Thread: Tweaking the Edge with Tape

Hirlau,

I'm glad you enjoyed the photos.I can do better, but it takes a lot more time to get the light and everything set right. The photos were shot with a Nikon D7000 mounted to an Olympus MG metallurgical microscope.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

I don't use pastes or powders to hone with , only stones. I do like seeing the progression of the edge under a microscope though. The opening post was a pleasure to read, thanks Tim.

What brand of scope took these images?

Originally Posted by ncraigtrn

Maybe I'm off base but adding tape at the end on a finisher is creating a micro scopic bevel and more than likely after stropping a micro convex in the bevel. I'm just confused on how this is not a micro bevel.

That is the point of the post. Since you can see some of the initial 4K striations through the entire process, it is clear to see that a micro bevel was not produced by adding tape at the 12K level.

Originally Posted by ncraigtrn

"Why not spend the time at a lower grit (ie 4k) removing the scratch pattern from setting the bevel... Why not spend the time at a lower grit (ie 4k) removing the scratch pattern from setting the bevel."

The 4K stone is the one that caused the striations and the toothy serrations in the first place. Spending more time at 4K wouldn't change anything. Check the 10 micron scale. These photos are getting close to the maximum magnification possible without getting in to SEM type scopes.

Originally Posted by ncraigtrn

Which is my last question. Why is it faster to polish out the "toothy edge" at a higher grit?

Adding the tape concentrates the work of the stone on the "toothy" serrated part of the edge. The idea is to hone just enough to knock off the teeth, but not go so far as to create a micro-bevel.

Originally Posted by ncraigtrn

Please don't misunderstand my mindset. I'm simply curious and not trying to be critical. I just can't make sense of some of this.

Don't worry. I'm not sure I understand all I know about it either!

Originally Posted by Tim Zowada

That is the point of the post. Since you can see some of the initial 4K striations through the entire process, it is clear to see that a micro bevel was not produced by adding tape at the 12K level.



The 4K stone is the one that caused the striations and the toothy serrations in the first place. Spending more time at 4K wouldn't change anything. Check the 10 micron scale. These photos are getting close to the maximum magnification possible without getting in to SEM type scopes.



Adding the tape concentrates the work of the stone on the "toothy" serrated part of the edge. The idea is to hone just enough to knock off the teeth, but not go so far as to create a micro-bevel.




Don't worry. I'm not sure I understand all I know about it either!

OK. Makes sense. Glad I asked. So you intentionally left the deeper stria to illustrate that by adding an extra layer or two of tape does not constitute a micro bevel because you can still vaguely *see the stria all the way to the vertex of the edge?

I use this method tbh. It seems to create a smoother edge. Makes sense now that I've seen how it microscopically removes chips.

[QUOTE=ncraigtrn;1368049] ,,,,,,,,,,,,, So you intentionally left the deeper stria to illustrate that by adding an extra layer or two of tape does not constitute a micro bevel because you can still vaguely sent the stria all the way to the vertex of the edge?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, QUOTE]



,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Craig,

I didn't intentionally leave the striations. It just works out that way.

The 4000 grit striations are refined, and mostly removed by the 8000 grit stone. Then, the 8000 grit striations are refined, and mostly removed by the 12,000 grit stone. The point is: The "toothy" serrations remain through the stone progression, up to 12,000 grit. Then, adding the tape concentrates the honing on the serrations, removing them.

I avoid creating a micro-bevel. A micro bevel creates issues with no tape stropping, and honing touch-up, down the line.

It will be fun to see how all of this gets "translated" in the future!

Originally Posted by Tim Zowada

...I avoid creating a micro-bevel. A micro bevel creates issues with no tape stropping, and honing touch-up, down the line.

It will be fun to see how all of this gets "translated" in the future!

I am afraid I still see it as a micro bevel, Tim, albeit a very thin almost invisible micro-bevel, but a microbevel nevertheless. The only way those 'toothy' bits are going to get the full hones action on them is by tilting the blade to another angle - a very small angle granted, but an angle it is, otherwise you would have the polishing action of the hone exerted over the full face of the bevel. That, my friend, is incontrovertible. How you explain it is a matter of semantics.

I also have a problem with the bevel - micro bevel - stropping thing. If you strop on a paddle and the stropping medium has about as much 'give' as a hone, then fair enough, but in practice the medium is leather and even if it is glued to a paddle it will flex a bit. With a hanging strop you can pull as hard as you like, and you will not overcome the catenary effect, so any moderate degree of tautness results in quite a sag, which takes care of a simple micro-bevel, nevermind a micro-micro bevel.

I reckon you should have quit explaining while you were ahead! The last bit has had a bit of a retrograde action in my opinion.

I am not knocking your abilities as a knife and razor maker - far from it, you are a wonderful exponent of the art. Rather, I am saying the same as this about Stirling Moss - a superlative racing car driver, but I don't think he could explain all the ramifications of spark-ignition or Otto-cycle engines.

Just my opinion, though. I am sure others will agree with you that changing the angle is the same as not changing the angle. You can spot most of them quite easily enough - they are the ones who don't go near the horizon in boats in case they fall off the edge...

Just kidding - I know we'd fall off the edge into the black oblivion of space - now where did I put my meds?

Regards,
Neil

At the risk of being redundant, since I've said this before ...... when I was beginning my honing journey I bought new and vintage razors from some of the pro honers, custom guys and what not. At that time there was a cadre of members who advocated completely removing the scratches from the previous grit. Trying this was a long and tedious process

IME. What I found to be obvious when comparing the aforementioned pro honed vintage/new/custom razors under magnification, was that the pro honers did not do that. They honed the edge at the various stages until it met whatever their particular criteria was for moving up the grit ladder. Simonizing a razor's edge is fine if all you want to do is admire it. If it is intended to be used for shaving that very well may be counter productive IMHO. I found the pro honers looked for properly keen rather than simonized. YMMV.

Neil,

Like I said, "I'm not sure I understand all I know about it!"

To each his own. After all, it's just razors...

Neil Miller: thanks for my favorite and most elusive quote of the day in the Forum: I am sure others will agree with you that changing the angle is the same as not changing the angle.

First and foremost I am not trying to prove nor disprove anyone or any particular method of honing. I just want thorough explanations.

I think that as several have stated already the argument is swinging into that of semantics.

I have never and probably will never use magnification to inspect my edges. For all i know my bevels could be scrathed to heck and the edge could have more teeth then shark.

Here's what is important regardless of what explanation I provoked from Tim and others the proof is in the pictures.

I don't agree that this method doesn't create a microscopic secondary bevel which after stropping would be a microscopically convexed edge. Its just not possible for it not to be.

But it works on some razors and steels to smooth put a brittle edge.