Thread: microscope question

True… and there is that about honing and the source of confusion for many new honers.

They come to the web sites and see these 400X photos of edges honed on some “Oxide” film or dinosaur poop stone and think that is what need to get the sharpest, smoothest edge.

When really people have been honing for hundreds of years with one or a couple of hones without microscopes and still shaving their faces without removing skin.

Obsession is a good thing, it pushes the envelope, but very few folks drive to work in race cars… not that there anything wrong with that…

All you need is enough magnification and light to determine if you are making progress or going backwards.

I can tell more about an edge with a 40x stereoscope than I can with a compound scope at much higher magnification.

I am fortunate to have access to some high-end optical microscopes, and have looked at a multitude of objects in them over the years.
It is not possible to resolve the edge of a razor with an optical microscope. In my opinion, the minimum magnification required to see 'shave ready' is 10,000x.
That said, a magnified view of the edge provides information. Some people will find this information useful, others will not.

In simple terms, higher magnification results not only in a smaller field of view but in a shallower depth of field and shorter working distance. Not ideal for imaging a razor since the bevel must be perpendicular and very close to the lens. A better choice is a microscope (or loupe) with a longer working distance and a greater depth of field, this allows the blade to be tilted through the light source which usually provides more information than straight-on imaging. Even in a high-end microscope, 50-100x is more useful than 200x-1000x. Personally, I use a 10x loupe when honing.