-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Ken Schwartz's new poly spray (.015 micron)
- Thread starter NSW1535@Gmail.com
- Start date
ROTFL!Having conversations with yourself in public? Perhaps you should send yourself a PM? HAHA So embarassing ...
I can feel a long post designed to derail or close the topic coming next from you. Perhaps I should quote myself in advance for this before you do a thread closer post?
You really need a new hobby rather than spending your time stalking and bashing me, my customers and my products. Don't you have any other windmills to chase?
I really don't care if anybody buys this. It is for R&D purposes at this point. Grow up and get over it.
Everyone else on this thread is having a fun conversation about the topic. I'd suggest you do the same or go elsewhere.
---
Ken
I can feel a long post designed to derail or close the topic coming next from you. Perhaps I should quote myself in advance for this before you do a thread closer post?
You really need a new hobby rather than spending your time stalking and bashing me, my customers and my products. Don't you have any other windmills to chase?
I really don't care if anybody buys this. It is for R&D purposes at this point. Grow up and get over it.
Everyone else on this thread is having a fun conversation about the topic. I'd suggest you do the same or go elsewhere.
---
Ken
Jason B.
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 11,172
So does it have any effect on the steel. I mean really, there is only so much you can polish the edge and if you make even the smallest mistake all is for nothing. Better yet, why polish to that level for it to be gone before you even cut? I would imagine atmospheric erosion would become a problem.
Not trying to be a smart ass but would like to know for what reason would you want this compound?
And how would you control the sharpening without a SEM to check the progress of the scratch pattern?
Not trying to be a smart ass but would like to know for what reason would you want this compound?
And how would you control the sharpening without a SEM to check the progress of the scratch pattern?
Good questions, Jason.
So let's step back a bit and look at the 0.025 poly or 624,000 grit compound. If you strop on nanocloth with no abrasive the result is no metal swarf. Even a light spray of the 0.025 poly and you do see metal swarf deposition on the nanocloth. So clearly it is abrading metal. This is easily demonstrated and the effect when using a straight razor IS demonstrable. So this is just the next step past that. The only way to know how much more refinement is possible is to go past the point where this abrasion is not demonstrated. So as yet, I have not hit that point.
Your second point about making a mistake preceding it is mostly true. While you may be able to demonstrate improvement skipping the 0.025, the 0.050 or possibly the 0.1 micron level of refinement, the greatest effect is with smaller jumps - just like jumping from a 1k stone to a 10k stone will yield an improved edge but not a true 10k optimized edge. This is an extreme level of edge refinement and approaching it with a poorly defined coarse edge would be pretty much a waste of time. Clearly I don't expect this compound to have mass appeal. I suspect that straight razor users who appreciate an 0.025 poly edge may wish to try this out, but using it on a kitchen knife except for a knife with excellent edge retention might be where it may be of use. Too soon to say. Clearly one sloppy microbevel tossed in at a lower grit and it would be a wasted exercise.
It is a source of amazement that an 0.025 poly edge is demonstrating a noticeable level of refinement over say an 0.050 or 0.1 micron edge. Had I not tried it I would be skeptical too. At 0.015 microns, I'm still skeptical. I simply don't know yet if I have hit some limit or not. I suspect that further refinement even past 0.015 is possible. We are still a bit beyond individual iron atoms' dimensions.
I routinely touch up my straight razors with a Kangaroo or nanocloth strop at 0.025 micron poly. When doing this I do notice a slight increase in draw for the first few strokes. Even though I meticulously dry off my razor immediately after use, I suspect that the first few strokes are removing some slight degree of surface oxidation. Were I an eccentric millionaire, I might keep my straights in an inert gas environment between shaves rather than 'roughing it'
Perhaps an evacuated vacuum chamber reinfused with argon gas?
Why go to this level? Well I do sometimes skip stropping just to see how good the edge retention is at this level of refinement. It will easily go for several shaves, so to me it's worth doing. With further refinement, it might be less or more edge retention. That's one reason it is mostly an R&D product. So far the data suggest more edge longevity.
So so far I have not demonstrated EITHER WAY whether there is a perceptible level of improvement with this product. As you can imagine, testing is challenging saying that an edge is an improvement over a 620k edge.
