Thread: New Article - Hone Comparison Table

Here's what I propose:
Let's first gather all the data.
I have build a simple Excel-sheet, with a crude, self-adjusting diagram.
People can use it to rate the hones they're familiar with, on 4 scales:
1. START OF WORK-RANGE.
At which point is the hone in question capable enough to do something beneficial for an edge within a reasonable time-frame. The zero-level points to a razor that has NO bevel. In my book a DMT 325 starts at zero level. Level 15 is the theoretical maximum of ulterior keenness.
2. SMOOTHNESS
How fine is the scratch pattern left by the hone. This aims more to the smoothness of the cut, than to visual brilliance.
3. END OF WORK-RANGE.
At which level of keenness does the hone stop to improve the edge (whether it maxes out or starts overhoning)
4. SPEED
How fast does the hone abrade steel, relative to other hones that work in the same range.
I have already placed a few common hones on the map, for the sake of calibrating the scales. The other slots should be filled with data, relative to those values.
Please note that hones that are able to follow each other in a progression need to have some overlap in their work-range.
I propose that as much people as possible, who have some self-confidence in honing, download the sheet and make the effort of contributing their estimated values.
Enter numeric data about the hones you're familiar with and tweak their figures till you're happy with the diagram.
Use multiple sheets if you have more hones to rate. Next, e-mail each sheet as a separate file to a central person that collects the sheets. Maybe Kristopher can be that person. (Choose "save as" in Excel and rename the sheet with your SRP-name and a number for each new sheet you wish to fill out). The central scrutinizer needs to paste the results into one big sheet and make Excel calculate an average for each hone. I will build a large 3D "razor"-diagram from those results.
Please feel free to comment. I am sure my excel sheet has a large margin for improvement. If someone with more Excel-lence could come forward and tweak my modest efforts, I would be very grateful.
We should also reach agreement on the "calibration" data for the DMT-E and the Norton 4K/8K that I have entered in the sheet, before we can really start collection data.

See the attached ZIP-file, hope this works.

Best regards,
Bart.

No one seems interested.
Or they all disagree with the proposed method.

I was only trying to help, but if it holds back the article, I'll gladly step out of the way.

Bart.

Originally Posted by Bart

No one seems interested.
...

I don't think it's so much a lack of interest, more like a problem of objective method to measure results in each category. It's hard to make an objective chart or graph when all the data is largely subjective opinion. Under those conditions any chart/graph will have a great degree of overlap (if it reflects all the different opinions and estimated values). Individual technique with any hone can also skew each operator's/responder's results quite a bit.

e.g.: what will be the standard for "smoothness"? Smooth shave or smooth scratch pattern on the edge? Even this will be a highly subjective opinion. The only objective way (that I know of) would be to use a machine shop inspection grade electronic surface/finish tester. Even then, a higher grade result on a surface tester wouldn't necessarily equate to a better shave.

About the best we can hope for is to list hones in ascending order of mesh/grit and give general hints/recommendations on it's usage. There'll be disagreement and overlap on that too, I bet. I think "The Glen" (gssixgun ) already made a post in this direction (hone usage?) and some copy&paste into the wiki could be useful.

I could add some info on barber hones, but it wouldn't be anything but my own subjective opinion. Let me know once the format/categories are finalized, maybe I can add some general info on a couple of barber hones.

Originally Posted by Sticky

I don't think it's so much a lack of interest, more like a problem of objective method to measure results in each category. It's hard to make an objective chart or graph when all the data is largely subjective opinion.

Obviously, but then again, where is the difference to a discussion here? The question has been asked many times (hence the "which hone(s) do I need" article), and I would preface the Wiki article with a big warning sign. Personally, I only own a range of Nortons, a Belgian combo, and an Escher, so I could not comment on any of the other hones. But there must be a degree of (dis)similarity, and I believe documenting this would be useful for a beginner.

I also think Bart's chart to be highly useful. Of course, there will be a (more or less) high degree of subjectiveness, but let us take the following situation: If I wanted to buy a coarser hone than my Norton 1k, what would be my choices? Incidentally, this question is not answered by your progressive honing guide, either (whose hone specific comments could, of course) be used instead of the comparison chart suggested by Bart).

