Robin has created a new article to help the would-be honer compare the different commonly used hones
Hones - comparison table
Please add your expertise to this table and upgrade the existing information!
Printable View
Robin has created a new article to help the would-be honer compare the different commonly used hones
Hones - comparison table
Please add your expertise to this table and upgrade the existing information!
My comment is here: Talk:Hones - comparison table - Straight Razor Place Wiki
I only hope to have made a constructive comment. Filling that table is not going to be an easy task.
Best regards,
Bart.
Many thanks for your input, Bart. You are making a valid point. However, what is the alternative? At the moment, there is no single source of information with regards to hones. Obviously, comparing a natural to a man made one is difficult, not least because there is no uniform grit size for naturals. However, certain hones share certain characteristics or can be used for similar tasks. I therefore suggest that we adapt your categorisation, and take things from there.
And yes, maybe the "similar hones" column is more misleading than useful. But for, say, a Coticule and an Escher, it seems to make sense.
What if we seperated the synthetic and natural hones?
Wouldn't that be easier?
And then mabe drop the grit estimation on the naturals, as it would be an estimate.And different hones would vary a lot.
I would really like if some of the experts on natural hones could write an in depht article on their preferd hone.(Like Bart on the Belgians) And really go into the different methods and uses.
Just a suggestion.And BTW. I think everyone that is contributing to the wiki does a hell of a job.Thank you all!
Kristoffer.
We have a volunteer! Thank you very much! Just drop in the chat and we'll tell you how to do it. It's really dead simple. Even I can do it...
Ehhm.It was really just a suggestion,but I'll take the challenge.Just give me some time and help, I'm really very bad with computers.I'm also a bit worried of my level of honing experience...
Kristoffer
After some further contemplation on the matter, I have tried to work out a way to graphically represent the most important properties of hones and how they relate to each other.
The explanation of the drawing:
The red shaded area defines the hones area of interest. It also shows the keenness limitations on that particular hone. Furthermore, a flat top means a relatively "coarse" edge, while a more sloping top means a "smoother" edge. The paler the red, the slower the hone (relative to its area of interest).
As you all notice, I can also variate the Z-axis of a hone's segment. My original thought was to assign speed to that, but then I came up with using different shades of red, which is better, imo.
Please note, that I only roughly estimated the actual data, so it's all open to discussion.
I think we could build a complete chain of any imaginable hone.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Bart.
You see, thats why I'm sceptical of posting on the wiki...
Kristoffer
The barber hone section alone could get pretty large; so many different makes, their grits varying widely, etc.... Should be interesting.
You're a bloody genius.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
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 :D) 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
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.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by BeBerlin
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.Quote:
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).
"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...:w); 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.)Quote:
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.
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
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... :wQuote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
Incidentally, I had thought about the same thing. Can we do multiple questions in one post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
I really thought this would be simpler, by the way... ;)
I still think a chart is a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeBerlin
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.Quote:
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...
Some users have an excel reader, but no app to edit an excel spreadsheet. Everyone has a text editor.Quote:
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... :w
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.Quote:
I really thought this would be simpler, by the way... ;)
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
This:
http://666kb.com/i/b6cygzob136wzcyzh.jpg
is what I've always wanted to see to be able to understand where the different hones fit in the sharpening progression, how fast they cut and what sort of edge they produce, etc., but I was unable to express the wish not knowing what and how I wanted it exactly. You must have read my mind and then used your experience, intelligence and, err... Microsoft Excel :D to come up with this graph :)
Thanks you so much! :bow
:tu
I don't have many hones, and I doubt my experience would do anybody much good, so I don't have much input for you. Are you going to include data about what kind of steel works best with the different hones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin
I'm afraid I have to disagree with both of you. The more people contribute, the more statistically correct the results will become. Clearly, if you have honed more than a couple of razors, you ought to have some idea how your hones relate to each other. No one can share hard figures, not even guys with vast experience, because there exists no real unity (ike e.g. inches or pounds) that we all know and use on a daily bases. Everybody's entries will be relative instead of absolute.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycliff200843
But when we have enough entries, we can statistically convolute the data of identical hones, rated by different people, and find out the median rating for each hone and calculate the deviation. It's more difficult to explain, when you don't know the correct English terms, than to do actually.
The main principle was brought up before, here on SRP. If you have a sack of beans and ask one person how much it weights, you know nothing about his answer. But when you ask 20 people, dismiss the extremes and calculate the median from the remaining results, the accuracy of the result can be amazing.
It takes 15 minutes tops, to think about your hones and fill the Excel file with your best educated guesses. Maybe for the guys of the HAD department a bit longer.
Next week I can try putting a form together in PDF format, that has easy pull down menus to enter the estimates. But it won't have the graphical feedback from the excel file.
The main question remains: does it makes sense to put this show together? If so, let us first think this thing trough with those that are willing to cooperate behind the scenes, and next actively start annoying certain SRP-members with pm-ing them questionaires.
Bart.
It's for you, and all future aspiring honers, we're trying to make this work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius
Thanks for the encouragement.
(On a side note: Excel has nothing to do with the graph. All my graphs are done in Coreldraw. Doing illustrative work happens to be part of how I earn my living.)
Bart.
Agreed. Very cool graph, Bart.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeBerlin
Yeah, I figured it wasnt done in Excel after I posted. Also noticed a spelling mistake in my message... but I'm lazy :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bart
So where does the DMT 8 EE fit in here?
Very fast cutting 8k. Although whether or not the edge quality it leaves is truly 8k is debatable. It cuts so fast that alot of guys use it instead of a 4k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius
In Shapton Glassstone terms, 3 micron is ≈5,000 grit. DMT calls it's 3 micron an 8,000 mesh. I believe the Japanese JIS scale calls 3 micron a 6,000: Grit, mesh, JIS, sheesh... This is a fine example of how useful a chart would/could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornelius
Thanks guys, but I meant where does it fit in Bart's Hone Graph, ie in between which other hones would it go, what shape and color would it be.
5k, 8k, microns, US, Japanese and German industry standards are all very good, but this graph really puts things into perspective IMO. If I know what to use, when to use it and what to expect, that means a lot more to me than a random number the accuracy of which will get challenged by several members!
Please note that the graph in this thread is only a draft for the sake of presenting an idea.
I have put almost no thought in the actual data that's currently in the graph.
If I were to draw a final version, based only on my own experiences, it would surely look different that this example. The current version is only a rough and quick estimation.
:OTAbout the DMT"s. They are the flat and solid equivalent of (diamond) sandpaper. In the beginning they cut very aggressive, even after they're broken in, but as time goes by, they do become significantly smoother and also a little slower, just like any sandpaper would. Unlike almost all other hones, which release fresh particles, the DMT's have to abrade the steel with the same honing particles during their entire life-cycle. Once those diamonds are smoothed by use, they stay on that performance level a very long time. There's almost no way to reflect that in any chart or graph. For a short while, I have used a DMT-EE (8K), in new condition. Mine maxed out at a less keen level than the Belgian Blue. After I sold it, but held on to my other DMT's, I noticed that my DMT-E (1200) over time expanded its claim on sharpness significantly. I guess the DMT-EE would have done the same.
Bart.
Ok I'm in.But I'm a bit of a retard when it comes to software.Could you please explain how(Like you would explain to a 10 year old.) I am to input the data?
Then I will be more than happy to spend time filling in the info.
Thanks Kristoffer.