-
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.
TechStudio K01 Profile Sharpening System
- Thread starter Ankerson
- Start date
I have to say, that blade sharpener seems to be in a league of its own. I especially like that it's compatible with the Edge Pro abrasives and the other third-party mountables that were originally made for the Edge Pro.
I've been looking for a blade sharpener that satisfies all my needs for a long time, and the TSPROF does. I found this product while initially researching the KME sharpening system, which I discarded because it cannot go below 17°, which doesn't fit with my Japanese cutlery.
Then I looked at the Edge Pro, but I really didn't like that the blade isn't fixed and I discarded it, because that doesn't go well with my outdoor knives. Your product seems to have fixed all my issues with knife sharpeners and can perfectly sharpen both my outdoor and my kitchen knives, the long and the short ones. It only introduces a +-0.2° angle variance, but that's a non-issue, because it's continuous and according to some math I ran and some research I did, that will lead to a relative cutting performance variation of approximately 2%, which I think isn't noticable.
I've watched way too many YouTube videos about the TSPROF now and it makes my mouth water, I'm thinking "Want. Want! WANT!".
I'm still not going to buy one though. I've configured it on your website and yes, when spending that kinda money on a knife sharpener, of course I want the leather straps and the angle meter and the case (the case is really expensive) to nicely store it and then I ended up at close to $600. And that's just out of my league. It's a price I just don't know how to justify to my social environment or to myself. My personal limit was at something that starts with a 4 ($499). That way when someone asks me, I could still say "Ehh, ..., 4 hundred something" and I believe they would still look at me strange. At $600 they'd call me insane. It's where some of my friends start buying their cars.
So however great your product is, and great it is, I won't be able to afford it. I'll just have to put it in the corner of dreams that (probably) won't come true, together with that Lamborghini and that pent house flat.
Thank you for pushing the boundaries of knife sharpening,
Nyasaye
I've been looking for a blade sharpener that satisfies all my needs for a long time, and the TSPROF does. I found this product while initially researching the KME sharpening system, which I discarded because it cannot go below 17°, which doesn't fit with my Japanese cutlery.
Then I looked at the Edge Pro, but I really didn't like that the blade isn't fixed and I discarded it, because that doesn't go well with my outdoor knives. Your product seems to have fixed all my issues with knife sharpeners and can perfectly sharpen both my outdoor and my kitchen knives, the long and the short ones. It only introduces a +-0.2° angle variance, but that's a non-issue, because it's continuous and according to some math I ran and some research I did, that will lead to a relative cutting performance variation of approximately 2%, which I think isn't noticable.
I've watched way too many YouTube videos about the TSPROF now and it makes my mouth water, I'm thinking "Want. Want! WANT!".
I'm still not going to buy one though. I've configured it on your website and yes, when spending that kinda money on a knife sharpener, of course I want the leather straps and the angle meter and the case (the case is really expensive) to nicely store it and then I ended up at close to $600. And that's just out of my league. It's a price I just don't know how to justify to my social environment or to myself. My personal limit was at something that starts with a 4 ($499). That way when someone asks me, I could still say "Ehh, ..., 4 hundred something" and I believe they would still look at me strange. At $600 they'd call me insane. It's where some of my friends start buying their cars.
So however great your product is, and great it is, I won't be able to afford it. I'll just have to put it in the corner of dreams that (probably) won't come true, together with that Lamborghini and that pent house flat.
Thank you for pushing the boundaries of knife sharpening,
Nyasaye
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,692
Just FYI the KME can go below 17 degrees if you flip over the pivot ball rod holder.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 423
I recently asked if Paul or anyone had made a thickness compensator for the Tsprov KO2 yet, and I was quickly responded to by other members and the designer Paul (Tsprof), that this machine does not need a thickness compensator and that the analog gauge on the side is all you need.
Well...
First things first, I have been using the analog gauge on the side of the arm (AG) and paying attention to it in comparison to my angle cube and the AG is always off... I could not trust it in anyways for a precision edge, which after all is why you are most likely getting this system, so you can maximize the sharpness of whatever you are sharpening.
So then, after being met with the certainty and assurance that this system did not need nor could benefit from a thickness compensator, I set out to find out one way or another, because I had serious doubts but only speculation until today.
I went to the local hardware store and picked up a pack of nuts threaded at M10x1.5 and a thumb screw four just over 2 dollars. I proceeded to drill and tap one of these nuts to make a thickness compensator/stop collar depending on what you want to call it.
Then I installed the thickness compensator (TC) into the KO2 and assembled everything.
Then I clamped down an ESEE Laserstrike I had previously sharpened to 18.5 degrees per side (DPS). I choose the 18.5 degrees for a reason.
