Thread: Progression DMT 1200->8000-> 1um film

DMT 1200



DMT 8000


1um alum oxide lapping film, with tameshigiri test

I love the pics that you put up of your edges. I wish I had access to your microscope equipment (your job must be really cool ). That's very cool.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I love the pics that you put up of your edges. I wish I had access to your microscope equipment (your job must be really cool ). That's very cool.

These pics were taken on my $79 bench scope available on Ebay.

I was also able to add to it a $49 camera. So, it certainly costs alot less than the $15,000 scope I have access to back in the lab. Pics aren't quite as nice, but for 1% of the cost, I'll take it!

Are you sure you do not have the pictures in a wrong order?

/me is running for cover

Originally Posted by sparq

Are you sure you do not have the pictures in a wrong order?

/me is running for cover

That is the problem with this scope, as the lighting comes in from the side, and thus depending on the angle can make the scratch pattern more or less prominent.

I'm not really surprised at the 1200. I've said elsewhere, i don't leave that hone until I can pass the HHT,and that edge look like it. It appears to me the 8000 is leaving more prominent scratches than the 1200, which I find quite interesting?

Also, as has been said many times, what you see through the scope doesn't always tell the whole story, either. But it is a pretty fun little toy!

Nah second image is definitely finer. Look at the spacing between the most directly lit scratches. The first image only looks finer if you assume the spacing (darker scratches) is all perfectly aligned edge.... which it isn't. The final pic looks closer to the first pic as the scratches are getting fine enough the camera resolution isn't sufficient to pic them all up.


Basically, more illuminated scratches = more surface getting directly lit = more flat surface = less deep scratches.

Admittedly this is very general and if you deepen the lighting angle enough you can actually make the opposite true (but I'm unsure how well pictures would come out with lighting at that angle).

Originally Posted by Seraphim

.

It appears to me the 8000 is leaving more prominent scratches than the 1200, which I find quite interesting?

Seraphim This never should happen.
In your case why this happen?
there is couple reasons
1 you have break in 1200 and not 8000
2. Your 1200 has been used more then 8000
3. while you use it you did put more pressure when on 8000
4. Lightning of the object
if you will eliminate those i am sure you will have reverse results.

Originally Posted by IanS

Nah second image is definitely finer. Look at the spacing between the most directly lit scratches. The first image only looks finer if you assume the spacing (darker scratches) is all perfectly aligned edge.... which it isn't. The final pic looks closer to the first pic as the scratches are getting fine enough the camera resolution isn't sufficient to pic them all up.


Basically, more illuminated scratches = more surface getting directly lit = more flat surface = less deep scratches.

Admittedly this is very general and if you deepen the lighting angle enough you can actually make the opposite true (but I'm unsure how well pictures would come out with lighting at that angle).

I know I am beating this horse again, but which of the pictures shows deeper scratches in your opinion?

#1:


#2:

This is why I don't use a microscope or offer my opinion on shots through a microscope - it is not a tool that I know how to use. All I know is there is a lot more to it than what you see... some might say "more than meets the eye." (I watched the original show when I was a kid, I'm not just jumping on the movie bandwagon.)

Getting back to my point, I think this is one of those areas where those without experience themselves should step back and let those who know what they are talking about do the talking. It will avoid useless debates and be the fastest way to get good information out to everyone else.

Originally Posted by sparq

I know I am beating this horse again, but which of the pictures shows deeper scratches in your opinion?

It's hard to tell with such different images. Are those even from the same microscope/magnification?

From those two pictures I'd have to guess. Since I don't know the details of the pictures, it appears to me that #2 is a much higher magnification on a much better scope, so I'd say that #1 is likely in the worse condition.

#2 almost looks SEM to me.