Thread: Another honing article: peer review asked

Originally Posted by AFDavis11

One graphic, the "Checking a dull bevel" is curious. If the cross reference is always a "+" sign I'd argue that the graphic is useless for its intended purpose, and text would do the concept justice. Correct me if I'm wrong, or if you see a point to it.

That table indeed is a bit redundant. I merely put it there in contrast with the first table, to show that, once a bevel is dulled with the suggested technique, these 3 tests become useful for all instances.

I came up with that idea, because I noticed newbies often go to finishing hones with a less than complete bevel. Many times, they end up fumbling on a pasted strop (usually CrO) and manage to get some keenness by convexing their incomplete bevel. After that they have a hard time to understand that they must complete the bevel first, simply because it passes all the tests. If you were to dull a complete bevel with the suggested technique, it takes only very few laps before it passes those tests again. But if you were to dull a convex bevel, if will take exactly the amount of work needed to achieve a flat and complete bevel, before the razor passes the tests again.
The diagram is there to emphasize the usefulness of an at first sight controversial technique: making the razor duck the tests, so they become reliable for the intended purpose.

Thank you for reviewing my diagrams, Alan.
Bart.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

Outstanding article. Many thanks, Bart!

Thank YOU, for tidying up my mess with the illustrations, Robin. You just saved me a headache while figuring it out myself.

Bart

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

My only criticism, if that is what it is, is that a reader might get the impression that using one layer of tape is a negative practice. IMO it doesn't add up to enough of a change in geometry to affect the integrity of the blade. Having a heck of a lot of razors and not wanting to go to the trouble of remembering which were honed with tape and which without I use it on all of them.

Jimmy, I have rewritten the paragraph about the "Double bevel", which is now called the "The diverging bevel" because that covers the various instances of a bevel with a non-standard angle better.
I have described those instances separated now, which gave me the opportunity to elaborate on taped honing a bit more. Please let me know if this clears the ambiguity.

Best regards,
Bart.

Originally Posted by Lynn

Hi Bart,

Very nice!! One recommendation might be to incorporate the 45 degree angle with the X stroke for both Wedges and Smiling blades in addition to the Rolling X. I have found that instead of the normal X stroke done usually at 90 degrees that the 45 degree angle is excellent for making sure the entire edge crosses the stone.

Lynn,

Is this what you are referring to?

Bart.

Bart,

I just finished reading your honing article on the WIKI. Very well done! When putting pen to paper, or in this cans electrons to screen, it is almost impossible to be perfect to everyone. My take on reading your article is that it goes well above average in communicating how to set a bevel and is easy to understand. I would not be able to do as well as you and I'm sure that there are few of us that can and have the time to do so. Thank you for a very well authored article and assisting our friends here on SRP!

Bart:
I won't answer for Lynn but that is not the stroke I was refering to....
That is almost a perfect representation of what I call a swooping stroke, and it is very effective on barbers notched razors... Using a slight swoop at the very end of a rolling X to sharpen the curve on the notch...
What I was refering to is the heel / toe angle staying the same all the way down the hone so that the heel is foreward at the start and is still foreward at the end....

And +1 to Joed it is far easier to nitpick then to do the whole thing like you did....

Originally Posted by Bart

Jimmy, I have rewritten the paragraph about the "Double bevel", which is now called the "The diverging bevel" because that covers the various instances of a bevel with a non-standard angle better.
I have described those instances separated now, which gave me the opportunity to elaborate on taped honing a bit more. Please let me know if this clears the ambiguity.

Best regards,
Bart.

Looks good to me Bart. Great resource, thanks again for the hard work !

Thanks, Joed. I have been brooding on this thing for several weeks. It's rewarding that it's so warmly received.

Glenn, the "swooping" stroke, eh? I guess I 'll have to create an animated diagram for all possibilities now, and write "Honing Strokes: Theory and Practice"

Bart.

Originally Posted by Bart

Glenn, the "swooping" stroke, eh? I guess I 'll have to create an animated diagram for all possibilities now, and write "Honing Strokes: Theory and Practice"

Bart.

I think it might be a never ending project my friend
You defiantly got a good start going....
BTW "Swooping" is just my own stupid name for it I don't even know if anyone else uses it, but I do know it works for certain razors very well...

Originally Posted by Bart

Thank YOU, for tidying up my mess with the illustrations, Robin. You just saved me a headache while figuring it out myself.

Well, you'll win all razors in the Wiki competition, I think.

Any road, whenever any of you guys have questions about some technological thingamajick, just come to #srp. There is usually someone around who can help.