Thread: Hones and Edges Under the Microscope

These are very beautiful pictures, and they compare stones quite nicely, and they tell you something about the properties of each stone, but when all is said and done, these pictures don't tell you how to sharpen a razor, or how the shave feels.

I have experimented with lab quality microscopes in the beginning. I even thought of buying one. But now I just interpret the way the light reflects off the edge, and the flow of the water on the hone. They both tell met what is going on.

In a way, after the basic tips about the X pattern and the pyramid etc, each honer has to re-invent the wheel because honing technique is something that you have to learn to feel.

From all that has been written, it would seem that like for our good Herr Heisenberg it is possible to describe it, but not see it. Ja?

Darn near out of questions, certainly out of opinions, Bruce

Guys,

Please remember, this was just a simple study of how quickly the stones cut. Along with the depth, size, and frequency of the scratch pattern on the bevel.

Also, it was using my blade, from my Damascus. A different razor could react very differently.

I was evaluating the "tools" far more than the finished edge, or its' preformance.

The edge, how it is formed, polished and shaves, is different series of studies for a later date.

I'm taking things one, very simple, step at a time.

I hope this helps clear things up a little.

Tim Z.

Tim... thanks so much for the pics! I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this.

As you have now seen, the members of this forum can be as active in their discussions as any other forum.

I do agree with mparker that the pics say nothing about the resulting shaving edge. That has been the situation for a long time and will probably remain so in the future. An objective method of measuring the shavability/sharpness of an edge has never been developed. We are stiill dependent upon the actual shave itself to answer that question.

I am concerned, as is mparker, that some of the new guys will jump to the conclusion that one hone is better than another. That would be a big mistake. Just as it is a mistake to ask which is the best razor. There is no such thing. Each hone or razor has its own personality and which personality is preferred will depend upon the individual. That preference will also change over time.

Right now all of us are really lucky to have all of these wonderful toys to use/play/experiment with. So I would suggest that you guys modify your budgets because I know that youse are going to be buying as many hones and razors as I have and maybe even more! Each will provide you with a bit more knowledge ( and humility).


Just my two cents,

Good points Randy. I get so many people asking me what is the "Best". They fear buying anything less will send them to ruin in this straight razor thing. Is one paste better than another, is one stone, or razor, or strop, or brush, etc..... All will do a great job as long as one avoids a few of the truly poor brands. Pick a concept and tool that sounds right and stick with it.

You will not be making a mistake choosing a Dovo over a TI, an Arkansas over a Chinese Woodcraft stone, etc..... experiemnts like Tims' and those other who have done similar things gives up food for thought upon which to start. It is not an end, it is not the "only way" if there was such a thing.

We have guys with no name well worn razors, stropping on cardboard and whipping up lather with their hands. They get good shaves and have fun too.

Hey, if there ware real conclusive results we would all buy the same razor, stone, brush and strop....what fun would that be. (From a guy who owns many different stones, razors and, well, not strops <g>)

Tony

Couple of things...

I understand that there is little that can be said about the way any of the razors in these pics shave, but why do they say nothing about the edge?

I would think that a bevel with heavy scratch patterns would have a more serated edge and a bevel that looks very smooth would have a smooth edge. To paint an analogy if you are looking down at a pond and the water seems very turbulent then if you walk down and stand at the waters edge that too will most likly be turbulent, if it appears that the water is like glass from above at the waters edge the water will most likly be very calm and smooth as well.

How either of these would shave is a completly diffrent story. If you wanted to test that then you would send the razors out for people to use with out telling them about the stone that was used and get feed back. They would all have to be the same type of razor to reduce any diffrences in grind and steel type, and maybe rehone with alternate stones so that every razor is tested with every stone. You would also have get information about the people to compair beard types and see if certain stones work better with certian beards,.... Wow this feels like a 10th grade science project!

Please feel free to start a new tread on this but on the topic of beard growth, are there anyways to determine what type you might have? I always thought that I had light growth, but was talking to a freind and I think that I might have a heavy growth?

~John

Hi Tim,

We really appreciate the pictures.
But we also like discussions

Most of us understood perfectly that your pictures were to illustrate the tools (stones) not the results.

