Thread: Reason behind pyramid honing and other musings

So while I was doing complicated engineering math in another thread, I had an epiphany that I want some comments on. I have to give some credit to Jende Industries for jump starting my brain, Lynn for his Norton Pyramid scheme, and gssixgun for unknowingly providing the first step to my evidence, in said thread. Here's the thread, it will probably help. http://straightrazorpalace.com/basic...too-sharp.html
See also Jende Industries argument, I think he put it quite well, save the last part about over polishing which I disagree with (see the aforementioned thread) Sharpening Epiphany « Jende Industries Blog

Please read through this, even though it may be boring, I am really interested in hearing what people think, and definitely interested in hearing counter arguments or support. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just very very curious about this.

So here's my idea: Think for instance about something vibrating. (Musicians will get this maybe better than other people) When you have frequencies with periods that are multiples of each other (known as harmonics) the two combine to make a beautiful noise or a stronger signal. Or, when you have something of the same frequency, it can cause resonance (the reason some building fall in an earthquake and some don't, it causes the screeching feedback in microphones when they are two close to a speaker, its the reason glass shatters when singers hit a certain note). These are called response frequencies, and almost everything has natural response frequencies. That is a known fact.

Now is where I need help.

First Proposition. I read everywhere about people having different results with different hones and different razors- the blade won't take an edge on say a Norton 8k, but loves the DMT 8k. Here's my first proposal. The tiny little cutting grains occur in something of a regular pattern at the molecular level, causing scratches in rows, with peaks and valleys. What if I razor were to hone better where the steel's material properties matched the hone's material properties in terms of complimenting frequencies? Like, the type of cutting particle (garnet, CrO crystals, pieces of diamond) matches the molecular structure of the steel somehow. This is a crap shoot and I have NO evidence other than musing, but I feel it may have some warrant.

Second Proposition. The reason pyramid honing works is because two grits will create just the right (or close enough) scratch frequencies to cancel each other in the Fourier series that results from their combination to make a straight edge. (English: the grits create scratches that cancel each other out very well) So with the Norton's, 4k and 8k are maybe in harmony- as the 4k makes harsh gouges and sharpens, the 8k cancels the peaks, bringing them down to the valleys, thus smoothing it. So the 4k sharpens, and the 8k smooths. Each time you do a step in the pyramid, you sharpen a little, polish smooth, sharpen more, polish more. You taper the 4k, because as Glen says, the bevel approaches a perfect point and all it needs is polishing.

Third Proposition. The reason people find combinations that work for them is because they by trial and error discover hones with these relative scratch frequencies. I keep reading about someone who goes through some seemingly random progression, and if someone suggest a different stone they say they've tried, it didn't work, or they try it, it doesn't work, etc.

Fourth Proposition. The variance in natural stones is of course to be expected. But I think the reason that some natural stones really shine while others are seemingly duds is because of my frequency argument. If I have a nice progression set up, and I need a polisher, I'd need one that fits. Lets say I try a coticule. I find the shave sucks. Off an Escher thought, it feels like a magic blade, sharper than a scorned woman's tongue, smoother than a baby's smelly end, and its as comfortable as Southern. (southern comfort... come on...). I try a chinese 12k for ****s and giggles, the shave is not as good. Maybe its because the Escher fits my hone progression. But to go even further, lets say I try three Eschers. Only one of them is the God-Stone. The other two may as well be 80 grit sandpaper. Does this mean they are inferior. I sell one to Joe for ten bucks. He thinks I'm an idiot, he loves the shaves he gets off of it. Maybe the natural variation doesn't cause shiners and duds, maybe the natural variation means some fit, some don't.

Fifth Proposition. Human stones are more consistent than natural stones because they were engineered that way. If you buy a set of Shaptons, they will work. If you buy a 4k/8k, and pyramid it, it will work. They were engineered with tolerances, to have them be consistent. The natural stones were completely random, so their tolerance are wider. Hence "perfect" stones and "duds". That goes without say. But then why is there no standard? Why is DMT 325, 600, 1200, 8000, where Norton is 220, 1k, 4k, 8k? Maybe its because the engineers found those grits just seemed to get the job done. They worked well together.

