Thread: Bevel Setting

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I respectfully absolutly positively disagree, and I have only this as proof...

Take a 4k Norton and do 1600 laps, going on your assumtions that a 1k is 16 times faster than a 1k...

That would then equal 1000 laps on a 1K.... according to my estimate and 4000 according to yours.
I wouldn't do either, an I don't see how taking this into absurdity will proof or disproof anything.

But upon some further thinkering, I didn't bring into account that a 4K actually has more particles than the 1K, as Tom pointed out. That brings my estimate closer to yours, but not all the way.

The bottom line is that we all agree, except about how much the speed difference precisely is.

Best regards,
Bart.

Holy smokes! I now know one thing for sure; I don't know anything. All of you have a ton of knowledge on metallurgy and honing stones; plus you have all your years of experience.

I am just happy reloading and homemade bread making are easy to me. I went ahead and ordered a 1000 grit stone today. I figured one more stone just opened my abilities, what there is to them, one more notch.

Laugh! I thought I would jump into SR shaving,; get a single razor, strop and some stones; and that would be it. Laugh! That was like thinking flying would be easy. Oh well, I concurred the latter, but I think the former will take longer than 45 hours of training.

Thank you all for your answers. Take care.

Things aren't always as complicated as they seem. There's no reason an already honed razor can't be maintained with a strop & an occasional touch up with a fine hone.

Originally Posted by Bart

+1 on the very essence of what Glen said...

but not on the notion that 1K is 4 times faster than a 4K. It's considerably faster than that.

particle size of a Norton 1k=14 micron (according to Norton)
particlz size of a Norton 4K=3 micron (also according to Norton)

Since where talking about 3 dimensional particles, we have to calculate in volumes. The 4K particles fit about 4 times in the 1k particles in each axis (x,y and z), hence 4 X 4 X 4= 64. So: while the 4K particles are 4 times smaller in diameter,they are 64 times smaller in volume. Fortunately the scraches they make run the same length, so we only have to bring a 2 dimensional cross section into account. The 3th dimension is actually the length of a scratch, which is obviously constant. But the cross section of that scratch is defined by 2 dimensions of the particle. 4 times smaller X 4 times smaller = 16 times smaller.
This is only true if the scratches run full depth of a particle. Now I don't think honing scratches are the full depth of the particle size, but I believe that the speed difference between a 1K hone and a 4K hone will be closer to 16 times than to 4 times. My point is that dividing the grit numbers does not yield a correct estimate of the speed ratio between 2 hones.
That explains why the speed difference between 1K and, let's say 8K is big enough to keep you honing all week, if you go to the 8k too early.

But yes, bevel correction can be done on a 4K synthetic water hone.
Bevel repair is in an entirely different realm.

Bart.

Originally Posted by jendeindustries

While a little confusing for those who are not mathematically inclined (like me!), Bart is absolutely correct.

On the surface (no pun intended), it is easy to think that 2k has twice as many particles as a 1k, and 4k twice as much as 2k. But it is the math that Bart explained which answers another question on what Glen identifies as restore vs. sharpening/bevel setting earlier on the thread here or just scroll up. (Are you following?)

At the 4K level, the particle sizes are too small and too shallow to effectively create a new bevel. The 4K can, however, remove just the thinnest layer to expose a "refreshed" layer of the bevel, like taking one layer of skin off an onion. You will not get to the core of the onion on a 4K in this lifetime - you'll most likely get to the core of the 4K if you try, though!

So to expand on Glen's answer, an already well defined bevel that is simply dull and needs to be honed can benefit from starting a 4K.

If the 4K doesn't seem to give results, from an uneven or a rounded bevel from stropping, for example, the one would require a coarser stone to reshape, or reset the bevel (i.e. 1k, 2k) - this should be relatively fast since the existing bevel is basically in place (in theory), and it is just a matter of peeling down the rogue layers of the skin of the onion so that an even layer of skin is exposed.

Restoration is removing whole layers of metal on the blade to get rid of chips, rust, and/or pitting and requires a lot of effort and a maybe even a coarser stone such as a #220.

Actually in real life not the "Gritzone" I am going to explain here so there are no more misunderstanding because you guys just confused the heck outta this very simple thread....

I said this a few weeks ago when the grit charts were being quoted, that they don't really correlate to real life...