Sharpening doesn't require an SEM to check edge refinement. I doubt too many people using a 10k stone require studying their edges even with sufficient light microscopy to adequately resolve that scratch pattern. Clearly even a quarter micron or 64k scratch pattern is beyond the limits of clearly resolving with light microscopy. And the scratch pattern of a strop - leather or even newsprint is beyond light microscopy limits. At 500x looking at a scratch pattern simply shows a reflection of the scope's objective lens using nanocloth with 0.125 or eighth micron CBN. People have been using natural stones for years and have not needed to observe the scratch patterns. Primarily the means of observation is observation of improved cutting performance. This is defined in a task specific manner.
---
Ken
So let's step back a bit and look at the 0.025 poly or 624,000 grit compound. If you strop on nanocloth with no abrasive the result is no metal swarf. Even a light spray of the 0.025 poly and you do see metal swarf deposition on the nanocloth. So clearly it is abrading metal. This is easily demonstrated and the effect when using a straight razor IS demonstrable. So this is just the next step past that. The only way to know how much more refinement is possible is to go past the point where this abrasion is not demonstrated. So as yet, I have not hit that point.
Your second point about making a mistake preceding it is mostly true. While you may be able to demonstrate improvement skipping the 0.025, the 0.050 or possibly the 0.1 micron level of refinement, the greatest effect is with smaller jumps - just like jumping from a 1k stone to a 10k stone will yield an improved edge but not a true 10k optimized edge. This is an extreme level of edge refinement and approaching it with a poorly defined coarse edge would be pretty much a waste of time. Clearly I don't expect this compound to have mass appeal. I suspect that straight razor users who appreciate an 0.025 poly edge may wish to try this out, but using it on a kitchen knife except for a knife with excellent edge retention might be where it may be of use. Too soon to say. Clearly one sloppy microbevel tossed in at a lower grit and it would be a wasted exercise.
It is a source of amazement that an 0.025 poly edge is demonstrating a noticeable level of refinement over say an 0.050 or 0.1 micron edge. Had I not tried it I would be skeptical too. At 0.015 microns, I'm still skeptical. I simply don't know yet if I have hit some limit or not. I suspect that further refinement even past 0.015 is possible. We are still a bit beyond individual iron atoms' dimensions.
I routinely touch up my straight razors with a Kangaroo or nanocloth strop at 0.025 micron poly. When doing this I do notice a slight increase in draw for the first few strokes. Even though I meticulously dry off my razor immediately after use, I suspect that the first few strokes are removing some slight degree of surface oxidation. Were I an eccentric millionaire, I might keep my straights in an inert gas environment between shaves rather than 'roughing it'
Perhaps an evacuated vacuum chamber reinfused with argon gas?Why go to this level? Well I do sometimes skip stropping just to see how good the edge retention is at this level of refinement. It will easily go for several shaves, so to me it's worth doing. With further refinement, it might be less or more edge retention. That's one reason it is mostly an R&D product. So far the data suggest more edge longevity.
So so far I have not demonstrated EITHER WAY whether there is a perceptible level of improvement with this product. As you can imagine, testing is challenging saying that an edge is an improvement over a 620k edge.
Sharpening doesn't require an SEM to check edge refinement. I doubt too many people using a 10k stone require studying their edges even with sufficient light microscopy to adequately resolve that scratch pattern. Clearly even a quarter micron or 64k scratch pattern is beyond the limits of clearly resolving with light microscopy. And the scratch pattern of a strop - leather or even newsprint is beyond light microscopy limits. At 500x looking at a scratch pattern simply shows a reflection of the scope's objective lens using nanocloth with 0.125 or eighth micron CBN. People have been using natural stones for years and have not needed to observe the scratch patterns. Primarily the means of observation is observation of improved cutting performance. This is defined in a task specific manner.
---
Ken
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 6,642
Oil immersion optical microscopy is capable of resolutions in the .2u range, though anything much smaller than this will be effectively invisible. On some edges it is possible to see an individual scratch trough move in and out of resolution in the same plane.
Me too.
I haven't seen a thread as entertaining as this one in quite a while. Some of the comments have been priceless. ROTFL!
