Impossible to raise a burr?

Maximumbob54 said:
For me it was one of those things I didn't know I needed until I didn't know I needed it. If that makes sense. I thought my bifocals were getting the job done and the overhead light was plenty good enough. Now I have a clamp on goose neck lamp I can move around as needed with a nearly overly bright light and bought a cheap but decent magnifier that I occasionally check the edge with to make sure I'm getting all the way to the edge and getting that fine burr. Some of the steels and some of the stones just don't leave those foil edge burrs like cheaper steels do. I was very recently using a resin bonded stone on S30V thinking I must still not be on the very edge yet because there was zero burr but that's just the way that was happening. And I wouldn't have been sure without those extra tools.
Click to expand...
Point well made and well taken.

I’ve always worked with high-power glasses for my regular job and with good lighting, so I suspect I’m in the range of reasonably seeing something, just not with detail of photos above. Also, I don’t use such a variety of steels, and when I get a good steel I go the distance with it. Buy those knives in batches.

(I see thickness variations in 0.01–0.02 mm and work in microns, so this is not super different.)
 
Obsessed with Edges said:
Basically, I'd just recommend something with at least 3X-10X magnification and good lighting. There are lots of possibilities found on Amazon for that. Look for positive reviews and comments about lens clarity and bright lighting in particular.

The photos I posted earlier were taken with a relatively inexpensive USB microscope with much higher magnification, which I bought many years ago. Lots of possibilities for those on Amazon as well. At extremely high magnification, they can sometimes be very tedious to work with though, as the depth of focus at high mag is extremely shallow and sometimes the built-in lighting for them can be difficult to get just right for a clear look without getting some extreme glare off the edge bevels. Can really learn a lot in using them, as I did in discovering that foil edge that I'd previously never seen up close. But patience is a virtue in working with them.
Click to expand...
You nailed it! The cost benefit with the time wasn’t there for me. I wasn’t getting anything that added to the process and could easily spend too much time fiddling around. I do think it sounds like a good trouble shooting exercise if truly stumped or trying a new seemingly uncooperative steel.

You also mentioned depth of field, and I agree. I felt I was missing the forest for the trees.
 
I rarely use my loupe. My thumbnail and phone book paper, (both directions) and an old Razor Edge "Edge Tester" give me enough feedback to tell me when something is amiss.

David pretty much nailed it in post #19 above regarding burrs that were thought to be gone but show back up. I have been messing about recently with a few knives and edges which have exhibited similar characteristics.

It's all part of the "fun".
 
annr said:
Point well made and well taken.

I’ve always worked with high-power glasses for my regular job and with good lighting, so I suspect I’m in the range of reasonably seeing something, just not with detail of photos above. Also, I don’t use such a variety of steels, and when I get a good steel I go the distance with it. Buy those knives in batches.

(I see thickness variations in 0.01–0.02 mm and work in microns, so this is not super different.)
Click to expand...
Not to say that because it happened to me it will happen to you or everyone. It was just that random life pimp slap in the face I wasn't ready for fairly recently. Having to get the "progressives" a couple years ago was bad enough.

edit: use the right words, dummy
 
Last edited:
I just got a set of 3 loupes for like 15 bucks. 2 are fold out 30x/60x with light and one 30, 60, 90 slide out combo with light. The 30 does plenty and I can see the scratch patterns, and how well the stropping is removing the existing scratches and refining the edge.
 
Maximumbob54 said:
Not to say that because it happened to me it will happen to you or everyone. It was just that random life pimp slap in the face I wasn't ready for fairly recently. Having to get the bifocals a couple years ago was bad enough.
Click to expand...
I’ve been told I’m super picky about my glasses and I have a separate pair for close-up work. I know it sucks, and it took me about 5 years to find the right kind of eye doctor to test and prescribe so I can really see the way I want. If they get the RX right, you are still at the mercy of the place that makes the glasses.