On average a fast bevel on a Norton 1k takes 20 laps (for me) a slow bevel might take as many as 150... These numbers are only important to me not everybody else, different strokes /different folks etc:

Now what you guys are saying is according to the grit charts and what you read because neither of you actually hone on Nortons that I have ever read about anyway, and please correct me if I am wrong...

Bart says my 20 laps would be closer to 320 laps and Tom says I might not ever get there....
Now on the slow bevel I could take 1600 - 2400 by Bart's calculations and for sure would never get there by Tom's....

OK now here's the problem, some of us learned on Norton 4/8's we actually have honed razors on them, in real life, in fact some of us quite a few razors...

I NEVER did that many laps, ever... Oh yeah I can get a shaving sharp razor on one...

What the point is here, is don't go by what it says, go by what it does....Charts don't tell the whole truth...


No offense intended here guys, but the point needed making and the problem is with the charts and info not you guys...
I have the utmost respect for both of you...


Now back to your regularly scheduled hone zone programing...

Which says yes a Norton 4k will be fine until you start messing with e-bay blades and damaged ones then you might wanna get a 1k...

Glen,

You are correct - I was speaking in terms of the Shapton 4K, but was also assuming that we weren't speaking of a specific stone brand name or manufacturer - just a generic 4k. (it sounds dumb, now!)

You often clarify the differences between honing and restoration, and I think that you put them in the correct compartments - I was just trying to point that out. IOW, to answer a typical question of "why can't you only use the 12K stone for everything?"

I would like to see a comprehensive list of what you define as regular sharpening, resetting the bevel, and restoration. I think it would help a lot of us in clarifying what we are talking about in the future.....

Originally Posted by Bart

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I respectfully absolutly positively disagree, and I have only this as proof...

Take a 4k Norton and do 1600 laps, going on your assumtions that a 1k is 16 times faster than a 1k...

That would then equal 1000 laps on a 1K.... according to my estimate and 4000 according to yours.

nope 100 laps, you're off by 10

So, I like to do this quick 'back on the envelope' type estimates in my head as well, they work great only if you have to correct model of the process.

So, what is the correct number you ask? I believe it is 4 and that comes just from the depth of the grooves of the removed metal. the length of the groves is he same and as far as the width goes it's the same whether you have 4 times more of them when each is 4 times narrower.

Of course, this only works if the two abrasives work very similartly to each other and the difference is dominated by particle size. Which apparently is true for norton 1k and 4k. But as we all know particle size is only a small component on how a hone cuts and how fast it is.
As mparker pointed recently the various arkansas hones have the same particle sizes yet they cut in a drastically different manner.

Bottom line is the actual experiment trumps any incomplete theory, so when Glen says the comparison is such and such, I take this as the actual true answer from the experimental data.

Originally Posted by sarend

Holy smokes! I now know one thing for sure; I don't know anything. All of you have a ton of knowledge on metallurgy and honing stones; plus you have all your years of experience.

I am just happy reloading and homemade bread making are easy to me. I went ahead and ordered a 1000 grit stone today. I figured one more stone just opened my abilities, what there is to them, one more notch.

Laugh! I thought I would jump into SR shaving,; get a single razor, strop and some stones; and that would be it. Laugh! That was like thinking flying would be easy. Oh well, I concurred the latter, but I think the former will take longer than 45 hours of training.

Thank you all for your answers. Take care.

Hey sarend, don't feel bad. I am as clueless as you say you are on this theory stuff. A friend told me just yesterday that a micron is a millionth of an inch. I don't know the math but I can hone razors. I don't have a problem with guys who do know what they are talking about expounding on all of the technical stuff, in fact I rather enjoy it.

OTOH, I didn't need to know it to learn how to set a bevel and further refine the edge, strop and shave. Sort of like when I was younger and connected iron on buildings. I wouldn't have known what to do with a slide rule but I could climb a column and take a spud wrench and a 6 pound beater and hang that iron.

Not to muddy the water... but unless I've forgotten everything from my Micro classes, a micron is one-millionth of a meter...
I think it is roughly 1/30,000 of an inch... Could be wrong. Will grab a chem/microscopy book and check.

Originally Posted by BKratchmer

Not to muddy the water... but unless I've forgotten everything from my Micro classes, a micron is one-millionth of a meter...
I think it is roughly 1/30,000 of an inch... Could be wrong. Will grab a chem/microscopy book and check.

I could have been wrong.... I was wrong once before.