- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,161
I'll bite this hook - after seeing this quote/bait a few time. First of all, I deeply respect Dr Verhoeven's research. However in this case, his minor conclusion solely based on mismatched comparison between Cr2O3 0.5um and silicates at 0.05um-0.005um (50nm-5nm) was very odd in the realm of scientific discipline. Other factors were omitted: abrasive shape; abrasive progression( jumped from 4um to submicron or nano range was just large or ridiculously huge); etc..
Luckily there is an easy to test/feel the difference between edge with & without strop on bare leather. Facial hair shave with a straight razor (or a good knife) half side of the face where edge stropped with Cr2O3, then strop that edge with bare leather, proceed to shave the second half. Also with a super hi-res SCEM, we should able to see a delta between the 2 edges.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things in his study that I don't agree with, but I'm not sure I understand the bolded point. Reading the study I was under the impression he used the same polishing compound throughout the whole study. Are you saying that he didn't? Or are you saying that the polishing compound was larger than the abrasives in the stones?
The compound used here is called Micro
Fine Honing Compound supplied in the form of a wax impregnated bar having a deep
green color. The abrasive contained in the wax bar is a 0.5 micron size chromium oxide.
Unless other wise stated this was the honing compound used on the subsequent
experiments described here
Can you explain your point of contention with his study to me like I'm five?