Quote Originally Posted by holli4pirating View Post
Let's focus in on this one. I don't see a reduction in the particle size and Gugi also disagrees, so clearly there is no clear indication of particle size reduction. Then Stefan said it's about the thickness not just the size, and I don't have any idea how one can tell thickness from these pictures. Not to mention breakdown of slurry is a statistical effect, and those tiny samples are nowhere enough data to point out any kind of "trend." Heck, the average particle size, thickness, or mass could even be a result of how the samples are taken, but with no thorough documentation of a procedure, we would never know. As Gugi said, you need someone who is skilled in interpreting these photos - I know I'm certainly not and I don't know who is.

Then there is the point TBS raised - the diamond plate itself will affect the initial, and therefore the final, shape of the slurry. That is another factor that needs to be considered as well.

This is not razor work anymore, it is LAB work. It requires a very scientific approach on all fronts, from the procedure to the samples to the "data" to the interpretation. I don't see any of that. All I see is some pretty pictures.
That's my point (above) - you can't. But there are, to me a lot more fines in the worked slurry. Well, a 'trend' can be based on whatever you or I deem reasonable. I do agree with you completely that this is a very small sample and all we can do is interpret the trends that we each see.

The trend that I see are many particles in the worked slurry of <0.5u and many on the order of ~0.1u or less that surface alteration features that are not present in the raw slurry (fewer pseudohexagonal platelets, for one). This trend does not include quartz.

I'll just say that the trends that I interpret are based on a lot of previous experience that I have with this type of stuff. Doesn't make me right, but I believe I can point out a couple of things that might not occur to a lot of folks.

The 'skilled' way to interpret particle size is to sample it appropriately, and to then do a digital image analysis to particle size/shape, etc. There are many possibilities here, but hey - I look at this simply as a fun excersise that may be of interest to some people. No more, no less. Is it going to be published by the National Academy of Sciences - no. But I maintain that there is still interesting and useful information here.

Lastly, I didn't catch all the details on the diamond plate situation. I assume it was used to raise a slurry off the Jnat which was then sampled for SEM. The same slurry was then worked on the hone and then sampled for the second SEM image. Same plate used to create a slurry with the only difference being the razor working. There is no evidence of loose diamond in the slurry or anything. I'm not sure what you getting at - can you please clarify?

Anyway - I'm going on too much with all this. Happy to continue the discussion here or via PM anytime, though.