Thread: X-pattern: A strange thought

I'd been at the stones for a while trying to get an edge on an old Joseph Allen & Sons when my mind starts wandering....The popular 3" wide Nortons with the standard perpendicular x-pattern - is it favoring the toe half of the blade? It just seems that the toe half is getting much more hone time than the heel half. Maybe a very narrow hone would be more optimal for an even edge? Am I started to suffer from steel poisoning or what?

Thanks,
Steve

The heel tends to get more pressure, so the X pattern tends to do a better job of keeping the wear even.

I think what the pros are gonna tell you is that even the steadiest hand will inevitably put a little more pressure on the heel, so things tend to even out.

Steve,

This has been debated quite a bit. I'm not sure if there's a consensus; seems like different guys have different opinions about it.

I'm persuaded that the heel end gets a little bit of extra pressure, since it's closer to your hand and to the scales. This helps compensate for the extra time the toe spends on the stone.

With a narrow hone, I've heard over time you can develop a frown because the middle of the blade is always on the hone. To really avoid uneven wear you'd need a very narrow hone, but that poses problems because it's hard to keep the pressure light with a narrow hone.

Good thought--shows you're not just following blindly along.

Josh

I have read that some guys prefer a narrower hone, but I'm not entirely sure it's for the reason you suggest. Mparker's right, there is more pressure at the heel, generally.

If you develop a rolling hone technique on the wider Norton (see some of Xman's previous posts) it can help: people should jump in here if I'm off the mark, but I like to visualise the rolling hone stroke as:

(If you're right handed and hone towards and away): Imagine a pencil line drawn down the right hand side of the hone parallel to the long edge and a couple of centimeters in. As you X pattern down the hone, try to have the blade only contacting the hone along that pencil line. It's not exaggerated, but the heel is in contact initially, and as you run the blade down the hone in an X pattern the weight shifts toward the toe so that only one part of the blade contacts the hone (at the imaginary line).

That way, no part of the edge gets longer or more pressure on the hone (in theory) than any other. Just remember it's not an exaggerated thing - the toe is only a mm or so (or less) off the hone initially...

James.

Jimbo-

Okay, I'm trying to imagine this, but it seems to me with a lapped hone and a straight blade, with the rocking motion that you described, that when you start with the toe high, the heel of the edge would start on the right edge of the hone, and as the blade is rotated through flat (where, on the flat hone, the entire edge would contact the surface of the hone), until you end up with just the toe contacting the right edge of the hone.

I guess the point I'm trying to make (and I may not be visualizing this correctly) is that it would be impossible for the point of contact to move smoothly from heel to toe on a flat hone.......wouldn't it? It seems that it would be heel, then the entire edge, and finally the toe.

-whatever

-Lou

Originally Posted by scarface

Jimbo-

Okay, I'm trying to imagine this, but it seems to me with a lapped hone and a straight blade, with the rocking motion that you described, that when you start with the toe high, the heel of the edge would start on the right edge of the hone, and as the blade is rotated through flat (where, on the flat hone, the entire edge would contact the surface of the hone), until you end up with just the toe contacting the right edge of the hone.

I guess the point I'm trying to make (and I may not be visualizing this correctly) is that it would be impossible for the point of contact to move smoothly from heel to toe on a flat hone.......wouldn't it? It seems that it would be heel, then the entire edge, and finally the toe.

-whatever

-Lou

Lou,

Sort of... I don't think I described it well. If you look at the motion from above, it looks like an X pattern. If you look at it from the side (the narrow side of the hone) you're making a very flat "U" motion, or maybe even a "ski jump". The spine and edge are simulatneously in contact with the hone, but not along the entire length of the blade where it contacts with the hone.

Given the shallowness of the U motion, you're right - in practice it's not a single point of contact, more a region of contact. And I guess you'd call it more a tranference of weight visualisation technique...

Anyway, it works for me, but I am strange Caveat Emptor, YMMV, take with a grain of salt, etc.

James.

Thanks for the excellent contributions. I'm sold on the tendency to lean a bit on the heel. This forum is really an amazing place filled with vast experience. It's great to have such a group. My wife has had about enough of my straight razor talk for the past year

Thanks again,
Steve

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Anyway, it works for me, but I am strange

Then I must be too, because that's what I do.

X

Originally Posted by xman

Then I must be too, because that's what I do.

X

Cool - I was getting a bit worried I was off the mark there with the description.

James.