And as you can see, this forum is pretty unique in that these discussions stay civilized.

Originally Posted by jmac

I would think that a bevel with heavy scratch patterns would have a more serated edge and a bevel that looks very smooth would have a smooth edge.

To some extent that's true, but that is a very rough approximation and the process that took those photos threw away a lot of information, information that is very important but because the photos are so detailed it's easy to forget just how much information was thrown away. For example, the translucent arkansas bevel isn't really as smooth as the photo shows; the abrasive grains in novaculite are pretty large (about 6-9 micron), rounded and tend to flatten out with a bit of use, so that razor has very wide, shallow scratches in it. I suspect the reason they don't show up in the photos is because of the lighting used when taking the photo, it may not have provided enough shadowing effect for the shallow scratches to show up. But your face will definitely notice them.

Anyway, smoothness is a bit of a red herring; smoothness tells you very little about how *sharp* the edge is because smoothness is only important once you've achieved sharpness. A smooth, dull edge will still shave terribly. First you get a good bevel, then you make it sharp, then you make it smooth. You can take an ebay razor and give it 15 laps on a pasted hanger and get an incredibly smooth edge, as smooth as anything in those photos; yet you would be lucky to cut cold butter with it.

Looking at scratch patterns on the bevel is like looking at the scratches on the side of a car that's scraped a wall and trying to deduce what the front end of the car would look like after smacking head-on into that same wall. Or, to use your water analogy, it's like looking down at the rocks in a pool of water and trying to guess how deep it is.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Most of us understood perfectly that your pictures were to illustrate the tools (stones) not the results.

Bruno, what does this mean? How can you illustrate the stones apart from the results? It is the results that indicate the performance of the hones. Tim's experiments show clearly that the Belgian hone removes more metal than any of the others. I believe that the term for this is sharpening. Hopefully we will next hear which if the hones will polish this Belgian sharpened blade the best. Then if we like, we can try the sharpening/polishing combination that emerges and see for ourselves how this relates to shaving. That's the scientific method, step 1, consider some set of observations, step 2, develop an hypothesis which is intended to explain or tie together some aspect of the observations, step 3, test the hypothesis to see if it is valid using a test that directly relates to an intended end use. Let's let this develop naturally and see where it leads. What are some of us so frightened of, that shaving can be developed into a science instead of being relegated into remaining a dark art?!?!?!

Originally Posted by rgdominguez

Bruno, what does this mean? How can you illustrate the stones apart from the results? It is the results that indicate the performance of the hones. Tim's experiments show clearly that the Belgian hone removes more metal than any of the others. I believe that the term for this is sharpening. Hopefully we will next hear which if the hones will polish this Belgian sharpened blade the best. Then if we like, we can try the sharpening/polishing combination that emerges and see for ourselves how this relates to shaving. That's the scientific method, step 1, consider some set of observations, step 2, develop an hypothesis which is intended to explain or tie together some aspect of the observations, step 3, test the hypothesis to see if it is valid using a test that directly relates to an intended end use. Let's let this develop naturally and see where it leads. What are some of us so frightened of, that shaving can be developed into a science instead of being relegated into remaining a dark art?!?!?!

You keep making the same mistake, and I hate to keep beating you over the head with it, but the results the photos show are not the results you think they are. You're forgetting the corollary to step 1: Make sure that you're really seeing what you think you're seeing.

For example, these photos do *not* show that the belgian stone removes more metal. It may be that the belgian does remove more metal, but these photos do not show that; evidence of this claim must come from somewhere else. For all you can tell from these photos, that translucent arkansas stone could have removed 50 microns of steel from the edge of that razor, and the belgian may have only removed 5 microns in those 10 laps; you have no way of telling from the photos. And this one misconception invalidates all the other conclusions and hypotheses in your post that you wish to hang on it.

Having used several of these stones and stared at the razors under the microscope, I be willing to bet that the hone that removed the most metal in those 10 laps was either the 15k Shapton or the ultrafine spyderco - notice that the 15k shapton edge shows evidence of *severe* overhoning - there's a wire edge on that blade, and in only 10 laps at that.