Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: How Sharp with WE 1000

Re: How Sharp with WE 1000 1 year 6 months ago #10187

  • cbwx34
  • cbwx34's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1260
  • Thank you received: 413
  • Karma: 92
jendeindustries wrote:
Curtis and I have disagreed on this before (in a constructive manner) :)

I don't think we disagree, as much as I don't understand your theory. You've said before, and again today that an edge is "zero" at any grit level, but that it's somehow further refined? (See below).

As per the Verhoeven, I think there are flaws in the results because of control issues with the wheels that were not addressed. There was no indication that the wheels were cleaned (calibrated), and therefore doesn't account for variation - primarily the effects that a loaded, slightly rubbery vitrified wheel will have over time on the resulting edge vs. a freshly cleaned/dressed wheel... Verhoeven suggests that the edge itself stays at the same width once sharp, but becomes smoother through refinement.

It's a point in several of the sections beyond the TruHone (waterstones, Tormek, etc.), so I'm not sure this applies. For example, he talks about it in the section on sharpening on "flat stones".

But with that said, the info there is a great start. :)

My opinion on this is that "sharp" is defined when two planes meet at a 0 width - this can be at 50 grit or 5,000 grit.

Refined is another issue - and here's were Curtis and I differ - I am of the mind that once sharp, the edge of the edge is still rather "thick", and through refinement (at the same geometry) the edge of the edge becomes ever thinner because the depth of abrasion is reduced at each level. Verhoeven's pictures with the width of the edge itself being measured make my argument less compelling, but see my reasoning above...

This I've never understood, so this may be a good place to explain. How can you have a 0 width edge at 50 grit, that can still be "thick" and get thinner with refinement. I agree that refinement thins the edge which makes it sharper, it's what I said earlier, but that's because it's not 0 to begin with.

To achieve "shaving sharp" is relative, too. Cutting hairs on your arm does not necessarily mean it will shave your face without ripping it off. This is where I feel that through refinement the edge of the edge becomes thin enough to sever hairs without pulling them or scraping up the skin around them.

The 400g I referenced earlier is shaving, not pulling or scraping skin. Face shaving is different because facial hair is harder to cut. (For example, the razor blade company in the Modern Marvels on sharpening, equates cutting facial hair to cutting the equivalent diameter in strands of copper.)

This is where I feel that diamonds at the lower grits, especially plates, are false-positives for shaving - the depth of the scratches form micro serrations that create areas thin enough to sever hairs within a still "too thick" bevel. (We've seen and documented the differences in scratch depth with the stock plates and the diamond pastes) This also suggests the change of feel in the balde from a toothy saw-like edge to a smoother slicing edge.

I don't agree here. Arm hair is easier to shave because it's a different type of hair. The few cuts I got at 200g is probably what you're describing... a few random hairs that showed up. But clearing an entire area of hair... I doubt is all the hairs finding a thin area in a thick bevel. If it is, then wouldn't it mean that the majority of the "thin areas" is doing the cutiting anyway?

When all is said and done, I concur that with good, light technique and on broken in plates, think the edge should be thin enough and smooth enough by the 600 diamonds to cut hairs off your arm, for whatever reason. Not to be too argumentative, but I challenge anyone to shave their face off the 600 diamond stocks, I'm pretty sure it will hurt.:P

You're right, it does, I tried. :ohmy: Again though, it's because you're cutting a different type of hair, not that one is shaving and the other is not.
Last Edit: 1 year 6 months ago by cbwx34.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: How Sharp with WE 1000 1 year 6 months ago #10192

  • ApexGS
  • ApexGS's Avatar
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 163
  • Thank you received: 51
  • Karma: 18
From what I've gathered, I think that we're all basically saying the same thing conceptually. The "zero" is that the angles are perfectly set, and further refinement at finer grits is microscopically thinning the very apex of the edge while simultaneously smoothing it by decreasing the size of the teeth caused by the abrasive scratches.

I think my original point was that for most practical applications, at least from my own experience since the VAST majority of sharpening I do is EDC and hunting knives rather than fine cutlery or razors, was that the smoother cutting is the primary thing I notice when increasing grits. In the bulk of my sharpening work and the types of knives I work on the sharpness (generally speaking) is already established by the 600 grit, and definitely beyond sharp by 1000 :) So anything past that isn't really showing a major difference in what it can cut, just HOW it cuts, if that makes any sense.

But hey, we started a whole other interesting conversation by my generalizing! I suppose that's a win of a sort too :silly:
Your friendly neighborhood gunsmith!
- Tom
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: How Sharp with WE 1000 1 year 6 months ago #10195

  • KenBuzbee
  • KenBuzbee's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 397
  • Thank you received: 110
  • Karma: 22
ApexGS wrote:
But hey, we started a whole other interesting conversation by my generalizing! I suppose that's a win of a sort too :silly:

The very definition of "Optimist"! ;)

The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: How Sharp with WE 1000 1 year 6 months ago #10197

  • jendeindustries
  • jendeindustries's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 326
  • Thank you received: 113
  • Karma: 34
Here's my take :)

First try this experiment: Take a 600 diamond WEPS and an 800 Chosera and sharpen similar knives at the 18 degrees. Although there is a slight micron difference, both are rather coarse. You should be able to cut hairs off the 600 diamond (perhaps with a little pressure), but you'll be harder pressed to cut hairs off the 800 Chosera.

The question is, Why?

Basically, I believe that if you have an abrasive medium, say 1K or better yet ~15 microns, the size and hardness of the abrasive will cut into the edge of the edge, theoretically making the edge 7.5 - 15 microns wide (since the particles are embedded). It's my belief that that size abrasive will simply abrade through the entire edge otherwise. So when you get up to 10K or ~1.5 microns, the more shallow scratches simple allow the edge of the edge to be thinner, or theoretically around .75 - 1.5 microns wide before it "abrades through".

The false-positives are an interesting phenomenon because diamonds are usually firmly embedded and really hard. They score through a thicker bevel, leaving scratches that make those points thinner at the actual edge. Hence the hair cutting ability at such low grits.

It's the difference between the deep scoring of the diamonds and the more shallow scratching of other mediums that has led me to this way of thinking.

It could be that we are arguing the semantics of the same thing :)
Tom Blodgett
Jende Industries, LLC

My Blog: jendeindustries.wordpress.com
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Time to create page: 0.135 seconds