Now, I'm no honemeister, nor do I have any stones or anything. All this is based off of what I've read people say, and my knowledge of engineering. I am willing to bet that a good enough honemeister will have worked out the tricks that make things work with anything, but I am willing to bet that a lot of things that "just work", "just work" because at the microscopic level its like puzzle pieces fitting together.
I guess my last statement is it seems if there is at least some truth to what I proposed, there is no perfect hone, simply the "perfect" combination of hones and a honer/honemeister (as experience differentiates) that knows how to make them work. Like an orchestra and a conductor.

wow it will take at least 35 minutes to read this . would you please put up shorter version of it?
thank you

Originally Posted by khaos

I guess my last statement is it seems if there is at least some truth to what I proposed, there is no perfect hone, simply the "perfect" combination of hones and a honer/honemeister (as experience differentiates) that knows how to make them work. Like an orchestra and a conductor.

I had to read all the way through that
To find you came to the same conclusion that I did some time back, that razors have different combinations to get them sharp and smooth....

I do like the way you explained it though...

ok
3 rd one
it is because not everyone sharpness blade same. there is a lot reasons could be factor's. pressure, strokes etc etc.
about 4rth
Sorry
i am not agree with You.
Natural hones will act differentley but that doesn't mean example 1 escher will act as a 30000 grit and next one will be 2000 grit,there is not such a gap amoung them.
could act example 20000 next will be 18000 etc . not so much caps.
hope this helps

Well I was exaggerating on the Eschers. What I was meaning to say was more that one Escher may suit your style/get up better than another because of the variations. I realise that the quality stones like Escher and Belgians and Japanese's are quite consistent.

and Glen... I believe I credited you for backing up my musings/inspiring my thoughts with your posts earlier... I was not so much coming to conclusions as proposing reasons for them. So I did not come to conclusions. I sought to explain your lol.

The following is my entirely unfounded illogical opinionionated musings in contradiction of the original post. It is not an indictment or criticism of the author.

Sorry, but I don't buy most of this. First, the synthetic and diamond hones are/were developed for tools other than razors. The only exception would be the barber hones, which tend to be only in the higher grits.

Oops. Let's go in order.

Prop 1. The scale of the grits do not correspond with any sense of molecular level. I don't know squat about metallurgy, but I would assume that the molecular patterning of the steel is at a much smaller scale than any level of periodicity of the hones. Even if that periodicity is due to multiples of that patterning, I doubt such uniform periodicity would exist at such a perfect level required for what you are proposing. That would require perfect uniformity in both the steel and the hone. If you look at a hone under a microscope, you ain't gonna see much periodicity.

Prop 2. First, you are not making a straight edge. You are merely making an edge that has less extreme high and low points. Consider the reason that a fine DMT plate cannot be used to lap a hone. Normally, when a DMT plate laps a hone, the high points of the diamonds cut into the high points of the hone. In a newer DMT, you often have a few diamonds that stick up higher than the rest and that shows up as scratches in the hone. Fairly quickly that diamond is worn away because all of the stress is on it, so that eventually the peaks of nearly all the diamonds are of uniform height and stressed uniformly. Then the diamonds, relatively speaking, cut a uniformly smooth field across the hone. That is, you are reducing the extremes between the high and low points. However, if you use a fine grit DMT, the highs of the hone extend so far into the lows of the DMT that the hone grit undercuts the diamonds and releases them from the nickel plate.

What does this have to do with honing? Consider the high and low points of the hone and the blade. When you hone with a low grit hone (4k), the high points of the hone can cut deeper "trenches," or low points, into the blade, resulting in serrations consisting of peaks and valleys in the blade. When you then hone with a higher grit (8k), that grit cannot reach the bottoms of the trenches of the blade. The 8k grit can only cut the tops of the peaks of the blade, but by doing so, those peaks are shortened. This allows the next round of 4k honing to be able to cut deeper trenches, because all of the peaks on the blade have been shortened by the 8k. The reason that the number of strokes with the 4k is diminished is to reduce the number of deeper trenches and to, overall, end up with serrations that have shallow trenches with peaks that have been relatively flattened by the last round with the 8k.

Prop 3. I believe that pyramid honing can be done with any combination of two adjacent grit hones. It just seems to be most productive in the middle grit range. The "random progressions" you describe are merely the result of so many people starting out with so many different hones.

