What's New?
ShavingUniverse.com

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Bevel Tip and Magnification

FWW, I had a great deal of problem with the Coticules I had at first. The problem finally resolved itself when I found that the low priced slurry stones I purchased had very large particles that really damaged the blades. If your slurry feels gritty STOP! Now I rub the two good Coticules together and am able to do a decent job of honing. I am still coming up to speed after losing ground and blaming myself for the couple months with the problem.
You may have a different problem but gritty stones are not good!
Respectfully
~Richard
 
Thanks, Bart, the jig you suggested was a good idea, it lets me set most blades with the bevel perpendicular and flat to the field of view. That and a bit of time reading the manual have paid off.
I'd suggest that those chips are only somewhat normal. Every blade seems to have them, though to generaly a lesser degree. (Both Denny's and Cedrick's honing appear in the photos) Some of them were picked up quite late in the process, the J.Haywood, for example, got them sometime through slurry dilutions.

...That curved brain thing though... i know a few people that would agree with you:w00t:

I've now got a mm ruler in the background of the photos (those dark blob things in the background), and coincidentaly, the span of the photos top to bottom seems to encompass exactly one mm. The ruler was all I could think of to show a sense of scale. I thought about using a dollar bill, but all I have is Canuck Bucks, which aren't very universal;)

I'm going to take the liberty of quoting the good Dr. Ralfson out of context to show what I agree may be the issue:
tat2ralfy said:
... I never go from a 1k synthetic to the Coticule without the pre dulling, as I find it totally gets rid of any chance of microchipping, ...
Click to expand...
I haven't been doing exactly that, so it may be one of the factors at play. (grammar!)
I'll also take Toff's advice and try avoiding my slurry tones and limit myself to using another stone instead.
I think I'll do another dilucot, starting with a down-stroke, on the J.H. and see if I can't minimize the chipping.
 
Hi Chris,

Could you show us the design of the jig please? No hurry - if and when convenient.


Thanks.
 
vgeorge said:
Hi Chris,

Could you show us the design of the jig please? No hurry - if and when convenient.


Thanks.
Click to expand...

George, that jig is nothing I'm proud of. It's simply a flat piece of Bass wood that I sanded a plane into to hold the razor at about 17[sup]o[/sup] so the bevel sits (roughly) flat. I then cut a small hole to recieve a magnet, hot glued it in, and then hot glued the whole bloody thing onto the "carriage" of the scope so i could move it (that thing that holds and moves slides). After I bumped my blade into the barrel of the scope, i hacked the magnet out and replaced it with a stronger one;) and then smeared a big gob of hot glue over the thing to smooth it out a bit. It ain't purdy!

I will get around to snapping some pics PDQ.
 
Thanks, that gives me a sense - in any event the geometry of my microscope will be different from yours. Balsa, magnet, hot glue - that gives me a sense. B)
 
This thread is brilliant and interesting, keep it up!

One thing I would like to point out though (just to clarify things scientifically, as after all I'm finishing my Physics Masters this year), is about the 'refraction' of light at the edge of the blade - as mentioned in the quote below.

DJKELLY said:
Maybe light will refract around the half micron edge like water does around an island. Where's Matt or some other photon junkie? Once again, I wouldn't be surprised if you were there already.
Click to expand...

This is not what is happening to the light at the edge of the razor. I'll explain why;

Refraction of light is caused by the 'apparent' slowing of light when it leaves a medium with refractive index A and enters into a medium of refactive index B. This change in refactive index causes the relative speed of light to change, causing the angle of which the light was travelling to change. This is commonly associated with Snell's law. Please feel free to look this up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

So in order for refraction to occur, the light must travel through the tip of the bevel. Allthough the tip is sub micron sized, as is the wavelength of light, visible light has too short a wavelength (high frequency) to pass through the metal (this is physically/mathematically to do with 'skin depth' of metal). Hence refraction cannot occur as the visible light isn't passing through two different mediums.

The physical effect I think you are trying to describe Denny, is Diffraction. This is where a wave encounters an obstruction which causes the wavefronts to spread. Wikipedia shows a good description of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction This indeed could be happening (infact, in downright certain it is), but this effect cannot lead to bright spots in the picture unless you are using a coherent light source such as a laser to illuminate the edge. Please feel free to look up constructive/destructive interference of light to back me up here.

I'm not saying this to put anyone down, only to ensure we have a correct understanding of what's going on.:thumbup:

Respectfully,

James
 
thank you, James, that's avery cogent response, and I appreciate the clarification.
I don't know what the hell Denny was talking about;)

jeez... I hate when people send me to wikipedia.... i lose hours there!;)
 
not many islands around these parts... ya got me there, Denny

here are some photo's of my microscope set up, and a poor one of the jig thingy. It's no accident that it's not a good shot:p
DSCF1227.jpg

DSCF1230.jpg
 
Yet more photos: http://s640.photobucket.com/albums/uu121/wdwrx/JHaywood Chip removal/J Haywood Album2/
This series encompasses several attempts to achieve an edge lacking in any micro-chips, with limited success. I used a variety of techniques, some rounds with pressure, some with very light x-strokes, and the best results from Denny's light, torquey 1/2 strokes and finished with 50 laps on a soaped stoned. HHT results after the soaped stone are maybe as close to a HHT5 as I've yet to achieve (note: I opted out of linen stropping and used clean leather only)


Once again, I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.

Next up: Les Latnueses (sp?) honing! (Thank Dennis!)
 
Hi Chris!
I want to throw another variable into the mix...I routinely get the results you see at 100x at 40x with my little hand-held. As I said before, usually I'm not so concerned since I have always seen variations, including what you describe with them going away and coming back at different stages in the honing. My best shaves can come off of razors like this.

