So while I was doing complicated engineering math in another thread, I had an epiphany that I want some comments on. I have to give some credit to Jende Industries for jump starting my brain, Lynn for his Norton Pyramid scheme, and gssixgun for unknowingly providing the first step to my evidence, in said thread. Here's the thread, it will probably help. http://straightrazorpalace.com/basic...too-sharp.html
See also Jende Industries argument, I think he put it quite well, save the last part about over polishing which I disagree with (see the aforementioned thread) Sharpening Epiphany « Jende Industries Blog

Please read through this, even though it may be boring, I am really interested in hearing what people think, and definitely interested in hearing counter arguments or support. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just very very curious about this.

So here's my idea: Think for instance about something vibrating. (Musicians will get this maybe better than other people) When you have frequencies with periods that are multiples of each other (known as harmonics) the two combine to make a beautiful noise or a stronger signal. Or, when you have something of the same frequency, it can cause resonance (the reason some building fall in an earthquake and some don't, it causes the screeching feedback in microphones when they are two close to a speaker, its the reason glass shatters when singers hit a certain note). These are called response frequencies, and almost everything has natural response frequencies. That is a known fact.

Now is where I need help.

First Proposition. I read everywhere about people having different results with different hones and different razors- the blade won't take an edge on say a Norton 8k, but loves the DMT 8k. Here's my first proposal. The tiny little cutting grains occur in something of a regular pattern at the molecular level, causing scratches in rows, with peaks and valleys. What if I razor were to hone better where the steel's material properties matched the hone's material properties in terms of complimenting frequencies? Like, the type of cutting particle (garnet, CrO crystals, pieces of diamond) matches the molecular structure of the steel somehow. This is a crap shoot and I have NO evidence other than musing, but I feel it may have some warrant.

Second Proposition. The reason pyramid honing works is because two grits will create just the right (or close enough) scratch frequencies to cancel each other in the Fourier series that results from their combination to make a straight edge. (English: the grits create scratches that cancel each other out very well) So with the Norton's, 4k and 8k are maybe in harmony- as the 4k makes harsh gouges and sharpens, the 8k cancels the peaks, bringing them down to the valleys, thus smoothing it. So the 4k sharpens, and the 8k smooths. Each time you do a step in the pyramid, you sharpen a little, polish smooth, sharpen more, polish more. You taper the 4k, because as Glen says, the bevel approaches a perfect point and all it needs is polishing.

Third Proposition. The reason people find combinations that work for them is because they by trial and error discover hones with these relative scratch frequencies. I keep reading about someone who goes through some seemingly random progression, and if someone suggest a different stone they say they've tried, it didn't work, or they try it, it doesn't work, etc.

Fourth Proposition. The variance in natural stones is of course to be expected. But I think the reason that some natural stones really shine while others are seemingly duds is because of my frequency argument. If I have a nice progression set up, and I need a polisher, I'd need one that fits. Lets say I try a coticule. I find the shave sucks. Off an Escher thought, it feels like a magic blade, sharper than a scorned woman's tongue, smoother than a baby's smelly end, and its as comfortable as Southern. (southern comfort... come on...). I try a chinese 12k for ****s and giggles, the shave is not as good. Maybe its because the Escher fits my hone progression. But to go even further, lets say I try three Eschers. Only one of them is the God-Stone. The other two may as well be 80 grit sandpaper. Does this mean they are inferior. I sell one to Joe for ten bucks. He thinks I'm an idiot, he loves the shaves he gets off of it. Maybe the natural variation doesn't cause shiners and duds, maybe the natural variation means some fit, some don't.

Fifth Proposition. Human stones are more consistent than natural stones because they were engineered that way. If you buy a set of Shaptons, they will work. If you buy a 4k/8k, and pyramid it, it will work. They were engineered with tolerances, to have them be consistent. The natural stones were completely random, so their tolerance are wider. Hence "perfect" stones and "duds". That goes without say. But then why is there no standard? Why is DMT 325, 600, 1200, 8000, where Norton is 220, 1k, 4k, 8k? Maybe its because the engineers found those grits just seemed to get the job done. They worked well together.

Now, I'm no honemeister, nor do I have any stones or anything. All this is based off of what I've read people say, and my knowledge of engineering. I am willing to bet that a good enough honemeister will have worked out the tricks that make things work with anything, but I am willing to bet that a lot of things that "just work", "just work" because at the microscopic level its like puzzle pieces fitting together.
I guess my last statement is it seems if there is at least some truth to what I proposed, there is no perfect hone, simply the "perfect" combination of hones and a honer/honemeister (as experience differentiates) that knows how to make them work. Like an orchestra and a conductor.