tool. If we are going to have a discussion about carrying tools without documentation of how they are to be used, it is clearly going to be here. Most other tools are special use versions of knives: chain saws, lathes, mills, letter openers, blenders, maybe sandpaper. I admit that hammers are an exception. David R. Ingham 06:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silent kills with knife

To Flapdragon, who told me to discuss this with him. This is the KNIFE section of this encyclopedia. Knives are used for more things than than cooking and carpentry. Knives are used for a combat purpose as well. Now in this method discussed in the quote below below, it would seem an appropriate fit to this wiki section on knife superstitions because slitting throat is perceived in the media as a silent kill, which in reality it is not. This method discussed below is MUCH LESS VIOLENT than slitting throat, which is often shown in PG-13 war movies. It is a much more merciful technique. And it holds complete relevance to this knife superstition section. If you're woried about the Columbine High School incident or that it will encourage killing and such, I have this to say: this is purely a military technique. It holds no relevance whatsoever in anything else. If 15-year-old Jonny wants to kill his best friend, he'd get hid daddy's gun to do it. Why would anyone use a knife to kill? Any if they do use a knife, why would anyone use that method? They'll slash and stab their victim to death. A much more painful method. How would you prefer to die in the scenario assuming you had a choice: having your throat slit and thrash and gurgle around for a few minutes until your brain runs out of oxygen, getting stabbed 30 times until you die, or in the quick and painless method described below? I'd chose the last option. Not trying to be morbid, but given the situation, it is the only logical choice. Bottom line: the statement described below is not in any way within the violent threshold of minors. Unless if you can successfully convince me with a good reason, I'll keep adding what you keep deleting in what I think is a perfectly legit article in this knife section. - Eddo36 00:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"In media, characters often slit enemies across the throat as a "silent kill," for example to eliminate a sentry. This is a popular misconception. (Compare to the myths about silencers.) When somebody's throat is cut, he is actually likely to gurgle and thrash around for some period of time until the oxygen in his brain runs out, usually creating a lot of noise in the process. The real method is to slam the knife upward at 45-degrees into the indent at the base of his or her skull (the bone there is thin). This scrambles the medulla oblongata, and cuts off the motor senses instantly. It is a much more merciful and painless method compared to being stabbed/slashed."

I don't know which method of killing by knife I'd prefer to undergo, have you tried them all? Please try and keep your points sensible and relevant.

Yes, we can keep on reverting each other forever -- that's called an edit war and I don't recommend it; it will do your case no good at all. Ordering others to "leave it" will not help either. Let's try and calm down and discuss this rationally instead, shall we? Also, can I suggest you read up a bit on what Wikipedia is about before you get too aggressive in your editing. Being civil is part of it, by the way.

As I pointed out, your paragraph does not belong under "knife superstitions", since it's not a superstition. If you don't know what the word superstition means, look it up; it's not just another word for a myth or a fallacy.

The subject of "knife" is a very broad one, which is reflected in the size of the article. Knives have many uses, of which combat is just one and probably not the foremost. They are used in the garden and the kitchen too, but you wouldn't expect to see gardening advice or recipes here, and it's not the place for tips on silent killing either. If you want to write about that kind of thing, why not find or start a relevant article, say "knife fighting" or "commando killing techniques" or some such. Even articles like bayonet or combat knife would be a better place than here.

There no question of censoring articles for unpleasant content (what on earth have "PG-13 movies" or the Columbine High School massacre got to do with it?). But there is such a thing as neutral encyclopaedic style, and as I've already pointed out, the wording of the disputed passage is both vague and bloodthirsty ("slam the knife upward", "scrambles the medulla oblongata") and thus inappropriate. For example, what are the "motor senses"? The motor and sensory functions of the nervous system are different things. Another thing is that it's necessary for facts to be verifiable; like you, I'm no expert on anatomy, but I doubt that it's possible to make very much noise if your throat has been cut (think about it). So, where do you get this stuff and on what authority?

Believe me, it really does make sense to understand people's objections before reverting; as I say, aggression will get you nowhere since whatever changes you make can be reverted at the flick of a switch and there are plenty of people out there to keep reverting you till you get bored with it. Again, it would be a good idea to spend a bit of time understanding what Wikipedia is like before you go into combat, with or without a knife. All the best. Flapdragon 02:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Paul

Presumably this "retired special-forces soldier" and author of The Knife Bible (see "Fighting with knives" above) is not the peace activist Don Paul described on Wikipedia? Flapdragon 02:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove redirect notice on Babylon 5 'knives'?