Stitchawl
HeavyHanded,
We are in the same ballpark - .2 or .25 microns. With oil immersion as you say depth of field is quite limited vs an SEM with great depth of field. And looking at edges vs a planar surface further confounds the effort, especially if there is some degree of convexity to the edge's surface. Typically oil immersion objective lenses are in the 40x range. If you are looking at the particulates rather than the scratch pattern, then you are getting abrasives in the oil in contact with your lens. All in all a PITA. I ignore using oil immersion if I can. Also it is difficult to 'build' a stack of images to get increased depth of field with an oil immersion lens.
The biggest problem with SEM is the specimen size that will fit in the vacuum chamber of the SEM. Also because of the high vacuum levels the handles of knives will leak gas into the vacuum. This outgassing contaminates the vacuum. This is one reason why you see SEM studies often using razor blades for samples (eg Verhoven's studies). But the depth of field even at relatively low resolution makes viewing images real attractive. TEM gives limited depth of field but it is relatively straightforward to stack a series of TEM images into a volume and perform isosurface generation to elucidate a 3d structure from the dataset.
---
Ken
We are in the same ballpark - .2 or .25 microns. With oil immersion as you say depth of field is quite limited vs an SEM with great depth of field. And looking at edges vs a planar surface further confounds the effort, especially if there is some degree of convexity to the edge's surface. Typically oil immersion objective lenses are in the 40x range. If you are looking at the particulates rather than the scratch pattern, then you are getting abrasives in the oil in contact with your lens. All in all a PITA. I ignore using oil immersion if I can. Also it is difficult to 'build' a stack of images to get increased depth of field with an oil immersion lens.
The biggest problem with SEM is the specimen size that will fit in the vacuum chamber of the SEM. Also because of the high vacuum levels the handles of knives will leak gas into the vacuum. This outgassing contaminates the vacuum. This is one reason why you see SEM studies often using razor blades for samples (eg Verhoven's studies). But the depth of field even at relatively low resolution makes viewing images real attractive. TEM gives limited depth of field but it is relatively straightforward to stack a series of TEM images into a volume and perform isosurface generation to elucidate a 3d structure from the dataset.
---
Ken
[Warning this is somewhat obscure]
In terms of image resolution, specifying the minimum particle size one can resolve can give you an image but the higher order components of the image will not be resolved adequately. This is roughly analogous to resolving a signal with an oscilloscope of a certain frequency. So a sine wave can be resolved by a point at the peak and trough of the waveform and it's zero intersections. This number of points necessary to resolve the waveform is referred to as a Nyquist frequency. Now given a sample rate equal to the Nyquist frequency it is impossible to distinguish whether the wave form is sinusoidal or triangular or a square wave, since the higher order harmonics are unresolvable at the Nyquist frequency, so typically a higher sampling rate in the range of 10x the Nyquist frequency is required for adequate (not perfect) resolution. Similarly, for 2d and 3d images, a similar situation exists. You can resolve that a particle is there but not have any significant detail about the particle. So while you might resolve that a scratch is present, resolving the surface structure of the scratch may be just beyond your limits. Combining that with limited field depth and the basic problems of taking a decent picture with proper lighting of a scratch pattern on an opaque object requiring lighting from the top rather than through the object - well things start getting pretty tough to get a decent image.
---
Ken
In terms of image resolution, specifying the minimum particle size one can resolve can give you an image but the higher order components of the image will not be resolved adequately. This is roughly analogous to resolving a signal with an oscilloscope of a certain frequency. So a sine wave can be resolved by a point at the peak and trough of the waveform and it's zero intersections. This number of points necessary to resolve the waveform is referred to as a Nyquist frequency. Now given a sample rate equal to the Nyquist frequency it is impossible to distinguish whether the wave form is sinusoidal or triangular or a square wave, since the higher order harmonics are unresolvable at the Nyquist frequency, so typically a higher sampling rate in the range of 10x the Nyquist frequency is required for adequate (not perfect) resolution. Similarly, for 2d and 3d images, a similar situation exists. You can resolve that a particle is there but not have any significant detail about the particle. So while you might resolve that a scratch is present, resolving the surface structure of the scratch may be just beyond your limits. Combining that with limited field depth and the basic problems of taking a decent picture with proper lighting of a scratch pattern on an opaque object requiring lighting from the top rather than through the object - well things start getting pretty tough to get a decent image.
