Thread: My razor is too sharp???? I like a duller edge??

Originally Posted by Bart

A fair explanation
I don't know enough about this topic, so I'll accept your point.

That goes against all my observations and against all logic.
Why would an edge be continuously be able to be defined between thiner boundaries, as we progress through increasingly finer hones, and certainly stop doing that at the 4K level?
If it were true, this would mean I could hone an razor till it peaks at my Chosera 5K (I'm sorry it's not 4K) and next, just suffice to replace the Chosera scratch pattern on a Coticule with water (that's how I eventually finish the vast majority of my edges), and end up with a result that meets my standards? I have to ask you to take my word for it, but that razor would not be sharp enough to my standards.

Or take that chosera 5k edge and spray it with teflon, which is what the big boys do.

Originally Posted by Bart

Talking about Verhoeven: I scanned through his paper once more. Where does he state that the edge width (EW) stops decreasing at 4000 grit?

He doesn't, at least not directly. But he measures an edge from some coarse grit diamond (9 micron?) and it's 0.4 or something, and then later measures with 1 micron and it's 0.38 or so, and later with 0.5 micron chrome oxide and it's 0.37 or .36 or so.

Originally Posted by Bart

Verhoeven reports about how the edge width decreases from stropping on CrO or on 1µ diamond paste. "The 1 micron diamond abrasive produced optimum edge widths of around 0.3 microns, while the CrO abrasive gave only slightly larger EW values, around 0.4 microns."
Maybe those guys saying that diamond paste is "harsher" than CrO, are talking about too keen edges after all.

If the differences are that significant on paste particles of 1µm and 0.5µm, then I don't believe that they will only be in the nanometer region on hones that use abrasives coarser than that.

Hmm, now I've got to go back to verhoeven's paper, because I distinctly remember them topping out at 0.34-0.38 past about 9 micron diamond, depending on the hardness of the steel and irrespective of grit.

Originally Posted by mparker762

But he measures an edge from some coarse grit diamond (9 micron?) and it's 0.4 or something, and then later measures with 1 micron and it's 0.38 or so, and later with 0.5 micron chrome oxide and it's 0.37 or .36 or so.




Hmm, now I've got to go back to verhoeven's paper, because I distinctly remember them topping out at 0.34-0.38 past about 9 micron diamond, depending on the hardness of the steel and irrespective of grit.

I have the document open here:

0.35 to 0.45 is what he measures on a commercial blade.

0.4 is what he measure on a razor honed by one mr Dauksch

1 to 1.5 is what he reports to have found after honing on a 1000 grit wheel with "lightest pressure and slowest of wheel speeds"

0.50 is what he reports of a 6000 grit water hone.

He also tried a 8000 grit stone, but found that stone to leave sligthly coarser scratch marks than the 6000 stone. He concludes: "The results indicate that an advertised finer grit in this 6000 to 8000 size range does not guarantee a finer abrasive action."

0.35 is what he reports after stropping on CrO (at the bottom of p.27)

EDIT: I see we were both vigorously reading
Bart.

Ok what we do?
don't we go untill 30000k?
Japan hones may come at least to 40000k.
there is differences between 8000k and 30000k shapton.

Originally Posted by Bart

0.35 is what he reports after stropping on CrO (at the bottom of p.27)

EDIT: I see we were both vigorously reading
Bart.

On page 27 you're in a tormek chapter. Different situation altogether.

Another interesting snippet about it not mattering what the low grit hones do:

page 23:

"The edge quality was independent of the size of the burs left from the original grinding with either 600 grit or 1000 grit wheels. The coarser original burs of the as-ground 600 grit blades and the finer burs of the as-ground 1000 grit blades were both replaced with similar edge geometries."

After over 5 hours here are some things I have learned...

Sharp is still sharp it has to cut hair or it ain't sharp enough...

"Too sharp" is a relative term...

Spazola / Charlie is smarter than all of us

My definition of "too sharp" is overhoned...

At least I was at work and getting paid to sit here and discuss this...

So far this has been a most interesting discussion Thank You all ....

Originally Posted by gssixgun

At least I was at work and getting paid to sit here and discuss this...

....

Glen i didn't get this one?
what are you trying to say?
you started this thread and at the end coming up with this conclusion?
I promise this is my last time have respond to your thread.
I think this is disrespect to all of us who has been in this discussion.

No disrespect at all intended

It was a joke

Rememeber what I always say about threads Sham

"If something can be taken two ways, and one is bad, try and take it the other way"

I actually thought this was a great discussion myself, even though we all don't see things quite the same...

Originally Posted by mparker762

Another interesting snippet about it not mattering what the low grit hones do:

page 23:

"The edge quality was independent of the size of the burs left from the original grinding with either 600 grit or 1000 grit wheels. The coarser original burs of the as-ground 600 grit blades and the finer burs of the as-ground 1000 grit blades were both replaced with similar edge geometries."

You see this man says what he sees.
he is talking about bar's on 600 or 1k level. that is all correct
after 8 k basically we don't have bar's. it is just straight line edge. now we make that edge narrower until we get highest grit stone we have used.

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

You see this man says what he sees.
he is talking about bar's on 600 or 1k level. that is all correct
after 8 k basically we don't have bar's. it is just straight line edge. now we make that edge narrower until we get highest grit stone we have used.

Except that when he went from a 6k waterstone to 0.5 micron chrome oxide on a bench strop the edge went from 0.5 microns to 0.45 microns. So 10% sharper, measuring across the bevels. That's just not much, certainly not enough to explain the difference in sharpness that we perceive.