Originally Posted by Sticky

I could add some info on barber hones, but it wouldn't be anything but my own subjective opinion. Let me know once the format/categories are finalized, maybe I can add some general info on a couple of barber hones.

Currently, there are only two articles dedicated to specific hones: Norton, and Belgians. An article on barber hones would be highly appreciated in any event. My more or less cunning plan was to have the chart as an enlargement of the "what hone(s) do I need" article, and cross reference the hones mentioned therein to hone specific articles.

Sure, the results would lack precision. That is the reason I came up with a graphical representation, that designates regions of interest to a hone, instead of hard figures.
We don't need scientifically bullet proof numbers. We only need a chart that is practical for the average honer. Who else can draw that map better than the members of SRP that gather experience with their hones on a constant basis?

Unfortunately, the only way to draw the map is to collect some form of numeric data first. It doesn't need to be very precise. The important thing is that the numbers show the correct relation between the hones that are entered.
If enough people contribute, it will be possible to see the correlation in their findings.

All it takes is 15 minutes to enter your hones in the Excel file. We could even try to make a PDF-version for people that can't read XLS-files. But if no one genuinly cares, except the people posting in this thread, I have better things to do with my time.

Bart.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

...
I also think Bart's chart to be highly useful. Of course, there will be a (more or less) high degree of subjectiveness, but let us take the following situation: If I wanted to buy a coarser hone than my Norton 1k, what would be my choices?

Anything rated coarser than 1,000? I wouldn't even try to make a list of all available hones coarser than 1,000. I think Bart's chart would also be useful, but going into that much detail is difficult when the data is so subjective. I think that very level of detail is why so few questionnaires were returned... If you make the chart too detailed then many new users might refuse to even read the chart legend. Having just a "smoothness" scale is going to be difficult because such a scale (read unit-of-measure) doesn't exist, as far as I know. [e.g.: electrical resistance has Ohms. Smoothness, outside of a surface tester's units...difficult to impossible to relate to shaving smoothness anyway.] Then there's also the question of "Sharpness vs. Smoothness".

Incidentally, this question is not answered by your progressive honing guide, either (whose hone specific comments could, of course) be used instead of the comparison chart suggested by Bart).

The progressive guide in your link is the wiki version, I don't maintain that one; never did. In the original guide posting, including the very first version (it's now at v2.1), you will find specific hones mentioned alongside their recommended uses (near the end of the thread's first post, under the "//Hone Specifics" category). I made the decision to keep the usage recommendations broad because so much of it has a high degree of broad overlap. The list I made is way too short to serve as a substitute for a chart on the scale that we're talking about here. Especially so since I make no attempt to include such high level of detail. I'd rather see the chart.

Currently, there are only two articles dedicated to specific hones: Norton, and Belgians. An article on barber hones would be highly appreciated in any event. My more or less cunning plan was to have the chart as an enlargement of the "what hone(s) do I need" article, and cross reference the hones mentioned therein to hone specific articles.

"what hone(s) do I need" sounds like a good thing to have, to me; as does a list of hones that might fit. I'm just saying that attempting to pin each hone down to very specific purposes having such high detail level is going to be rather difficult. If the questionnaire was simplified and (maybe) not put in excel format, you might get more replies. Obviously, no one owns all the hones that might be put into the chart (except maybe Randy...); so responses to questionnaires are pretty much needed. The only other option is to go by hearsay and existing posts. Another option that might get more responses is to start a thread that has multiple choice answers in a poll. (I am assuming that a poll thread would allow the needed number of questions and reply choices.)

If the questionnaire/poll gets simplified, I'll fill one out regarding the hones I've tried.

I think the problem is not so much that nobody cares but that nobody is actually reading this thread. And yes, I have better things to do with my time, too.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Anything rated coarser than 1,000? I wouldn't even try to make a list of all available hones coarser than 1,000. I think Bart's chart would also be useful, but going into that much detail is difficult when the data is so subjective. I think that very level of detail is why so few questionnaires were returned... If you make the chart too detailed then many new users might refuse to even read the chart legend. Having just a "smoothness" scale is going to be difficult because such a scale (read unit-of-measure) doesn't exist, as far as I know. [e.g.: electrical resistance has Ohms. Smoothness, outside of a surface tester's units...difficult to impossible to relate to shaving smoothness anyway.] Then there's also the question of "Sharpness vs. Smoothness".

