Thread: Hones and Edges Under the Microscope

dylandog, did the professor sport a beard or was he clean shaven and therefore certifiably crazy!!!

Originally Posted by mparker762

How did they shave? Whiskers, I mean, not frozen tissue samples. I'm sure they shaved tissue samples just fine...

They cut hair perfectly well but many of them would be awkward to hold. No I'm not going to try one out as I don't really relish the thought of putting a blade against my face that has cut some pretty strange things.
Unless someone wants to donate some blades?
Not that I'd be able to use many of the sizes and shapes of diamond/glass or disposable blades afterwards.

mparker,

How they shaved? Dunno, this tour was taken long before started shaving whiskers and that being the case, I was greatly more curious about how it could shave meat so much thinner than the dried beef I occasionally had for lunch.

, Bruce

Originally Posted by murph

Unless someone wants to donate some blades?

I think Randy Tuttle has a bunch of microtome blades, or at least he did at one time. They show up on ebay as well.

Just a personal observation on the coticule-with-slurry edge: I tried a shave-test with an edge that I finished on my coticule with a thick slurry. It was pretty rough. I've been able to get nice shaves by using the coticule with no slurry. I was thinking that maybe the less polished edge might cut better--more teeth on the edge.

So I think the extra polish shown in the photos is a good thing.

Josh

Just a thought,
Josh

Originally Posted by mparker762

I think we do need a lot more than 200, though I suspect scopes capable of that sort of magnification are pricey. Most of the "interesting" details from a sharpness perspective are in the first 10-20 pixels from the edge in those photos. If there's any way to get shots looking at the front of the edge (or a quarter shot at the front) instead of just the sides that would be great.

Actually, this thread piqued my interest in digital microscopes and I've been doing some research. Plenty of inexpensive USB microscopes can go up to 400x but their output is only 640 x 480 pixels...kinda wimpy for my tastes. The best I've seen without getting really pricey would be the ProScope HR. For $304 you get 1280x1024 resolution (video and stills) and a 50x lens. They make a 400x lens that'll run you about $250.

Maybe this is small potatoes for some people. Not for this broke-@$$ college boy.

Next runner up would be the Digital Blue QX5. It only goes up to 640x480, but you get 10x, 60x and 200x for $80-$100, depending where you shop. I get the impression that it's a bit of a toy.

It could be that 640x480 is an entirely serviceable size for this sort of application. I'm into digital photo and design, so I tend to be a resolution junkie--drooling over 10.2 mega-pixel Nikon D80s, sniffing at anything under 6Mpx. The point being, I'm maybe not the best judge of how hi-res a scope would need to be in order to be useful to a honer.

I tried using a scanner recently to examine a blade I had just honed versus a blade I got from altima55, but since the razor's edge doesn't touch the glass, it came out a little out of focus. Scanners=nil depth of field and no focus control . As a bit of a hack, one could hook up a digital camera to a TV set (mine came with a cable to do that) and if you have decent optical zoom you may be able to gain some insight...probably not though. Maybe with a really good macro lens. Which I can't afford.

Just out of curiosity, those of you use microscopes, what kind of setup do you have?

I use a 30X Micronta handheld scope that tells me everything I need to know.

For looking at things like this I use a Bausch and Lomb Stereozoom but it isn't a trinoc so I don't take pictures. I do own other scopes but they aren't suitable for this kind of thing - I prefer the stereo microscope image anyway as you get more depth of field and a more 3 dimensional view.
These scopes are usually much cheaper in the US than over here and are nice and light weight (I have it on a sort of turntable with others so they take up less desk space.)

Oh and I usually just use 12.5X eyepieces although I do have 20X so can use it nearer 100X if I need to.

Originally Posted by Noam

...
Next runner up would be the Digital Blue QX5. It only goes up to 640x480, but you get 10x, 60x and 200x for $80-$100, depending where you shop. I get the impression that it's a bit of a toy.

Hi,

I have the QX5, and it really IS a toy The resolution would be ok, if the lenses would be able to offer a decent resolution to go with it - which they don't.

And the biggest negative to me: the mechanics are really shabby (well, like a cheap plastic toy). Together with the narrow depth-of-view this really sucks for our purpose. It may be much better for looking at dead ants, though

YMMV,
-Axel-