Seems strange to see this at top of page: "Knives" is also an episode of the science-fiction television series Babylon 5; see Knives (Babylon 5).

There must be countless 'knives' out there which are products, brands and so on why single out Babylon 5 for special redirect? I will remove if that is O.K. Lmnt 16:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing half a sentence

", even if they used to be used to kill others by juvenile delinquents." - in the Japan section. shows bias to weapons control and is unnecessary.

[edit] NPoV

The article says "Forschner/Victorinox make decent, inexpensive kitchen knives; high-end manufacturers include Wüsthof..." In fact, Cook's Illustrated rates Vorschner/Victrinox knives right up with the top of the line. There are other probelms with the voice of the article, I think. —Ben FrantzDale 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] transporting/importing knives on aeroplanes

the article currently claims that "Even small knives are forbidden on all commercial airliners and are among the illegal imports that may be confiscated at airports by customs staff even if packed in luggage."

- the first part of this is fine, but the second seems strange? Does the writer mean "if packed in 

carry-on luggage"?, which is exactly the same in effect as carried aboard in person, and thus obviously

forbidden. But when i read "packed in luggage" i assumed they meant hold luggage, and in that case 

this is not accurate. Every flight i have been on in the last 6 years both the airlines pre-flight info

and signs at the airport have informed me that knives (and scissors, nail clippers etc...) "must be 

packed securely in hold baggage" or something similar. I have twice flown into the USA from the UK with

2 Swiss Army knives (1 small 2-blader i always carry and my Victorinox Swiss Army Longblade) in my 

hold/checked baggage without any problems. Obviously if you try to bring in any knife that is illegal

in the country you are travelling to you will be in trouble, but you shouldn't have any problems with
travelling with normal penknife/work/hunting knives in your luggage.

82.20.244.207 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Ian, 06.14.06

I have altered the relevant section to read "Even small knives are forbidden from being carried onboard all commercial airliners, as are almost all items which could potentially be used as weapons, including scissors and nail-clippers. However knives can normally be transported by air travellers if securely packed in hold luggage, where they will be inacessible during the flight. Obviously, travellers should be aware of the legislation affecting knives in the country they are travelling to, which may ban knives which are legal in their home countries. "

I feel this is less liable to misinterpretation and better reflects the reality of most airlines/airports policies.

Ian, 06.20.2006

[edit] Knife materials

I would like to point out that some knives are made from bainite, the sentence in the article claims "all knives are made of martensite" this is not true, could someone fix this?

[edit] PLEASE EDIT FOR LENGTH

This article is way too long. You can safely remove the entire section and subsections of "Legal Considerations." The knife "Sharpening" section could easily be a separate wikipedia entry. The "Knife Superstitions" section is not only silly, but could be better presented as "trivia" to de-emphasis its importance to this article. Please look at some of the gun articles for guidance. Please stop adding things to this article until more work has been done on cutting the length and improving the style. Sam 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I'll work on this for the next couple of days and see what I can do. PMHauge 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Along with PMHauge and others, I'm trying to "improve the style". For disclosure, what I'm using for reference include the Russian version of the same article, which was a featured article, and the Kitchen knife and Chef's knife articles. What I'm wondering now though, is whether some of the broad blade and materials sections from those pages ought to be consolidated under this article, or, due to the specialty nature of those types of knives, they should be left alone. I think a nice balance would be best, with general concepts featured here and specialty areas in related articles. My hesitation in cutting and pasting from those articles is that I'd feel like I'd hijacked their content, but I'm "for" consolidation. Other's thoughts? Ryan 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is hijacking from other articles bad form? I mean, if anything it will ensure that the info is consistent... although one could argue that it is just redundant, lazy and redundant. In any event, I think the pocket knife article has some good stuff that could be used here. I think if anything, this article should focus more on history, impact, development, etc. and give brief info on variations in which the reader can move to those articles if they so desire. PMHauge 23:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried mirroring the Russian rituals and superstitions section for this purpose. Ryan 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-serrated knife

I couldn't find any term for a non-serrated knife in the article. I'm sure I've heard a word for it but I cant remember what it was. If anyone knows it, could they please put it in.172.202.25.249 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the opposite of a serrated blade is a "fine blade" but I'm hesitant to put it in since I can't find a reference anywhere. Trewornan 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Knife makers call it a "plain edge" blade. If it's a partially serrated blade it's called a "combo-edge." 2nr Tom 07:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chasse

re: (or Coutre Chasse-"Cut to the chase") . "Coutre Chasse" is simply "hunting knife" in French. And the term "cut to the chase" is not derived from it. So, this bit should just be (Coutre Chasse) without mention of that particular English idiom. ----

