hi_bud_gl said:
unicot or doublecot or thriplecot(if you guys like to call it this way)
I only know Unicot. That name was invented by me, because it's easier to type "Unicot" than to type "the-honing-method-that-adds-a-layer-of-tape-late-in-the -honing-process". I haven't heard of doublecot or thriplecot. Sorry about that.
hi_bud_gl said:
That is the true reason. if you have quality blade you don't need any of above.
(now some one can argue adding tape makes edge sharper etc . in fact it doesn't . what happens is this. by adding layer of tape angle changes and while you shave with that blade noise is coming out of the blade different then regular honed blade. You think your blade sharper now. in reality your are in illusion. Sharpness of the edge doesn't change)
This is really starting to get ridiculous.
You say you are not opposed to this website (or me personally) for the sake of it. Although it appears differently, I tend to believe you. But please let's stay serious. I can't imagine that you actually believe the parts I've underlined in your text.
hi_bud_gl said:
Simple way to say.
1 You use unicot
2 you use 2 layer of tape
3 you use 3 layers of tape.
by adding more tape in your theory you will have more sharper edge?
(i understand this is not your theory)
Does this makes sense to You?
will this happen?
if yes my question why every single person doesn't hone by putting 5 layers of electric tape?
You are adding false statements of your own to the Unicot approach, next you are dismissing the entire procedure based on your own falsifications. That isn't very fair.
hi_bud_gl said:
i hope i am clear now.
hope this helps.
No, it doesn't help, I'm afraid.
I'll try to cover the main principle, as basic as possible:
Let's imagine a razor with a decent bevel. Doesn't matter how you got it (off a DMT-E, 1K synthetic or a natural whetstone) The bevel has flat faces. If we put that razor on the hone, it rest on a flat part of the spine and on one of the bevel faces.
So far everything ok. If we can succeed to make the line where both bevel faces meet each other, fine enough, we'll have a razor that shaves well. This is our goal. On a polishing stone (such as the vast mojority of Coticules when used with water) it can be impossible to reach this goal, because the hone only polishes the bevel faces. It fairly easily eats through the peaks of the scratch pattern left by a previous hone, but once it starts to reach the valleys of that scratch pattern, it slows down, incapable to remove the kind of solid steel, required for refining our bevel.
Yes, indeed, you can do 3000 laps on a Coticule with water, and achieve nothing. It's a finisher, and it's a well known fact that finishers require the edge to be
within reach, in order to have any benefit. On any honing setup, that can be a problem. The pyramid honing system on Nortons and Naniwas deals with the same challenge. But I digress.
We were looking at the razor and how it lies on the hone. It rests on flat part at the spine and on our flat bevel.
NOW. Let's lift the spine, by putting a layer of tape underneath. The razor will now no longer rest on the flat bevel, but it tips onto the very edge. Time to make a stroke. Instead of polishing the entire bevel, the hone now works only at a very tip of the bevel. All its action is concentrated on that part. Instead of just polishing, it now effectively removes steel. With each stroke a new bevel (at slightly different angle) forms. With each stroke the new bevel grows wider and the action slows down till the point the hone is just polishing again. So the advantage of adding tape is only temporary. But it works well, not only on a Coticule, but on a other finishing hones as well.
Not only on just a few Coticules, but even on the rare stone that is really too slow to set a bevel, the trick with the tape still works like a charm. I haven't found a single exception. It has literally not failed me once, ever since I started bringing this principle in practice. What can I say more?
It's time you started blaming the Indian instead of the arrow.
Bart.
