Thread: Hones and Edges Under the Microscope

Mparker, who are you to tell me how to interpret or not interpret data. I have a Ph. D. in Physical Chemistry and have dedicated most of my life to doing research. What are your scientific credentials? Also, I have spent many years studying Material Science as applied to polymers. Material Science emerged from the study of ceramics and metals, two areas that I am very familiar with. So, the fact that I see what these photographs show and you don't is no surprise, it is the expected result. Einstein said it best "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". Well keep on repeating and repeating and not thinking, maybe you'll find happiness. I for one will continue with my approach whether you think that it is right or wrong. Don't bother trying to enlighten me any longer, you're wasting your time. I'm going to try it my way no matter what you say. The patents that I am proudest of are the ones that resulted from work that others said was nonsensical. Why, even as a graduate student I went my own way. In the face of my major professor's objections, I studied a metal that he said would yield no useful information. To his credit, he later congratulated me on that particular study and told me that it was the best part of my dissertation! So you see, I've been this way for a long time and don't plan on changing. Some of the greatest discoveries of mankind have emerged from our inate refusal to totally accept the opinions of "experts" and go our own way. And I assure you that my best work has resulted from my penchant for independent thought!

Originally Posted by rgdominguez

Mparker, who are you to tell me how to interpret or not interpret data. I have a Ph. D. in Physical Chemistry and have dedicated most of my life to doing research.

Too bad you don't have the one credential that actually matters here: you don't know how to hone.

And with that, you're going on my ignore list. buh bye.

Your ignore list sounds delightful! And for the record, only I know if I know how to hone or not. Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent, good practice makes perfect!!!

Originally Posted by mparker762

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.

We can see some stones removed less metal than others as in the remaining earlier horizontal scratches in for example the shapton 30k (no surprise there) and the escher (not particularly surprising either) and any knowledge is useful to some extent. Perhaps a view from both sides might have been useful and at least seeing the kind of polish a stone gives will give people an idea of each stones use (i.e. if hone Y produces what looks like a similar finish to hone X and if they think it's worhwhile buying stone X when they already have Y.)

Since I havent used all those hones, specifically the Shapton 30k and the spyderco or a razor that's quite as hard, afaik, I can't comment on how I feel those pictures correspond to the shave but I feel it's at least a base to start building upon. No matter how well these pictures relate to real use at least they have people talking and thinking which can't be a bad thing. Well, maybe not a great thing for everyone.

Let me put it another way. The pictures show the results of what happens when the stones are applied to 1 specific razor, using a specific honing technique.

But the pictures do not tell how it shaves. The results might be very surprising. The only way to find out is to testshave.

And then each type of steel might behave differently. Even with my meager set of stones (2 nortons, 1 unknown cheapo, a belgian combo and a yellow bout) I use different approaches for different razors on a trial and error basis.

So with the only variable being the stones, that is the only thing you can make conclusions about. This knowledge can be useful when honing, but I don't believe that you can boil honing down to a simple recipe of first this stone, then that stone and then you have a perfect shave.

There are far too many variables for that. And even IF you were to get them all right, both facial hair and shaving technique influence the shaving result when combined with a certain type of razor, honed to perfection.
It could very well be that for my hair and my shaving technique, a certain type of edge is better for me than it would be for you.

WOW,

I take some time off for my family and to read a book and miss all the fun!

Let me say several things:

I generally support Michael, who has always been most friendly, helpful, and willing to share and discuss his insights. I have learned a lot from him.

Specifically, I also think that the photos are nice. While not groundbreaking, they do show something about the stones / tools. There's much, MUCH more work to be done to give us true understanding about the shaving capabilities and to enable us to correlate consistently with hones, honing techniques, etc.

Also specifically, I find faults with both Rich's logic and presentation

As a last but important specific point: practically, lately I very often DO what Rich suggests. I use a kosher Coticule and follow up with a Y/G Escher, after which I hit the Chromium oxide: I *think* (this is very subjective!) that I get the best shaves this way. This may or may not be *true* and it may vary for different razors. Moreover, assuming it's true for some razors - we don't really know why it's true - yet. It may be that it's true for some totally different reasons, yet the correlation with Rich's hypothesis can be very strong - thus allowing us to make decisions with significant confidence.

I would encourage all members to try honing as many different blades as feasible, with different hones, approaches, etc. I have found I really enjoy honing, started with photos, questions, loupe... I still think these are great tools.

Seems to me discussion tone has degraded a bit since the time I joined - not sure if this is true or not. If true - it would be a pitty, as this has been one of the best online communities I have belonged to - so let me take this opportunity to invite all members to be more considerate. I know it can be hard (many, many times I have started a post or a PM only to delete it before sending)

Cheers
Ivo

Ivo, to my knowledge, you are the first one of us to report on a shave test trying out the Belgian followed by the Escher technique. I'm going to try it out myself this weekend and will report my results. I find great value in reports like yours because they advance the knowledge base of the great community that is this board! I hope that Tim will soon be in a position to photograph combinations like yours and others that may occur to any of us. Enriching our knowledge base should be the desired end of any study like the one Tim is conducting. Lets embrace it with open arms and move forward.

Well, this is going where I had feared. Lets make it clear that the pics absolutely do not show the amount of metal removed by any of the hones. They only show the resulting texture of the bevel. Since I have never seen a 200X magnification of an edge I cannot say if the result is good or bad. To me they all look kinda rough.

Let me also add that some of the sharpest edges I ever honed were achieved before I had an Escher, or a coticule or chrome oxide or diamond paste.

People may logically extrapolate all you wish but the proof is in the shave. No pic will ever tell you how sharp a razor is nor which hone is doing better nor how well it will shave. There are simply to many variables.


Just my two cents,

[The activity and energy in this thread indicate how significant the topic is! ]

Mparker noted that the blade honed on the 15K Shapton displayed a wire edge. To my untrained eye, several of the other photos seem to show similar characteristics, esp. the Norton 8K, the Hard Arkansas, and the Chinese 12K-with-slurry. Do these other photos NOT show evidence of a wire edge? If not, can someone help me understand the difference?

many thanks,
denis

They may show a wire edge; none of this is really definitive - the loss of depth perception means the photos are somewhat deceptive, plus they're not really high enough resolution to see the fin clearly. But the big clue on the 15k Shapton is the rectangular shape of the chip in the edge - this is characteristic of a thin section of wire breaking off the edge, rather than just a rough patch of edge. We can see it clearly because the edge is so overhoned that the wire edge is quite large. For most of the rest of these razors, getting a clear view of the fin would require several times more magnification, and even then we would really like an oblique angle so we could see the fin somewhat more head-on.