My first speculation for the AG was how can you tell with any precision that the sharpener is at a .5 DPS increment??? The answer is you can't you can only get close with the AG. You have a few methods to ensure you are at the right angle at this point, an angle cube, the sharpie test, or a protractor, or your stick with your best guess with the AG.
This is where I started conducting my test. I took 3 stones that were all different thickness to run the test. They are all three different colors for easy tracking. I bought some cheap stones from China while I wait for all my strops and finishing products from Paul on the next shipment in March. The stones from China cost 22 dollars and range from 80 grit to 3k but they are all a different thickness. All 3 stones are designed to work in the Edge Pro like systems.
Note the 3 stones in the picture below. The grey diamond stone is my base stone.
First, to establish a baseline I inserted the diamond stone and measured out everything to the correct angle with an angle cube on the blade. Then I took the diamond stone out of the stone holder and used it set the thickness of the stone on the angle adjusting arm using my home made thickness compensator. I left the thickness compensator alone at this point.
Notice the correct base line measurement of 18.5 DPS with the thin grey stone.
Next: I conducted the sharpie test to ensure I had the right angle which I did and all the sharpie was removed beautifully.
Before test:
After Test:
Next: I adjusted the arm on the AG to read as close as I could tell, to 18.5 DPS as I could.
Next, I put in the red stone and tried to adjust to 18.5 DPS with my eye using the AG.
Then I measured the stone with the angle cube, notice the red stone in the picture. At 17.90 the AG is off and I am no longer very close at all to my 18.5 DPS
Then I conducted the sharpie test which confirmed the angle is off.
Then I inserted the white stone and tried to line up with the AG to 18.5 DPS. Note in the picture the angle looks a little more off than the others but its hard to line up and take pictures on my phone while trying to get everything to focus.
Then I put the angle cube on the white stone for a readout. 18.15 DPS
Then another sharpie test. Once again it is off but not as much this time, but when you look at the sharpie test you can still see it makes a big difference.
Now, this is where things get really fun for me. This is where I was told this machine does not need a thickness compensator because of the AG already installed. I would also like to point out that from this point forward on the thickness compensator test, this is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY THE FIRST TIME I TRIED THIS, and in the second and so on pics I got better, faster, and more precise with this tool. With that said even my first time trying it, I was off but way closer than the AG.
So the first test I, took the red stone and stuck it underneath my homemade TC and on top of the brass locking nut to get the correct thickness. Then I inserted the stone in the arm and measured with an angle cube. Notice the red stone in the pic and the read out is 18.4 DPS which is way more accurate than the previous 17.9 DPS.
Next, I did a sharpie test, The test did not work out as well as it should have for being so close but I think it really had more to do with variances over the length of the cheap 1 dollar stones from China than the angle itself. But either way the sharpie test results the stone would have still sharpened well, the imperfection would have been on the back side of the bevel.
Then I took a picture of the read out of the red stone at 18.5 DPS with the AG.
Next, I did the same with the white stone and took a picture of the TC portion (forgot that pic on the red stone)
Then I took the angle cube measurement with a read out of 18.5 DPS!!! Getting better on my second try! Notice the white stone in the picture.
Next, I did another sharpie test and it worked perfectly! Also, note on most of the sharpie test I left half the sharpie still on the blade to the right and used the portion on the left to conduct the test.
Then I took a pic of what the AG read out. To the eye, it appears to be close to 18.5 DPS but then again so have all the others...
Then I did the gray diamond stone in the TC but forgot to take a picture again. But I did take a picture of the angle cube read out after and it was spot on again at 18.5 DPS! Notice the gray stone in the picture.
Then another sharpie test which worked out amazingly again!
Here is the last pic with the thinnest stone sitting on top of the brass locking nut with the difference from the top of the stone to the bottom of the thickness compensator to illustrate the difference in stone thickness we were dealing with and how it affected the sharpening angle.
Conclusion: Yes this system needs a thickness compensator and for such a cheap addition it significantly outperforms the built in angle gauge which only gets you close...
Is the angle gauge that is built into the machine accurate? To an extent, it is kind of maybe accurate. It will get you close but there is too much degree of variation to be relied upon for precision sharpening.
In my opinion for me and me only, if I am spending over 600 dollars and more for a machine like this, the accuracy that the AG provides me with is not acceptable and does not provide a precise enough measurement to achieve the hair popping edges for a machine like this.
Is the AG close enough to be used with the sharpie test to feel things out and then feel out the correct angle? Yes, but it will be cumbersome and time-consuming and truthfully not worth your time.
