Thread: has anyone thought about this?

I believe the main difference is that slurry testes are much smaller then hone testes.

Originally Posted by Utopian

Personally, I only test hones by looking at them under a microscope and then simply honing with them. I can't think of any other way that I test them.

I'm with Ron on that, I just hone razors. My test is trying a hone with a thin slurry or a thicker slurry. Whichever it is I'm diluting as I go or sometimes honing with no slurry at all. As far as checking the slurry with high resolution lenses, that is beyond my capabilities even if I had the tools to do it. OTOH, the shaves are good.

For those who have the wherewithal to do the scientific testing , more power too them .. no pun intended .... if it is fun, why not. Maybe I might end up learning something useful from their efforts.

ron you are correct.what i wanted is if person test same stone and slurry from same stone. What conclusion will be.end result if you compare 2 stones or thier slurries should be same. At least thiis is what i think. lastly guys lets stop making darn tests or testes or something else .the ide is clear what we are trying to talk about it. My laptop in fact types itself just adds .dont know why may be time to replace keyboard.this is phone i am using at the moment.i hope i am more clear now.

Originally Posted by hi_bud_gl

ron you are correct.what i wanted is if person test same stone and slurry from same stone. What conclusion will be.end result if you compare 2 stones or thier slurries should be same. At least thiis is what i think. lastly guys lets stop making darn tests or testes or something else .the ide is clear what we are trying to talk about it. My laptop in fact types itself just adds .dont know why may be time to replace keyboard.this is phone i am using at the moment.i hope i am more clear now.

Hmm, I have been experimenting with my japanese stones with slurry, compared to that same slurry on a spyderco UF. Is this what you are asking?

In my limited experience, I can get a "finer" result with the slurry on the "inert" base plate vs a slurry on the stone itself. Especially as compared with a softer stone.

Or are you referring to the current thread about SEM and hones?

This is what i think
in short words.
Sharpening ability of the stone doesn't depends just size of the particles on slurry.
there is a lot more factors out there example how particles bind to each other etc.
In the over hand some stones particles will brake down smaller others don't etc.
Arkansas,cf etc, stones are totally different story.
This is why i think spending time to learning particular stone will benefit more then learning slurry.
In the other hand result should be the same.
Smaller particular stones will put less size scratches then compare big size one.
Just my 02 c.

I just test a hone by honing. But, I hone after a known sharpness, ie. off an Escher or a coti, or an 8k. I then check to see if I believe it improves, degrades or makes no difference to the edge. I then proceed to try it with slurry. I have found that its always best for me to use at least a light slurry before plain water, as a transition from hone to hone. I believe that the slurry test should be performed after the plain water test.

OK guys come out with your hands up and leave those hones on the ground, we're the hone police

Hone police? if your the hone police show us your slurry. Slurry? we don't need no stinkin slurry.

Fellas, please forgive me but I just can't resist. With a nod to holli4pirating - how about testing the stones by... tasting them?

Originally Posted by JeffR

Fellas, please forgive me but I just can't resist. With a nod to holli4pirating - how about testing the stones by... tasting them?

"Honing testes as fine taste gives"