True. But maybe we are approaching the problem from different directions. I never thought the list should be exhaustive and collective. I was thinking of new users looking for a useful combination of hones, and an explanation of their respective uses. There appears to be a number of such combinations (i.e. Norton 4/8k + finisher, or Belgian blue/yellow).

We can, of course, kill this discussion by simply going into too much detail. No problem with that. After all, the chart was just an idea. However, the questions will remain the same, and the amount of spurious, superfluous, and contradicting information in the forum will grow even further. I wonder whether that is useful.

Originally Posted by Sticky

The progressive guide in your link is the wiki version, I don't maintain that one; never did.

Originally Posted by Sticky

In the original guide posting, including the very first version (it's now at v2.1), you will find specific hones mentioned alongside their recommended uses (near the end of the thread's first post, under the "//Hone Specifics" category). I made the decision to keep the usage recommendations broad because so much of it has a high degree of broad overlap. The list I made is way too short to serve as a substitute for a chart on the scale that we're talking about here. Especially so since I make no attempt to include such high level of detail. I'd rather see the chart.

As you may remember, I sent you a notification of your guide being transferred (for lack of a better word) to the Wiki. Unfortunately, I never received a direct response. If you are unhappy with your post being in the Wiki, just let me know, and it will be killed as quickly as heavyduty's - no problem whatsoever. One idea behind the Wiki is to collect knowledge that is scattered across the forums, and compile it into one easily accessible article. Not least because an article can be maintained - unlike a forum post, which cannot be edited by mere mortals after, I believe, 24 hours. I can see only advantages in this approach, but am open to counter arguments.

Originally Posted by Sticky

"what hone(s) do I need" sounds like a good thing to have, to me; as does a list of hones that might fit. I'm just saying that attempting to pin each hone down to very specific purposes having such high detail level is going to be rather difficult. If the questionnaire was simplified and (maybe) not put in excel format, you might get more replies. Obviously, no one owns all the hones that might be put into the chart (except maybe Randy...); so responses to questionnaires are pretty much needed.

I cannot quite see why Excel should be a problem, but I am sure Bart could provide an RTF file with a simple table in it, too...

Originally Posted by Sticky

The only other option is to go by hearsay and existing posts. Another option that might get more responses is to start a thread that has multiple choice answers in a poll. (I am assuming that a poll thread would allow the needed number of questions and reply choices.)

If the questionnaire/poll gets simplified, I'll fill one out regarding the hones I've tried.

Incidentally, I had thought about the same thing. Can we do multiple questions in one post?

I really thought this would be simpler, by the way...

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

...
After all, the chart was just an idea. However, the questions will remain the same, and the amount of spurious, superfluous, and contradicting information in the forum will grow even further. I wonder whether that is useful.

I still think a chart is a good idea.

As you may remember, I sent you a notification of your guide being transferred (for lack of a better word) to the Wiki. Unfortunately, I never received a direct response. If you are unhappy with your post being in the Wiki, just let me know, and it will be killed as quickly as heavyduty's - no problem whatsoever...

I was off of the forum for some weeks when you sent a notification. You received a direct response on the same day that I returned to the forum. Since I am continuing to update and support the original post (the last update was on 2008.12.27), I accept your offer to delete the redundant wiki version. (Edit: it's easier for me to update just one location) I had no problem editing the original post; it is easy for any moderator to do at OP request, as was done in December.

I cannot quite see why Excel should be a problem, but I am sure Bart could provide an RTF file with a simple table in it, too...

Some users have an excel reader, but no app to edit an excel spreadsheet. Everyone has a text editor.

I really thought this would be simpler, by the way...

Don't give up too fast, I still think a graphical chart is a great way to make fast relative comparisons. Speaking strictly as a professional engineer (retired), it is well known that a graph/chart is a great way to spot trends and relationships that go completely unnoticed on a "data list". Even if very few questionnaires get returned, enough hone data already exists to get a basic graph constructed. Info on additional hones can be easily added later as it becomes available, once the basic graph format is up and running.

BTW: People are reading this thread.
I think the whole concept is very interesting, but I can't really imagine how it would look like in the end.I guess there are a lot of people like me: Just getting the hang of honing, but so far away in experience from you guys that they/I much rather read what you post, than actually contribute with the little knowledge gained.



Kristoffer