Is my home made thickness compensator more accurate than the AG??? I think the proof is in the pudding from the pics that for two dollars you can achieve far more precision using a thickness compensator than the angle gauge provided, and for TWO dollars it should be a no brainer!!!
Cold hard truth: My thickness compensator worked very well and after a couple of tries I got pretty quick at it and felt the precision from it can only be bested by an angle cube, with that said the angle cube which I already have is more precise but takes a tad longer to use in the long run, whereas the TC takes some getting use to but is an extremely cheap addition that dramatically increases accuracy over the provided angle gauge.
Right now my TC is a nice addition but it can easily be improved upon.
If my TC had a larger shoulder or if Tsprof included a second brass lock nut with nylon thumb screws so you don't to worry about damaging threads etc.
This will provide to be an outstanding budget friendly tool and an excellent back up to the angle cube for when the batteries fail. I see myself using both but for now until I get quicker and more efficient with the TC my angle cube will still be used first.
Well...
First things first, I have been using the analog gauge on the side of the arm (AG) and paying attention to it in comparison to my angle cube and the AG is always off... I could not trust it in anyways for a precision edge, which after all is why you are most likely getting this system, so you can maximize the sharpness of whatever you are sharpening.
So then, after being met with the certainty and assurance that this system did not need nor could benefit from a thickness compensator, I set out to find out one way or another, because I had serious doubts but only speculation until today.
I went to the local hardware store and picked up a pack of nuts threaded at M10x1.5 and a thumb screw four just over 2 dollars. I proceeded to drill and tap one of these nuts to make a thickness compensator/stop collar depending on what you want to call it.
Then I installed the thickness compensator (TC) into the KO2 and assembled everything.
Then I clamped down an ESEE Laserstrike I had previously sharpened to 18.5 degrees per side (DPS). I choose the 18.5 degrees for a reason.
My first speculation for the AG was how can you tell with any precision that the sharpener is at a .5 DPS increment??? The answer is you can't you can only get close with the AG. You have a few methods to ensure you are at the right angle at this point, an angle cube, the sharpie test, or a protractor, or your stick with your best guess with the AG.
This is where I started conducting my test. I took 3 stones that were all different thickness to run the test. They are all three different colors for easy tracking. I bought some cheap stones from China while I wait for all my strops and finishing products from Paul on the next shipment in March. The stones from China cost 22 dollars and range from 80 grit to 3k but they are all a different thickness. All 3 stones are designed to work in the Edge Pro like systems.
Note the 3 stones in the picture below. The grey diamond stone is my base stone.
First, to establish a baseline I inserted the diamond stone and measured out everything to the correct angle with an angle cube on the blade. Then I took the diamond stone out of the stone holder and used it set the thickness of the stone on the angle adjusting arm using my home made thickness compensator. I left the thickness compensator alone at this point.
Notice the correct base line measurement of 18.5 DPS with the thin grey stone.
Next: I conducted the sharpie test to ensure I had the right angle which I did and all the sharpie was removed beautifully.
Before test:
After Test:
Next: I adjusted the arm on the AG to read as close as I could tell, to 18.5 DPS as I could.
Next, I put in the red stone and tried to adjust to 18.5 DPS with my eye using the AG.
Then I measured the stone with the angle cube, notice the red stone in the picture. At 17.90 the AG is off and I am no longer very close at all to my 18.5 DPS
Then I conducted the sharpie test which confirmed the angle is off.
Then I inserted the white stone and tried to line up with the AG to 18.5 DPS. Note in the picture the angle looks a little more off than the others but its hard to line up and take pictures on my phone while trying to get everything to focus.
Then I put the angle cube on the white stone for a readout. 18.15 DPS
Then another sharpie test. Once again it is off but not as much this time, but when you look at the sharpie test you can still see it makes a big difference.
Now, this is where things get really fun for me. This is where I was told this machine does not need a thickness compensator because of the AG already installed. I would also like to point out that from this point forward on the thickness compensator test, this is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY THE FIRST TIME I TRIED THIS, and in the second and so on pics I got better, faster, and more precise with this tool. With that said even my first time trying it, I was off but way closer than the AG.
So the first test I, took the red stone and stuck it underneath my homemade TC and on top of the brass locking nut to get the correct thickness. Then I inserted the stone in the arm and measured with an angle cube. Notice the red stone in the pic and the read out is 18.4 DPS which is way more accurate than the previous 17.9 DPS.
Next, I did a sharpie test, The test did not work out as well as it should have for being so close but I think it really had more to do with variances over the length of the cheap 1 dollar stones from China than the angle itself. But either way the sharpie test results the stone would have still sharpened well, the imperfection would have been on the back side of the bevel.