But since I am testing a newly cut BBW that I fear is a little dodgy, I have been intensely watching the edge on a Sheffield test razor with every new step. This brings me back to my nonchalant attitude with the scope: I only get these effects on the front of the blade. That is the makers stamp side, which, since I am right handed, corresponds to my away stroke on the hone. Now, I know that this is my weaker stroke, and I often have to compensate with extra laps on this side.

But my point is, this is almost always the only side of the bevel I check with the scope. If I am worried about something, micro-chipping or unevenness, I check the other side. This almost always shows a clean, clear edge line. I have written this off as a light problem on the face side: somewhat irregular strokes making things appear to be chipped due to what you have said concerning available lighting angle.

It seems that all of your pictures are from the same side? Do the edges look the same on the other?

regards,
Torolf

PS: When I do 30-50 dry laps, all of this edge mess clears right out...

EDIT: If my edge looked like picture 11/13 in the last link, at 40x, I would go back to a decent slurry...I was thinking more of your descriptions of a bright line or variations in light and dark that make one think there is chipping...
 
Torolf, i can't really switch sides with my silly little jig or i lose my indexing, and, I can't really see the other side unless i take the carriage off the scope. I'l have a look next time around without the cariage/jig thing. I'd wondered too if the different sides look different, but i seldom ever check both sides. Good point.

Funny you mention that, about weaker strokes on one side or the other. I've got the same issue, plus a tendency to want to do more on the one side than the other. If i don't watch myself, I'd have some seriously lop-sided bevels.

Edit:
I should point out that I'm quite happy now with the final result on that Joseph Haywood. I'm not sure if it's up the same standard Gary had it at, but at least I'm not scared of trying it... this time!
 
Well, I wouldn't say silly, since it's doing a bang up job:thumbup:

What has me very interested is that you have observed this in blades hones by different people. I was thinking that, since most of us are right handed, and if I remember correctly, I observed Bart with a slightly variant away stroke, we might be getting similar results on one side of each blade...

Maybe a lefty can chime in?

regards,
Torolf
 
I'm not left handed, but I regularly check edges at both sides. It's important to flip it over longitudinally, because otherwise the light will hit the edge from the other side. Personally, I don't really doubt we're looking at microscopical chips in this particular case. But I' m having a hard time getting an idea about the magnification. Maybe you should include a hair in one of your next shots, Chris.
I would expect them to show up at the other side as well, because I can clearly see the background, which strongly suggests that these fragments are really missing. The only other plausible explanation would be burs (Dennis will love this). They could also show up as highly contrasting anomalies, but I wouldn't expect the background to shine through.

Kind regards,
Bart.
 
Ha! Good idea.. I can do 40x! And I can sure stick a hair or two in there!

Four more photos:http://s640.photobucket.com/albums/uu121/wdwrx/JHaywood Chip removal/J Haywood Album2/
A couple at 40x, and a couple at 100x, complete with some hair samples.:)
There is one chip shown, at both 40x and 100x, that I would swear wasn't there before stropping. Though I'm not 100% sure I didn't just miss it looking before.
Also, one of the photos I took showed what might be a rolled edge. I may have done a poor stroke on the strops.
 
Burr-I really love that! What impresses me is Torbo's statement about getting his best shaves from edges that appear like Chris' pictures. Tonight I was testing a steal I got on ebay of a vintage "Extra Choice Selected Belgian....." that the seller had no idea about and didn't talk it up at all. I tested it on an old Cmon that I know will take a fine edge. When I looked at it under 50X I could see where the edge had penetrated an area of corrosion and had noticeable gaps in several places. Being the lazy bastard, no I mean SOB, I am, I shaved with it anyway, and it was wonderful. When held in bright light, there was no sparkling or dark spots on the edge, which I use as a test each time. It looked perfect with the naked eye reflection test and shaved perfectly. Maybe we are looking too deeply, at least as performance is concerned. I heartily support looking as deep as possible at the process of sharpening/polishing. Good job, you short list MF. Denny
 
They are really very tiny blemishes. A big one is still only a fraction of the width of a hair.
I do know that there's a level of keenness that I'm not always reaching. It's up there, don't get me wrong, but I guess I'm looking for that magical edge that I've had a couple times, I'd say I'm to the point where I'm looking for that final 5%.

I'd have to say that I really think that the ability to capture the images, and, most importantly, do direct comparisons between different approaches has taught me a lot. For instance, i can see the effects, in one photo, that the use of tons of pressure really didn't have much effect on these little edge anomalies, so I feel a lot more confidant that, certainly in the early stages, and with a wedgy blade, I can apply alot more than has been my habit. (now... where the hell have I heard that before?) I guess I should just say that I'm getting a better idea of how the blade is behaving, and how what I do effects some of that. And, hell, I'm getting lotsa practice in; I ran that poor blade through at least 4 full dilutions last night. Not only that, but I might have gotten a bit sloppy (read: cocky) with my stropping technique too as I'm pretty sure i managed to role the edge, but I think I was able to coax it back with more stropping.
 
Scopes and scopes, I guess...I never see my bevel as being so clear as your 3/17 picture. There is always much more of what I would call textural interference (?). The haze pattern for me is always more pronounced causing pricks of light and dark. So, I would assume that either I am missing irregularities such as your picture shows through interference, or I don't have them. Because I think if my edge looked like that then I would try to even it out. (But my edges could well be just like that and I am just not seeing it...)

I don't know what I am looking at anymore...:confused: Maybe I should try to get a picture through my own scope.

I see something at the very edge in picture 2/17, is this what you suspect is a rolled edge? If I may, what were you doing on your strop, something you noticed was different than usual?

regards,
Torolf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top