S30V 1K SiC and UF abraded surfaces

I used edge-leading strokes to microbevel my 10v knife. Did right side with UF, took picture, then did left side with DMT EEF plate (diamonds still sharp). No burrs removal.

Apex & bevel flatness are actual artifacts. UF side is more shiny so I had to lowered the contrast to see surface features.

S1RBmtr.png
 
Agree, it can be disputed. Take the above photo (which i appreciate your effort in posting it, BluntCut MetalWorks BluntCut MetalWorks ): maybe it's my aging eyes going bad after staring at a screen and writing code all day, but that 2nd pic is so blurry I can't make out what's going on or how it differs from the first one. So yeah, like I said in an earlier thread, all these photos need to be INTERPRETED not just seen as the meaning is self evident.
 
Zoom-out (to 33% this case) should help to see overall surface topology. For fun - just put on a thinking cap of a geologist, studying weather/erosion of 2 hill sides.

5xUJoAg.png
 
So again, could use some interpretation or a hypothesis on that. I see what appears to be big blotches (missing chunks?) from the second pic. Do you think those are chunks being torn out, and that this is solid evidence for carbide tear-out caused by ceramic?
 
Again, I find tearout on sintered ceramics to be a very dubious concept. If tearout were to occur it would be on softer stones.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Again, I find tearout on sintered ceramics to be a very dubious concept. If tearout were to occur it would be on softer stones.
Click to expand...

So I'm interested to hear BluntCut MetalWorks BluntCut MetalWorks interpretation, and yours. What do you think is going on in his 2nd picture, where this is the same blade finished on one side using UF, the other using 8K diamond? What do you think those large black areas are on the UF side, and what likely caused them?
 
The large black areas just look like shadows in scratches that weren't fully removed by the UF.
 
Optical microscope has very shallow depth-of-view but even when I can adjust depth focus. Good interpretation required long stare(s). Of course with good skills/experiences, easy to pick low hanging fruits :)

*Microbevel used narrow side(not lapped) of a Spyderco F sintered ceramic stone

TTwoVFB.png
 
I'm guessing high carbide non stainless steels won't lose as much carbide as their stainless counterparts
 
To my admittedly untrained eye, the updated photo illustrates what you'd expect if you told somebody you sharpened an edge with 2 different abrasives that are different materials, and are also at different grit ratings (in this case the EEF is a higher grit than the F ceramic): so the resulting edges look different, one is finer/thinner than the other.

Beyond that, I'm not seeing details that suggest something remarkable is going on. If that detail is there, interested to hear some commentary on it.
 
HeavyHanded said:
At the coarse end it really doesn't seem to make a difference right up to the fine Crystalon and maybe a little beyond. At least there is no appreciable difference, and if there is no anecdotal change you are unlikely to find one with less subjective testing. I've gotten very nice edges off the Crystalon.

In theory you want the "softer" friable abrasives at the coarse end for your set-up, as these will cause the least subsurface carbide/crystal lattice displacement. In practice I'm not sure there is going to be a big difference, especially if you are grinding away all trace of the deeper scratches. If stopping at a coarse level, a diamond plate in good shape should give you better results. Testing this vis a vis might be tough because again, you cannot really compare apples to apples when one of the apples is an orange.

When resetting a bevel on high carbide steels where there is a significant angle change I use a diamond plate.
Click to expand...
This knife is cut and made from Comet circular saw M35 HSS steel , 1.8mm thick ....Sharpened /first and only time for now/ on cheap /china made/ 400 grit stone .After three months in the kitchen , still shaving sharp :thumbsup:

i6WMbjt.jpg
 
You probably right, steels with more% unbounded elements overall would have weaker interface cohesion, thus protruding carbides would proportionally (per carbide chance) prone to detach/dislodge. For example ubounded element% in my calculation chart, for 10v is 10.8% and 21.4% for m390/20cv. So m390 would be more prone to loose VC due to impact than 10v.

jpm2 said:
I'm guessing high carbide non stainless steels won't lose as much carbide as their stainless counterparts
Click to expand...

Just imagine - what if protruding perfect spherical Vanadium carbides are cemented(with martensite or cobalt) in an invincible surface with holes at various depth for VC implant. After an hour of rubbing UF/F/M against these cemented VCs, please guess fun % (adding to 100) what happen/taken-place to VC:
1. basically nothing, VCs are still cemented and maybe a bit polished
2. top of VC are lopped-off, now flush with invincible surface
3. VC got yanked out, leaving craters/holes on surface​

maximus83 said:
To my admittedly untrained eye, the updated photo illustrates what you'd expect if you told somebody you sharpened an edge with 2 different abrasives that are different materials, and are also at different grit ratings (in this case the EEF is a higher grit than the F ceramic): so the resulting edges look different, one is finer/thinner than the other.

Beyond that, I'm not seeing details that suggest something remarkable is going on. If that detail is there, interested to hear some commentary on it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Natlek said:
This knife is cut and made from Comet circular saw M35 HSS steel , 1.8mm thick ....Sharpened /first and only time for now/ on cheap /china made/ 400 grit stone .After three months in the kitchen , still shaving sharp :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I have several knives in m35, mine are stock removal from metal cutting parting tools. :thumbsup:
 
bluntcut said:
Just imagine - what if protruding perfect spherical Vanadium carbides are cemented(with martensite or cobalt) in an invincible surface with holes at various depth for VC implant. After an hour of rubbing UF/F/M against these cemented VCs, please guess fun % (adding to 100) what happen/taken-place to VC:
1. basically nothing, VCs are still cemented and maybe a bit polished √
2. top of VC are lopped-off, now flush with invincible surface
3. VC got yanked out, leaving craters/holes on surface​
Click to expand...
 
OK, I can see why you picked 1). Assuming ceramic would just slide/ride on top of densely populated carbide dome top.

More details needed for this hypothetical. 15% VC volume/density and carbide are 1/4 to 3/4 diameter deep embedded. Because of gaps, there will be impacts/collisions.

LOL - I sort of want to know, would anyone would give 2) some percent. If not, why expect magical outcome when trying to shape(#2) apex decorated VC with sintered ceramic. For submicron wide apex 15dps, the chance of #1 for decorated VC is super low since lateral impact will be too high for small embedded footing, thus #3 outcome should be expected. Again, we/knut are talking about try to produce a high uniformity submicron apex width and flatness. If diamond plates (150 to 0.025 micron mesh) are free, then yeah all users would benefit because outcome/result would be more deterministic/predictable than sintered ceramic. well, neither free nor sub 3um plate avail :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top