I own about 10 pair of RX glasses for close-up work (as eyes changed). I also have OTC adds in +0.25, +0.50, + 0.75, etc. all the way up to 2.0 to wear on top of the close-up work glasses. Sometimes I wear combination of both to dial in the vision.

You could always try something like this if your bifocal for reading is not strong enough. Reading RX is not usually good enough IME.

Or take your knife to the eye doctor like I do, and find good focal point.
 
annr said:
I’ve been told I’m super picky about my glasses and I have a separate pair for close-up work. I know it sucks, and it took me about 5 years to find the right kind of eye doctor to test and prescribe so I can really see the way I want. If they get the RX right, you are still at the mercy of the place that makes the glasses.

I own about 10 pair of RX glasses for close-up work (as eyes changed). I also have OTC adds in +0.25, +0.50, + 0.75, etc. all the way up to 2.0 to wear on top of the close-up work glasses. Sometimes I wear combination of both to dial in the vision.

You could always try something like this if your bifocal for reading is not strong enough. Reading RX is not usually good enough IME.

Or take your knife to the eye doctor like I do, and find good focal point.
Click to expand...
My next exam I'm for sure making it a point that I'm struggling with fine detail. But I like some of your ideas.
 
Maximumbob54 said:
Caught me screwing up the terminology. Had to look it up and yes they are progressives. I guess bifocals have the lines and mine do not.
Click to expand...
This could explain some of it. I found that by averaging/blending the distance-middle-near in various parts of the lens, progressive lenses are not pure enough (high resolution), unless maybe you get Zeiss. I see this in my students who struggle to do my type of work.

The bifocal line is its own problem. I like seeing with definition so I accept that line.

At a certain point I went with distance/reading bifocal, and computer/close-up bifocal and feel I got my sensitivity back.

If you are concerned about $, Costco has good prices and a good exchange policy—will remake for up to 3 months last time I checked.

Sometimes I buy 6 or more frames, take them home, experiment, and then get glasses made in the ones that give me best depth of field, etc. I keep or return the rest. I even put tape where line would go to trial that aspect. I find it difficult to choose frames and fit in store. I need more time to try with my daily tasks, including knife sharpening.
 
annr said:
This could explain some of it. I found that by averaging/blending the distance-middle-near in various parts of the lens, progressive lenses are not pure enough (high resolution), unless maybe you get Zeiss. I see this in my students who struggle to do my type of work.

The bifocal line is its own problem. I like seeing with definition so I accept that line.

At a certain point I went with distance/reading bifocal, and computer/close-up bifocal and feel I got my sensitivity back.

If you are concerned about $, Costco has good prices and a good exchange policy—will remake for up to 3 months last time I checked.

Sometimes I buy 6 or more frames, take them home, experiment, and then get glasses made in the ones that give me best depth of field, etc. I keep or return the rest. I even put tape where line would go to trial that aspect. I find it difficult to choose frames and fit in store. I need more time to try with my daily tasks, including knife sharpening.
Click to expand...
For the time being I'm thinking more about finding an adjustable neck magnifying glass like what I've seen fly fishermen use when tying. I'd rather not have yet more things to keep track of if possible. Hate admitting it but I lose everything.
 
annr said:
This could explain some of it. I found that by averaging/blending the distance-middle-near in various parts of the lens, progressive lenses are not pure enough (high resolution), unless maybe you get Zeiss. I see this in my students who struggle to do my type of work.

The bifocal line is its own problem. I like seeing with definition so I accept that line.

At a certain point I went with distance/reading bifocal, and computer/close-up bifocal and feel I got my sensitivity back.

If you are concerned about $, Costco has good prices and a good exchange policy—will remake for up to 3 months last time I checked.

