I won't get too caught up in the Verhoeven or the True Hone - The Verhoeven is a great starting point. His first few pages are spot on with my experiences with sharpening, but I see some flaws and lacking to the experiments, especially the water stone section. On the other hand, he probably gets the best True Hone edges in the world!!



Right - and this is a very good example of "polishing the grooves" IMO.



Agreed. Even amongst straight razor shavers, there is a debate about edge retention being longer on lower grits (8K-10K) than on higher grits, despite the shaves being much closer and longer lasting off the higher grits. This is where the "pencil point" theory enters the game - in which every edge of the edge, no matter what the geometry, will ultimately approach the point of 0 width, and just like a freshly sharpened pencil, the fresh point/edge is ohh-so good, but quickly degrades to a "work sharp" that lasts considerably longer than the fresh edge.



This is a very interesting aspect that I've been having thoughts about for some time now and would have now to agree with you and now the Verhoeven about reduced jaggedness. Geometry helps to influence the ease of cutting, with more acute geometry cutting with greater ease than more obtuse geometry, and refinement doesn't necessarily play as major a role in most cases. I believe that technique trumps refinement 90% of the time. But the technique in being able to get that is another issue Since I've been involved in sharpening, it's almost always been the case with less advanced sharpeners that refinement fills the lack of technique gap.



I think thinner width edges will cut better because of less surface area/resistance to sever into and cut the material/fibers, but that increases the amount of force put on a smaller area the edge, which could help to explain why thinner edges seem to degrade faster.

The next area to look into is what is the "optimal" thickness of a given edge for a given task. For example, food prep doesn't require the thinnest edges (ask any wife!), and many butchers actually prefer a very coarse/toothy saw-like edge to rip the meat rather than slice.

Great Stuff, CBW!

Tom,
hit is a different subject, but I am curious about what you mean when you say techique trump refinement 90% of the time. Maybe I am not getting the "Zen" of sharpening. At the risk of showing my ignorance, I would like to ask you to explain why this would be so. I have aloways thought that the goal of technique was simply to get a knife sharp. If we define sharp as cutting well, and as has been discussed here, as least for some tasks a refined edge cuts better (therefor is sharper)I don't quite understand how technique trumps refinement. Technique, it would seem is the process of getting there, refinement is a result of the process. Or so I have thouhgt. Perhaps my problem is with the concept of refinement versus sharpness or cutting ability. I would enjoy reading your thoughts on this!

Phil



jendeindustries wrote:

Hey Phillip!

The process for getting a knife sharp is the easy part of the technique side, but maximizing the stone's potential is the more difficult part, IMO.

This goes back to understanding the "philosophy" of each stone as to whether it is a polisher or a true grit type, but also to understanding how pressure plays a role, and how to utilize the mud/paste, if at all. For example, using the WEPS stock ceramics clean makes them more aggressive while letting them load up with dust makes them act finer. Neither is wrong, yet neither is always right. Knowing the different ways to approach a given stone, and knowing when and how to employ these different features will make your edges that much better at a given grit.

In my own sharpening, I can get the 1,500 Shapton Pro stone to push cut paper and shave hair. Adding the 5K at the same angle only improves the slicing ability. Just to brag I have a friend who is quite capable of sharpening his own woodworking tools, but he has told me that my 1,500 grit edges are still better than his 8K edges. This is simply because I have a lot more time in on that stone than my friend does, and know how to maximize its potential.

In the mean time, in order to match my 1500, it's taking my friend an 8K stone, or more refinement. With Verhoeven's edges being 1 micron wide at lower grits, the idea that the shape is more important than the smoothness aligns with my thoughts.

StevenPinson wrote:


Hey Steven...

I wanted to revisit this, after having a chance to use the ones I have again (been a while). I have these...
www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/dept/T...-Stones%22_by_Naniwa
Are these the ones you were referring to when you said they made a paste? They're good stones... but no matter how wet I keep them... they don't create any paste... maybe a little on the lower grit, but nothing on the fine ones. They do sharpen and polish well though....



Maybe you, or someone can tell me if these are the stones you're referring to, and/or are they different on the WE?

Thanks