Then I took a picture of the read out of the red stone at 18.5 DPS with the AG.
Next, I did the same with the white stone and took a picture of the TC portion (forgot that pic on the red stone)
Then I took the angle cube measurement with a read out of 18.5 DPS!!! Getting better on my second try! Notice the white stone in the picture.
Next, I did another sharpie test and it worked perfectly! Also, note on most of the sharpie test I left half the sharpie still on the blade to the right and used the portion on the left to conduct the test.
Then I took a pic of what the AG read out. To the eye, it appears to be close to 18.5 DPS but then again so have all the others...
Then I did the gray diamond stone in the TC but forgot to take a picture again. But I did take a picture of the angle cube read out after and it was spot on again at 18.5 DPS! Notice the gray stone in the picture.
Then another sharpie test which worked out amazingly again!
Here is the last pic with the thinnest stone sitting on top of the brass locking nut with the difference from the top of the stone to the bottom of the thickness compensator to illustrate the difference in stone thickness we were dealing with and how it affected the sharpening angle.
Conclusion: Yes this system needs a thickness compensator and for such a cheap addition it significantly outperforms the built in angle gauge which only gets you close...
Is the angle gauge that is built into the machine accurate? To an extent, it is kind of maybe accurate. It will get you close but there is too much degree of variation to be relied upon for precision sharpening.
In my opinion for me and me only, if I am spending over 600 dollars and more for a machine like this, the accuracy that the AG provides me with is not acceptable and does not provide a precise enough measurement to achieve the hair popping edges for a machine like this.
Is the AG close enough to be used with the sharpie test to feel things out and then feel out the correct angle? Yes, but it will be cumbersome and time-consuming and truthfully not worth your time.
Is my home made thickness compensator more accurate than the AG??? I think the proof is in the pudding from the pics that for two dollars you can achieve far more precision using a thickness compensator than the angle gauge provided, and for TWO dollars it should be a no brainer!!!
Cold hard truth: My thickness compensator worked very well and after a couple of tries I got pretty quick at it and felt the precision from it can only be bested by an angle cube, with that said the angle cube which I already have is more precise but takes a tad longer to use in the long run, whereas the TC takes some getting use to but is an extremely cheap addition that dramatically increases accuracy over the provided angle gauge.
Right now my TC is a nice addition but it can easily be improved upon.
If my TC had a larger shoulder or if Tsprof included a second brass lock nut with nylon thumb screws so you don't to worry about damaging threads etc.
This will provide to be an outstanding budget friendly tool and an excellent back up to the angle cube for when the batteries fail. I see myself using both but for now until I get quicker and more efficient with the TC my angle cube will still be used first.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 423
I would like to add that I think the KO2 is the best sharpening system out there and that I love it, but I think a thickness compensator is a great addition to this sharpener and significantly more accurate and reliable than the currently included angle gauge.
I can't wait to get the rest of my accessories so I can finally sharpen some more blades!
I can't wait to get the rest of my accessories so I can finally sharpen some more blades!
freehouse32: You introduced an offset error in your measurements to the disadvantage of the angle gauge. All your measurements are relative, with the exception of the angle gauge.
So what you actually measured is an accuracy of 0.45356 for the angle gauge and 0.21548 for your thickness compensator, taking into account the accuracy of the digital protractor. This means that your thickness compensator is only about twice as good as the angle gauge.
If you want your angle gauge to be accurate for its absolute values, just take a pair of pliers and correct the offset.
The angle gauge is actually only being advertised for being accurate to 1 degree, which means you did actually pretty good with your 0.45356. Of course the thickness compensator would be the better option and it's cheap, but it's far from perfect. If you want high accuracy thickness compensation, the digital protractor is the way to go. And the tsprof comes well equipped to actually use a digital protractor. It has an accuracy of 0.1 degrees, which means it's another stepup by a factor two. Twice as good as your thickness compensator and four times as good as the angle gauge. Surely there are digital protractors with an even higher accuracy, but at that point it becomes a money game.
So what you actually measured is an accuracy of 0.45356 for the angle gauge and 0.21548 for your thickness compensator, taking into account the accuracy of the digital protractor. This means that your thickness compensator is only about twice as good as the angle gauge.
If you want your angle gauge to be accurate for its absolute values, just take a pair of pliers and correct the offset.