Sometimes I buy 6 or more frames, take them home, experiment, and then get glasses made in the ones that give me best depth of field, etc. I keep or return the rest. I even put tape where line would go to trial that aspect. I find it difficult to choose frames and fit in store. I need more time to try with my daily tasks, including knife sharpening.
Click to expand...
This is interesting and very pertinent for me as well. I've worn progressive lenses in two pair of eyeglasses over a span of the last ~10+ years or so. Both purchased through Costco, BTW. And with both pair, I've never been satisfied with the correction in the upper and central portion of the lenses, for both near and distant vision. For whatever reason, both pair have only been clear enough in the lower quarter or so of the lenses, for BOTH my close-up and distant vision. I've been contemplating trying bifocals instead for these reasons. It seems odd to me that whatever the prescribed correction is for the lower portion of my lenses, it seems to be pretty good for both my close-up and very distant vision. I didn't think that was possible. I'll need to ask the optometrist about what that implies for my next prescription update and what can be done about it.
 
Maximumbob54 said:
For the time being I'm thinking more about finding an adjustable neck magnifying glass like what I've seen fly fishermen use when tying. I'd rather not have yet more things to keep track of if possible. Hate admitting it but I lose everything.
Click to expand...
I do this professionally, so I had a lot riding on finding a solution with minimal paraphernalia. I’m ready to go morning, noon, night.
 
Obsessed with Edges said:
This is interesting and very pertinent for me as well. I've worn progressive lenses in two pair of eyeglasses over a span of the last ~10+ years or so. Both purchased through Costco, BTW. And with both pair, I've never been satisfied with the correction in the upper and central portion of the lenses, for both near and distant vision. For whatever reason, both pair have only been clear enough in the lower quarter or so of the lenses, for BOTH my close-up and distant vision. I've been contemplating trying bifocals instead for these reasons. It seems odd to me that whatever the prescribed correction is for the lower portion of my lenses, it seems to be pretty good for both my close-up and very distant vision. I didn't think that was possible. I'll need to ask the optometrist about what that implies for my next prescription update and what can be done about it.
Click to expand...
Yes it is possible, and without knowing your people, I found a strong bias in the industry toward progressive —and they have a lot of “neurology” to back up pros and cons.

The biggest fudge factor is the middle distance which bifocals don’t have. It can also depend where they put the unseen line of transition in progressives.

I did my own reading and comparison, and for me it wasn’t close. The bi-focals outperformed for clarity of vision. I’ve seen enough people struggle to do what I do, and they tell me they simply can’t see, and they don’t have an eye disease.

ETA it’s possible to be over or under corrected which can confound the problem. I had 1.5 hr visit at eye doctor (exam time) and I’m hoping they got it right!
 
Last edited:
Blues said:
I only wear cheaters, 1.25x at the Chromebook and on iphone.

But when I work on the knives, I'll sometimes put on a store bought pair of 3x which make me dizzy if I'm not staring at the very apex of the edge. (Usually a 2x is enough for more moderate detail work up close.)
Click to expand...
Enter the 0.25 diopter. I am a firm believer in comfort: shoes, pants, and vision.
 
My eye doctor confirmed that progressives sort of average the vision and single vision or bifocal will give the best clarity. I use progressives for general use and cheaters or bifocals when I really need to see up close.
 
I went for an eye test last year and the optometrist told me I didn't need glasses beyond the cheaters I had, but I was curious to see what a pair of glasses that could correct for both eyes would be like. Not sure if they were bifocal or trifocal.

When I tried them out, (and I wasn't held to the purchase of them), it wasn't just no, but hell no. They were fine for distance, which I already was good at, but they were even better. Everything else felt like I was in a fish bowl. No way I could wear them.

So, I stick with my cheapie store bought versions from Amazon or similar when I'm looking at a computer or iPhone screen.
 
Blues said:
I went for an eye test last year and the optometrist told me I didn't need glasses beyond the cheaters I had, but I was curious to see what a pair of glasses that could correct for both eyes would be like. Not sure if they were bifocal or trifocal.

When I tried them out, (and I wasn't held to the purchase of them), it wasn't just no, but hell no. They were fine for distance, which I already was good at, but they were even better. Everything else felt like I was in a fish bowl. No way I could wear them.

So, I stick with my cheapie store bought versions from Amazon or similar.
Click to expand...
Sounds like could be progressives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top