---
Ken
"Just curious, was this made originally for a different purpose? Like polishing gems or telescope lenses? "
No, the formulation was made to my specifications specifically for this purpose.
I have had a customer use my compounds as fine as 0.025 poly for gem polishing successfully, although this is not really a primary application for my products. As you can see (or not see) there are no observable scratches either with the naked eye or with light microscopy. The advantage is a brighter mirror finish when viewed without magnification.
For polishing telescope lenses I believe softer compounds are typically used like cerium oxide. So no it wasn't made for that either.
---
Ken
No, the formulation was made to my specifications specifically for this purpose.
I have had a customer use my compounds as fine as 0.025 poly for gem polishing successfully, although this is not really a primary application for my products. As you can see (or not see) there are no observable scratches either with the naked eye or with light microscopy. The advantage is a brighter mirror finish when viewed without magnification.
For polishing telescope lenses I believe softer compounds are typically used like cerium oxide. So no it wasn't made for that either.
---
Ken
Thanks, Jason!
I took them with my 5x macro lens and a few extension tubes cropped from an 18 MP image. Gives me more spatial resolution than several scopes I've worked with. I also pump in one crapload of light into the lens to give me sufficient depth of field.
Hey if this knife thing doesn't work out maybe I'll switch to gemstone cutting
Here it is a bit closer showing a spot he missed polishing. Still no scratches
---
Ken
I took them with my 5x macro lens and a few extension tubes cropped from an 18 MP image. Gives me more spatial resolution than several scopes I've worked with. I also pump in one crapload of light into the lens to give me sufficient depth of field.
Hey if this knife thing doesn't work out maybe I'll switch to gemstone cutting
Here it is a bit closer showing a spot he missed polishing. Still no scratches
---
Ken
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 6,642
Any study of particulates would have to be done with them affixed, using oil immersion the particles would simply drift out of the way as the objective was lowered. At 400 or 650x though (not using oil immersion), enough information about basic size is available from particles sitting in a layer of oil or on glass - specifics regarding surface features will be lacking if the particles in question are much below .75u.
The best way to capture good resolution (with or without oil immersion) is with a bit of backlighting on a metallurgical microscope in addition to the light passed through the objective - this produces additional info re the shape and depth of the edge right along the apex. Haven't tried this with a digital microscope but imagine it would be equally helpful - strong light above, diffuse light below. Also helps mightily to have the edge nice and flat in the viewing area and this can take a lot of fussing with the sample.
Here are a few SEM micrographs of some of my 0.125 micron or eighth micron CBN slurry formulations. This is 128,000 grit. The first image is at 2000x magnification. You can barely make out the individual particles.
We are already beyond the limits of light microscopy here for this sized particle.
Here we are at 5x more magnification - 10,000x Note the bars in the pictures for measuring purposes.
Finally here's an image at 20,000x Note the 500 nanometer measurement bar.
So here the individual particles are clearly resolvable, along with surface characteristics of the individual particles. The particles have a range of particle sizes. This is analyzed using a PSD or particle size Distribution analyses.
Here is the resultant output.
Now I have particluates that are 0.1 micron, 0.050 and 0.025 micron particles too, all coarser than my 0.015 poly compound. While light microscopy is of use for my coarser compounds, my compounds go well past the limits of light microscopy.
---
Ken
We are already beyond the limits of light microscopy here for this sized particle.
Here we are at 5x more magnification - 10,000x Note the bars in the pictures for measuring purposes.
Finally here's an image at 20,000x Note the 500 nanometer measurement bar.
So here the individual particles are clearly resolvable, along with surface characteristics of the individual particles. The particles have a range of particle sizes. This is analyzed using a PSD or particle size Distribution analyses.
Here is the resultant output.
Now I have particluates that are 0.1 micron, 0.050 and 0.025 micron particles too, all coarser than my 0.015 poly compound. While light microscopy is of use for my coarser compounds, my compounds go well past the limits of light microscopy.
---
Ken