X pattern honing on a 3 inch - inefficient?

[ProfessorShak]

I've been following the extremely useful advice on the forum and have been practicing exactly as i've seen and read. I'm trying to learn the X patern and on every stone I have.
I suddenly noticed that while practicing on the norton 4/8k, that an X patern isn't as efficient in creating an even bevel as say using the entire width.
An X pattern is efficient on a 2 inch because even though the toe isn't contacting the hone in the first part of the stroke, it will come down at the end of the stroke . But on the 3" the Toe contact is constant meaning the toe gets honed twice as much as the heel because the heel loses contact.

While I'm not going to get into the philosophy of efficiency and effectiveness, I was wondering what eveyone thought about this. Wouldn't an even bevel be achieved more efficiently if the blade used the entire surface of the Norton?

[Ditch Doc]

I have been wondering the same thing. I hope some experienced honers chime in.

[Utopian]

This is a common question with a variety of answers. Basically, if your blade sits perfectly absolutely uniformly flat on the hone and your hone is perfectly flat, then you probably don't need to do an x-pattern.

Good luck with that.

In the real world, the blade does not make perfect contact with the hone. The x-pattern makes up for this by varying the contact of the blade with the hone. You can test this for yourself by doing the marker test on the edge of your razor and compare the removal using the two stroke options.

Think of the old barber hones. I don't think a single one was ever made 3" wide. It's not because they didn't have enough material to make hones in the old days. The hones were optimized for their purpose and that meant they were all between 1.5 and 2 inches in width. The x-pattern seems to be the optimal honing stroke and the x-pattern negates the need for a 3" wide hone.

[ProfessorShak]

This is a common question with a variety of answers. Basically, if your blade sits perfectly absolutely uniformly flat on the hone and your hone is perfectly flat, then you probably don't need to do an x-pattern.

Good luck with that.

On this I agree.

In the real world, the blade does not make perfect contact with the hone. The x-pattern makes up for this by varying the contact of the blade with the hone. You cant test this for yourself by doing the marker test on the edge of your razor and compare the removal using the two stroke options.

Think of the old barber hones. I don't think a single one was ever made 3" wide. It's not because they didn't have enough material to make hones in the old days. The hones were optimized for their purpose and that meant they were all between 1.5 and 2 inches in width. The x-pattern seems to be the optimal honing stroke and the x-pattern negates the need for a 3" wide hone.

While this clearly validates the need for X pattern on a 2 inch stone, It still doesn't answer the question for 3" in which the toe, regardless of flatness of the blade, still recieved more hone attention if done using X pattern. This is a fact, on a 3" hone using X pattern strokes, the Toe of the blade is honed throughout the ENTIRE stroke whereas the heel is not, therefore more metal is removed from the toe in that stroke than in the heel. If creating and polishing an even bevel off a 3", I see no reason why an X stroke should be used. On a 2" an X would provide an even bevel. That I agree.

Many have the norton 4/8k and I'm sure that some clarification would be useful. I'm trying to avoid conventional thinking and looking for not just what "works" but what works best.

[hi_bud_gl]

answer to your question is yes. x pattern needs in barber hones(small size)+less then 3 inch hones.this is my personal opinion.
i am sure a lot people will come and say it does give better edge etc.etc .there is no one will show that in any book or scientifically or by microscope .to me it is nonsense. You have 3 inch hone use it straight up and down.good luck

[gugi]

My thoughts are that your findings will change as your honing improves

[Jimbo]

On this I agree.



While this clearly validates the need for X pattern on a 2 inch stone, It still doesn't answer the question for 3" in which the toe, regardless of flatness of the blade, still recieved more hone attention if done using X pattern. This is a fact, on a 3" hone using X pattern strokes, the Toe of the blade is honed throughout the ENTIRE stroke whereas the heel is not, therefore more metal is removed from the toe in that stroke than in the heel. If creating and polishing an even bevel off a 3", I see no reason why an X stroke should be used. On a 2" an X would provide an even bevel. That I agree.

Many have the norton 4/8k and I'm sure that some clarification would be useful. I'm trying to avoid conventional thinking and looking for not just what "works" but what works best.

One of the assumptions here is that the entire surface of the hone must be used. That does not have to be the case. If you angle the blade, an X-pattern can start with the toe off the hone. And it can finish half-way down the hone if you want. Adding the rolling hone motion can also mitigate the "extra toe time" issue.

There was also a theory, a longish time ago now, but it may still have some legs to it, that the pressure differential between toe and heel offsets the X-pattern tendency to keep the toe on longer (ie the scales, and the fact that your hand holds the shank, makes the pressure on the heel a bit larger than on the toe). I don't know about this one, but there might be something in it.

James.

[bjorn]

Many have the norton 4/8k and I'm sure that some clarification would be useful. I'm trying to avoid conventional thinking and looking for not just what "works" but what works best.

here's a post from a man who may have honed a few razors, after a while you'll get an idea of which stroke will suit you and your razors best.

[randydance062449]

The question assumes that the edge is perfectly straight and that the pressure is constant. Both are seldom the case. Our very nature makes us use a different pressure during the honing stroke and that alone will cause the razor to wear unevenly. That of course results in the edge losing it's straightness.

Logically you are correct but the underlying assumptions are not realistic.
The edge on most razors are not straight and the pressure we use will vary during the stroke.

So far the stroke that I use the most is the rolling X stroke. It accomadates the variances in both the razors and the hones.

Just my $.02,

[Utopian]

While this clearly validates the need for X pattern on a 2 inch stone, It still doesn't answer the question for 3" in which the toe, regardless of flatness of the blade, still recieved more hone attention if done using X pattern. This is a fact, on a 3" hone using X pattern strokes, the Toe of the blade is honed throughout the ENTIRE stroke whereas the heel is not, therefore more metal is removed from the toe in that stroke than in the heel. If creating and polishing an even bevel off a 3", I see no reason why an X stroke should be used. On a 2" an X would provide an even bevel. That I agree.

Many have the norton 4/8k and I'm sure that some clarification would be useful. I'm trying to avoid conventional thinking and looking for not just what "works" but what works best.

My point about the size of the barber hone was that it was clear when the straight was the only razor option, all barber hones were between 1.5 and 2 inches for a good reason. That reason has been alluded to in the above posts. That is, the x-pattern is the optimal stroke for honing and maintaining a razor, regardless of the width of the hone. If the x-pattern is used, a hone has no need to be wider than 1.5 to 2 inches. In the past couple hundred years of straight razor usage, not a single razor hone that I know of was made wide enough to use a straight stroke.

I absolutely refuse to accept the argument that the x-pattern was developed because only small hones existed. To me it seems clear that the x-pattern was found to be optimal and therefore the narrow hones were made because they were the best match for the x-pattern. If a straight stroke worked so well, then barber hones would have been made wider. The fact that some people are now using wider Norton hones does not change the reality of the x-pattern usually being the optimal stroke.

Keep in mind that the Norton hones are NOT razor hones. By that I mean that they were not made to be razor hones. They simply are usable as razor hones. I don't know how many people are aware of this, but Norton also makes a set of hones that are 1.5 inches wide and I believe they are much more practical for razors.