Thread: A quick slurry study

I agree that the images are superb, and that some data has been collected, but question just how useful that data is. As far as I can see, the information pertains just to the supernatant particles you have taken, and only to that. How applicable that data is to the actual performance/use of a hone is - and its only my opinion - questionable.

The main stumbling block - in my opinion, again - is how the samples are taken. By definition, these supernatant particles are just the particles lying at the very top of the solution, all other particles either having dropped out of solution immediately, being in the process of dropping out of solution or suspended in the solution at various depths.

As a working slurry is composed of all these particles, taking just the finest appears to me to not be very useful, other than to show what the finest particle achievable by each stone is. In practice those finest particles are working alongside a range of particles of larger size, so their action can only be assessed as an interplay of a mix of randomly sized particles.

I think it would be more useful if everything that contributes to a slurry - including metal particles and particles left by anthing used to promote the slurry - is quantified.

That's only my opinion though and in fairness I have found the post interesting and thought provoking!

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by gugi

First thing you have to remember is that this image is a result of electrons interacting with whatever is there, so you should treat it the same way you treat that X-ray diagram, i.e. there is data in there, but the meaning of that data needs to be extracted.

Please explain to me how the data was not 'extracted' correctly from the x-ray data.
Perhaps you're in charge of introductory physics, but it appears that you have a way to go to come up to speed on introductory mineralogy.

Like I said - is this whole thing perfect? Far from it and I will be the first to admit it. But my guess is that it is not meant to be a rigorous peer-reviewed study that you seem to criticize it for not being. Again, I think the intention here is more of a fun exercise than anything else. Apparently, some folks appreciate it for what it is - good and bad - and that's probably how it ought to be viewed.

Originally Posted by Woodash

Please explain to me how the data was not 'extracted' correctly from the x-ray data.
Perhaps you're in charge of introductory physics, but it appears that you have a way to go to come up to speed on introductory mineralogy.

Like I said - is this whole thing perfect? Far from it and I will be the first to admit it. But my guess is that it is not meant to be a rigorous peer-reviewed study that you seem to criticize it for not being. Again, I think the intention here is more of a fun exercise than anything else. Apparently, some folks appreciate it for what it is - good and bad - and that's probably how it ought to be viewed.

I would suggest that perhaps inciting a post with a failure to read completely what the previous poster has written (Gugi said nothing about the X-Ray data being wrong) and opening with a condescending suggestion about the previous posters incompetence, and the suggestion therein that YOU and YOU alone are qualified to speak on this, is not a good time to end with clinking beers. That just makes it patronizing, in light of the belittling logical fallacies proceeding.

A reminder, gentlemen, that insinuations-- from either side of this discussion-- that the other opinion is incompetent, inept, imbecilic, or of questionable breeding are a fantastic way to get a potentially fruitful thread locked permanently.

As you were, then.

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

How applicable that data is to the actual performance/use of a hone is - and its only my opinion - questionable.

+1. I don't begrudge those with a scientific bent having their fun but whatever the results, I'll still wet my Escher or coticule and rub my slurry stone on it. My experiments will consist of varying the consistency of the mixture according to the results of the TPT, HHT and finally the shave. I will be interested to see what possible benefit these experiments coming from the higher levels of acadmia can have for us, the unwashed masses, down here on the ground.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

... us, the unwashed masses, down here on the ground.

I hope you aren't including me in that Jimmy - I had a bath just last month, though I didn't even need one!

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Woodash

Please explain to me how the data was not 'extracted' correctly from the x-ray data.

Perhaps my statement was not clear enough, however that's not what it says. It says that the same way you're using spectral analysis to support you claims for the structural composition and not just a real-space image, you have to do a lot more work to the SEM images before you can claim a support for the statements you made.

Originally Posted by Woodash

Like I said - is this whole thing perfect? Far from it and I will be the first to admit it. But my guess is that it is not meant to be a rigorous peer-reviewed study that you seem to criticize it for not being.

The problem isn't that it's lacking the rigor of a peer-reviewed research, the problem is that it's lacking even the minimum level of evidence and logic to offer anything useful, except aesthetic pleasure from looking at it. You should reread the three major objections I posted again.
It's not unsimilar to speculating based on a photograph of the bevel, what was the grit of the hone.

I think what people are saying is though it's an interesting study there are many variables that are not included and without those considerations any practical application is questionable.

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

I hope you aren't including me in that Jimmy - I had a bath just last month, though I didn't even need one!

Regards,
Neil

I lol'd myself..

Originally Posted by gugi

...the problem is that it's lacking even the minimum level of evidence and logic to offer anything useful, except aesthetic pleasure from looking at it.

What you find to be useless is clearly not the gold standard that applies to all. We will just have to agree to disagree, I reckon.

I like the pictures posted in this thread, very interesting to see the abrasives up close like that. I'm not sure what it means, but I have seen shapes in the clouds in the sky too and that was enjoyable. It's fun to look at and ponder the possibilities

Originally Posted by Stubear

I lol'd myself..

gross

go take a bath