Thread: Reason behind pyramid honing and other musings

Khaos,

Thanks for the plug to my blog! I read, and understand what you are saying. Let me just start by saying that I'm glad I'm not the only one who like to analyze sharpening! No matter what anyone says here, keep thinking, and even if some ideas don't fly, you at least challenged us to think and talk about sharpening.

Part of me was thinking that you are over analyzing sharpening a little. It will never fit into a formula - and that's the beauty of it. The idea that a sharpening medium could be tailored to compliment the exact metallurgic make up of a tool is far beyond cost effective - as amazing as it would be if it were possible - because, again of all the variables, too many to get into. Variations of personal preferences alone is enough to throw things off. If you Talk to Howard, there is also flex and the effect of atmospheric conditions (and the spin of the earth ) One could even argue that the microbes, sediments, or metals suspended in the water come into play. (We don't drink tap water in Taiwan, BTW).

However, for prop.1, I think if you were using a tumbler or ultrasonic cleaner, you could be on to something. The right material at the right frequency could result in faster results and/or better finishes (polishes) on different types of steels (or you could ruin your mom's best cookware). If the frequency is too high or low it would cause turbulence that cancels out the effectiveness of the vibrations. In music its called a wolf tone (I have a degree in music BTW). If you divide the frequencies in half, you get the same pitch, just at a higher or lower octave, which intensifies the number of overtones, or vibrations that are are sync. This makes sense - but not for sharpening on a stone, I'm afraid.

Prop 2. I think that is along the lines of what I was thinking. Your second to last stone is really the one that establishes the final grooves in the edge, while the last one smooths over the peaks. Otherwise, the final stone will make new peaks and valleys.
But your prefect point must be established before 4K (I would even venture to say before 3K), otherwise it will take an awful long time to get one.

Prop. 3. Price and availability are big factors when purchasing stones. As people get better at sharpening and are ready to "step up", they buy what they can afford. Why spend money on 2 of the same grit stones? Some people can sleep at night mixing and matching their equipment. Others like consistency. Shapton, King and Norton, to name but a few, offer this consistency even though their consistency is not necessarily consistent with other brands. Only when people get serious (like us) do they get picky about the consistencies and the results their stones get. Also, people go with what's popular or what is suggested to them by pros. With no disrespect to Lynn, but if Lynn said that he uses the bottom of a greasy 8lb cast iron skillet loaded with CrO2 for a strop, wouldn't you do it, or at least think about doing it?

Prop 4. Natural stones will have variations and anomalies. Their grading system is not as exact as synthetic stones. In general, I would have to say that a good sharpener will get results on any set up (provided it is reasonable - i.e. not trying to jump from #320 to 8K) although he or she may prefer either naturals or synthetics over the other. It comes down to understanding sharpening, and how the stones work and respond in relation to what you are trying to achieve. That can take time to learn, even on synthetics.

Prop 5. I think this is a question of abrasive material. It is perfectly acceptable to go from 1K to 6K on a kitchen knife (which is what I do), but just like prop 1, halving the size of the abrasive is mathematically more sound, but may be unnecessary for actual cutting action. I'm not sure how to word what I want to say here, but when doubling the grit, it may not be the "best" or most economical solution. I think after a 1k, if you can use a 3k or 2k, which one is then more "correct"? If you use the 3k, it may be a waste to use the 2k instead. DMT #1200 jumps to 8k, for example. (If someone knows what I am trying to say here, and can say it better, please do)

And lastly,

Now, I'm no honemeister, nor do I have any stones or anything.

Its okay to admit that you don't have the stones to become a honemister.

Great post! Keep thinking!

The reason behind pyramid honing – it works and gives consistent results.

My unscientific view

Charlie

Here is where some of you guys get way of track when it comes to honing....

I love reading some of the explanations taken to the nth degree by many of our Engineer / Mathematician types on the forum....

Although they are great reading and maybe some of you have some sound theories out there to explain what is going on when we hone... here is the bottom line unfortunatly....

Honing a straight razor is way more of an art then it is a science, if it could be quantified into a science we would have honing machines.....
But sooner or later it is the Honemiester's touch and experience that brings the best edge to the "sink"....

I realise this. I think I've said several times that I know things just work sometimes, and that experience is much better than theory. I'm just curious as to why. It's my fatal character flaw. I don't like just accepting. I will if I have to, but its nice to try and found out why. (Hence I'm an engineer instead of an English major... since an early age I've been reverse engineering everything that broke in the house- lawnmower, hairdryer, smoke alarm, blender, kitchen timer- and lately figuring out how to fix it when I'm done tinkering.) Thanks for all the responses guys.

I actually liked the wave theory, that was a cool way of thinking about it.. I liked the different scratches theory too...
The way you guys are thinking this through is kinda neat, it helps to visualize what might be going on at the edge level...

And if it helps anyone to get a great shave then I am all for it...

I think the wave/scratch theory for smoothness/sharpness is the soundest. I also still think that pyramid honing can be explained by that to some degree. The "harmony" arguments I guess were just ideas that didn't hold up so well. But I definately learned and thats the point.

I agree it's an art. I'll not comment on the rest. I think honing is quite a bit simpler than this. In fact, I think its much easier than this, in concept and practice.

But I'm for people thinking it's really, really, hard and complicated. And I agree that Lynn is a master at honing.

I see it more as sculpting steel with flat stones.

I think too many people think that when something is difficult that it must subsequently be complicated.

If you only knew how complicated even the simplest things were lol... The main thing I learned in engineering is everything is complicated. I interned at BorgWarner for a while last year (til the car industry in America collapsed) and they are the world leader in automotive parts and engine testing, they invented automatic transmissions, silent chains, VCT etc. Anyway. They're really famous for accoustics. You know that clunk your door makes when you close it? Do you know how much testing went into it? The clunk your door makes was engineered to sound exactly like it does through testing, surveying people on ear-pleasing clunk sounds, etc. The shape of a shift knob is another example. The way I got the underlyign frequency was a combination of my differential equations class (Fourier series and resonances) and testing at BorgWarner that I can't really describe but basically they found that if certain parts of the car vibrate at specific frequencies it can hinder/help other parts, so each part is designed to harmonize with the other parts. This is what lead to silent chain, amongst other things. EVERYTHING is complicated when you get down to the molecular level.

Then I will humbly bow to your education on the subject . . .

good luck with your honing!

I barely have any education. Just saying even the simple things in life are massively complicated.... *sigh*