Prop 4. The reason that some natural stones work better than others has nothing to do with which hones with whatever presumed periodicity preceded it in the progression. (Go ahead, say it 5 times.) Some natural hones work better than others, period. They have different cutting characteristics. They may or not release grit, which may or may not break down to form finer grit. They may or may not be homogenous. I don't believe the that progression that preceded the natural stone has any impact on the performance of that stone.

Prop 5. I'm not sure I can agree that synthetic stones are engineered to be more consistent. Sure, they sort the grit to be a fairly, not perfectly, uniform size, but then they mix it with the binder, form a sludge, and pour it into molds and hope for the best. If you look under a scope at some natural hones, you will see that Nature, at least occasionally, came up with some pretty good sludge products itself. At least, I've paid a lot of money for some of that stuff! Anyway, randomness still occurs with the formation of the synthetic hones too. Take a look at the bottom of this post for photos of my two Norton 4k hones. The first is made in Mexico and the second in the US. Tell me how consistent you think they are!

Regarding the grits of the DMTs and the Nortons. I have no idea why those particular grits are used. Certainly in sanding and in honing it has been found that a progression of finer grits is required and the steps between cannot be too great without loss of effectiveness. A higher number of grits (say, 220, 230, 240,..., 7900, 8000) might do a better job but it's not practical. Engineering is about effeciency as well as effectiveness.

Finally, I thought what you proposed was interesting, and I appreciate that you proposed it. I work in science, where every thing should be challenged, so I have a habit of doing that, whether I know what I'm talking about or not. Thus, the above!

My theory is similar to Utopian's. But I'm no expert.

I am not an expert either but I know an expert. His name is Lynn Abrams and he has found after honing thousands of razors that the pyramid method works consistently and with repeatability. I don't have much formal education and most of this scientific theory quite frankly is over my head. I enjoy reading it though and trying to understand it.

Fortunately for me I needn't understand why it works anymore than I need understand why my computer powers up when I press the switch. I learned the pyramid method by studying Lynn's DVD and reading SRP. I had help from individual members and got to the point where I can get a beat up ebay special with an edge that looks like a hacksaw blade shave ready with the pyramid method.

So I am very glad you brought it up and I will continue to follow the thread but just as when I erected steel in my younger days I didn't understand the engineering and I didn't have to in order to hang that girder 200 feet in the air.

Utopian. Great points. Thanks. I would like to rebut some though.
(First a blanket statement. When I refer to frequency I realise it is not a perfect frequency, but in reality, everything can be expressed with a periodic fourier series, even a straight line. So in order to actually prove this not just hypothetically, I would need to do an absurd 2d Fourier series to describe the hones cross sections along its length. Instead, I just used the word frequency a little too loosely)
Prop1. I had meant not that grits mean somethign molecular, but maybe the way the steel was bonded would perhaps respond better to the round garnets of BBW/coticule than the angular diamonds of a DMT, or vice versa. Or potentially an underlying frequency in the hone.
Prop 2. Yes, you are correct, the edge is still not straight. I was overstating everything to make it more explicable. Besides that I think we are in agreement, you just said it more precisely. This is probably due to the fact that you are more expereinced than me and I was just thinking this through.
Prop 3. I acknowledge that some of the random hones has to do with people owning random hones, but I've seen quite a few experienced honers give me a progression thats like, start on the DMT, move to the Norton, move to the Chinese, finish on a Shapton. Or something equally diverse.
Prop 4. Point taken. Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that all natural hones are the same (within type). I was trying to say maybe some people like certain stones because they fit their progression. I have never taken say, 8 edges off the Norton 8k and tested 8 finishers, then taken 8 edges off the Shapton 8k and tested the same finishers, so I can't prove anything. Hence my error. Thanks.
Prop 5. I concede that we are not perfect and don't make consistent hones. However, they were still engineered to be consistent, even if budget cuts caused otherwise. I don't know how many times when I asked, what should I buy? The answer was Norton- consistent and a lot of info, so the hone won't be the problem and there will be a lot of people to tell you how to fix your technique. However, inclusions, striations, etc. may or may not impact natural stones. For instance, slate is useless as a hone, unless it contains Mica, at which point it apparently cuts very well.

Please counter rebut! I love learning, especially Socratically.