[edit] Manufacture

I changed the paragraph describing the manufacturing of knives. "Stamped" is not a good description -- this is simply a method of cutting out the outline of the knife. I changed this to forged vs. stock removal. In both cases, the knife blade must be heat treated afterwards. If a knife is properly heat treated, there is no difference in hardness, toughness, edge-holding etc between a forged and stock-removal blade. Also two minor edits. A fuller is added to lighten a blade -- you maintain almost the same stiffness as if the fuller was not there, but lose material, thus making the knife lighter. Added a few sentences about modern custom knives and links to the ABS and Knifemakers Guild. Mathandubh 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The fuller article states both purposes. Do you know of an outside source that is more authoritative? (As noted above, I believe lenghty discussion on the manufacture may be better suited to the blade article, but brief mention of it here is a good idea.)Ryan 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: fullers. Imagine the same knife with and without a fuller. How could removing material make the knife stiffer? Removing the material will make the knife lighter without changing much the stiffness. A note on sword design: Look under cross section. Also note the article on fullers - the introduction talks about making the blade stronger, but the physics section makes it clear that the fuller is removing material from the neutral axis, where the material is not contributing much to the strength of the blade. Thus the fuller is making the blade lighter without compromising strength -- not adding strength. Mathandubh 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect; the fuller does demonstrably add strength. It is the same shape as an I-beam. Please see http://www.agrussell.com/knife_information/knife_encyclopedia/articles/blood_groove.html Cablemonkey 604 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. That source mostly agrees with my argument anyway, except for the comment from Jim Hrisoulas which is not relevant to knives (and a bit mistaken anyway as he is comparing different things.) Again, tell me how removing material from a knife can make it stiffer? The fuller makes the knife lighter, without sacrificing much strength because the steel removed isn't carrying the stress when a knife is cutting. BTW, an i-beam shape is designed to take force perpendicular to the "fullers", along the direction of the central web. In a knife, this means the force from cutting. An i-beam shape is weaker to side stress than an equivalent solid beam. So adding fullers weakens the blade to bending forces. (For example, the ABS type bending test.) See here for a discussion of sword fullers.[1] Also the previous myarmoury.com article. Plus any engineering common sense.[2] An i-beam is more efficient than a solid beam, in resisting force in one direction. An i-beam will weigh less than a solid beam of the same dimensions, but lose very little strength (in the one direction!) --Mathandubh (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One final comment. Look at the article on Second_moment_of_area. Section 7.5 calculates the moment of inertia for an i-beam. It is clear that the resulting value will always be less than for the square beam of the same outside dimensions. This means the i-beam will bend more than the square bar for a given load. Thus the i-beam is less stiff. Fullers cannot stiffen a blade! But they can lighten the blade, without affecting the stiffness much in the cutting direction. I will remove reference to strengthening the blade here and in the fuller article.--Mathandubh (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a link

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new branch of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about knife safety would be appropriate and mutually beneficial. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=50 please consider it. Jrosenfe 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardness VS. Sharpness

While it is true that the harder the blade, the longer an edge will last, it is not strictly true that it will be sharper. When dealing with an extremely hard steel, the metal is hardly ever uniform. Also it is pretty much impossible to have an actual flat edge on the metal, because as you are sharpening a metal that hard it catches and digs on the whetstone. Thusly, on a microscopic level, a knife made of extremely hard steel is serrated, not smooth and uniform for a fine, even cut. Softer metals, on the other hand, will actually fill in imperfections from the sharpening process, while sharpening. when you sharpen a soft metal, you actually are redistributing small amounts across the blade to fill in ruts and crevices. this provides for an extremely smooth and sharp blade, although it will not last very long. People think soft metal is useless because it is usually cheap and full of impurities in rinky dink ten dollar knives. But, just look to Damascus steel. It is a mid-range carbon steel that has been folded several times to temper it. this process makes it more brittle, but if the edge were to flake, it would just reveal another razor sharp layer beneath it.

umm...no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.121.200 (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical problems (feel free to add)

The first reference has some error. I tried to fix this, as you can see from the history, but it wasn't done properly. I have no experience with wiki mark-up, so could someone fix this? Thanks--99.244.66.12 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks. It was this accidental edit to remove vandalism that caused it. Easy to do. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)