Thread: Hones and Edges Under the Microscope

While sharpening may in fact be a science it is also a fact that evey natural stone is different making the photos an example only of what happens with this particular razor, this honer and these particular hones. If the test was only on the Shapton and Norton stones which I would think are quite consistant, I would say a conclusion could possibly be drawn on what works best,....stones, strokes, slurry and order of use. With naturals though, each is different. I have coticules I love, those I do not. The same with Eschers, Thuringens, etc.... some a little harder, some softer, some grainer, some finer.
The only true test is in how each works. My Rabbi customers who have probably honed far more blades than any of us will reject some Eschers after trying them and other they love, based on how each individual one performs. Same with coticules. While one can conduct exacting tests and experiments, in the case of naturals we are conducting them on unique items. As a generalization based on Tim's photos one could say use a Coticule without slurry before an Escher with slurry but it will not always hold true in every case. To me this is one where the emperical tests outweight the scientific.
I am not a stranger to testing either. My day job is in metals and NDT for a major aerospace foundry and after 25 years of this I find the actual does not always follow what "should" happen.
Tim has conducted very good tests here, provided good photographic evidence of what HE experienced but our milage may vary. Lynn may get a different result, Joe Chandler another, me a third. It does not set a right and wrong standard though of what happens when honing.

Tony (as a matter of fact I am a rocket scientist <g>) Miller

Tony makes excellent points, albeit from a rocket scientist!!! There is a theme in this post and in others that I believe bears clarification. The emperical is joined at the hip with the scientific. In fact, all of physical science is emperical, i. e., derives from experiment. The theoretical is only an effort to model the results of experiments mathematically. So the theoretical as it pertains to science is not the musing of some self appointed philosopher, it is an attempt to quantify the results of experiments with the intention of giving us the ability to predict results that we have not yet imagined. Experiments are then designed to test these predictions and if they confirm the predictions we become more confident that the theory has some merit. If after confirming many of the predictions many times, a theory may become a scientific law. Tony and others are quite correct in pointing out that much work is needed before we can have confidence in conclusions drawn from Tim's work, but at the same time, we should encourage him to do much more work of this kind. Results from more stones and more blades etc. are needed. Operator dependence is always an issue, however I am confident that Tim is a very skilled operator when it comes to honing and although we need to keep this in mind, I think that his methodical approach will yield reproducible results.

Originally Posted by swede

Put me on there too. You make the classic mistake of thinking that everyone that is new to a forum is new to the subject. Wrong!

I do know how to hone, too! Been doing it for many years, probably more than you've been alive. It's a science, not an art.

Hey rgdominguez, Illigitimi non carborundum. With all the extraneous noise ignoring us, maybe we can have a good learning session!

Tim, nice pictures. I wish you could have taken them of both sides of the blade, a lot of times a burr can hide on one side and look really clean from the other. Nice work, though, and thanks!

Swede, it's nice to show solidarity and all, but I wonder if it's a good idea to introduce yourself in your very first post on a forum by jumping in on one side of a dispute between two well-liked senior members. It may also be pointed out that Mparker is extremely well-respected here, for his expertise (which is both hands-on and theoretical, art and science), for his courtesy and humor, and for the time he takes with newbies. You'll learn plenty from him, even if you already know how to hone – that is if he hasn't already obliged your request and put you on his ignore list.

That said, welcome to the forum Swede.

Rich,
Thanks for your post. Again, not trying to take anything from Tim's work, just showing that there is much more to it than shown. I'll be glad to offer up a good number of well known barber hones or a multi-pasted paddle for testing if Tim or anyone else wants to continue with this. It still will not prove anything but may show us interesing results to compliment what we experience whan using them.

Tony

Tony, I know that you are excited about Tim's work. You, I and many others including Tim know that this is only the beginning and that much work needs to be done. Many of us have thought and wondered about these things but I take off my hat to Tim for shaking the dust from his sandles and starting the long journey. The task is daunting, thank God for the shaker and mover in Tim. One spark is all it takes and maybe this great pool of knowledge and experience that is the SRP will be mobilized by Tim's efforts and who knows what great things await us!

Originally Posted by murph

Is it a waterstone for honing bigspender? The picture isn't too clear but it looks like a nagura to me but of course it could just be the stamp looks like nagura as kanji does have so many similar looking characters.

Yes it is a waterstone for honing.

Originally Posted by rgdominguez

Tony, I know that you are excited about Tim's work. You, I and many others including Tim know that this is only the beginning and that much work needs to be done. Many of us have thought and wondered about these things but I take off my hat to Tim for shaking the dust from his sandles and starting the long journey. The task is daunting, thank God for the shaker and mover in Tim. One spark is all it takes and maybe this great pool of knowledge and experience that is the SRP will be mobilized by Tim's efforts and who knows what great things await us!

Well, Tim is hardly the first to do this. I have a book on sharpening by Leonard Lee that has lots of photos at a higher resolution and higher magnifaction of lots of stones and edges.

I have done something similar when I started honing (less stones), but the one variable that cannot be expressed is the honer himself. Stones are measurable and observable. Technique is at least as important, but not directly measurable.

I do like the pictures, and I would like to see more, and it is nice of Tim to have made the effort.
However, the information in this thread and others is useful, but it's not like we are living in the dark age of sharpening, and suddenly enlightenment has arrived.
As far as honing itself goes, pictures like this give you more information, but the only way to learn honing is to hone, hone and hone. Experiment with stones and techniques.

That being said, maybe we should make a sticky thread or an archived document with a collection of all these (and other) pictures. it would make it easier to find and study them aterwards?

Bruno, the idea of a sticky thread is very good. Would you volunteer to do it?

A new thread containing the pics done by David Uthe, Robert Williams, Tim and others would be a good idea. That thread could then be made into a sticky and also put into the Help archives.

The pics by David Uthe were very useful in showing what a wire edge looks like. What we need is someone with a very good tri-ocular scope and camera to show what a damaged edge looks like that cannot be recovered and those that can be recovered. I am thinking of pitting along the edge. Wecould also use more pic s of wire edge's at their various stages of development. I would also like to see pics of a perfectly good, smooth bevel that does not shave worth a damm and then show that same bevel after it had been made shaving sharp.

Since most of us use either a 30X-60X that should be the power used in the photo's. It is foolish to try and match a scratch pattern taken at 200X when all you have to work with is a 60X.

Just some thoughts,

the idea is great - and I say we want as many photos, of as many hones as possible, at different magnification - 30x, 60x, 100x, 150, 200... (Not sure if we need more than 200)

Cheers
Ivo