The angle gauge is actually only being advertised for being accurate to 1 degree, which means you did actually pretty good with your 0.45356. Of course the thickness compensator would be the better option and it's cheap, but it's far from perfect. If you want high accuracy thickness compensation, the digital protractor is the way to go. And the tsprof comes well equipped to actually use a digital protractor. It has an accuracy of 0.1 degrees, which means it's another stepup by a factor two. Twice as good as your thickness compensator and four times as good as the angle gauge. Surely there are digital protractors with an even higher accuracy, but at that point it becomes a money game.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2016
- Messages
- 112
Hello,
Please contact me by e-mail: paultechman@hotmail.com
Please contact me by e-mail: paultechman@hotmail.com
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 423
I agree with some of what you say but not all.
You can scroll to page 17 of this thread and see that the angle guide on the side is claimed to be accurate to .1 degree according to Paul.
Second, I did adjust the metal arm to the gauge with "pliers" although I did not need pliers... there is a set screw so you can physically adjust the arm without having to bend it. SO that is how I adjusted the arm and made a true baseline. At the start of the test, the digital angle cube and the arm gauge read the same degree.
I agree with you completely about the digital angle cube being the best all the way around but for people looking for a cheaper alternative, the thickness compensator is definitely for them.
I also agree that my home made thickness compensator has a lot to be desired and I threw it together using the cheapest parts I could find quickly. Like I previously said a good brass locking nut turned into a thickness compensator would be even more reliable, and likely to produce even more accuracy...
Also, keep in mind the very first 3 readouts I presented were unbiased and the very first 3 I completed, after each one I got more accurate and quicker as I went along.
I do thank you very much for crunching the numbers for me!
In my opinion, Paul would be better off going with a more accurate and easier to manufacture thickness compensator than the fancy and elaborate angle gauge already on the system... It seems like the thickness compensator wins on being quicker and easier to manufacture and produce with a quicker installation and more accurate performance... But that is just my 2 cents....
I am pretty sure we agree across the board, I just don't think you realized I did exactly what you recommended with pliers and bending it prior to conducting the test, whereas I adjusted it with the set screw which didn't need the pliers.
You can scroll to page 17 of this thread and see that the angle guide on the side is claimed to be accurate to .1 degree according to Paul.
Second, I did adjust the metal arm to the gauge with "pliers" although I did not need pliers... there is a set screw so you can physically adjust the arm without having to bend it. SO that is how I adjusted the arm and made a true baseline. At the start of the test, the digital angle cube and the arm gauge read the same degree.
I agree with you completely about the digital angle cube being the best all the way around but for people looking for a cheaper alternative, the thickness compensator is definitely for them.
I also agree that my home made thickness compensator has a lot to be desired and I threw it together using the cheapest parts I could find quickly. Like I previously said a good brass locking nut turned into a thickness compensator would be even more reliable, and likely to produce even more accuracy...
Also, keep in mind the very first 3 readouts I presented were unbiased and the very first 3 I completed, after each one I got more accurate and quicker as I went along.
I do thank you very much for crunching the numbers for me!
In my opinion, Paul would be better off going with a more accurate and easier to manufacture thickness compensator than the fancy and elaborate angle gauge already on the system... It seems like the thickness compensator wins on being quicker and easier to manufacture and produce with a quicker installation and more accurate performance... But that is just my 2 cents....
I am pretty sure we agree across the board, I just don't think you realized I did exactly what you recommended with pliers and bending it prior to conducting the test, whereas I adjusted it with the set screw which didn't need the pliers.
Last edited:
Wicked Edge should release a scissor attachment this month...
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 194
The standard single clamp says its recommended for knives that are 5mm in thickness, and the "filet" single clamp says it shouldn't be used on knives thicker than 2.5mm.
Most of my knives are 3mm.
Which clamp should I use?
Second question, how close to the center can you put the double clamps?
Most of my knives are 3mm.
Which clamp should I use?
Second question, how close to the center can you put the double clamps?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 423
Paul knows the difference between the two and he calls an angle cube a digital protractor. I know there is a language barrier but he was referring to his angle gauge with the pointer arm to being accurate to .1, unless he mistyped the .1, but it seems pretty intentional he meant to say .1 and said angle gauge and not a digital protractor.
freehouse32:
I didn't realize that you actually adjusted the angle gauge. Recalculating the accuracy for your angle gauge measurements, the result would be 0.70278. Now that casts a completely different picture. Now your thickness compensator is about 3.5 times as good.
I think the angle gauge can do better though. Even from the pictures I can tell that there's an obvious parallax error. If you want to repeat the experiment, you could try to close one eye, then line it up with the angle gauge in a way that the part that sticks forward, vanishes completely behind the little bent part. With some practice, one should be able to achieve an accuracy between 0.5 and 0.25 degrees.
About the accuracy of thickness compensators. A thickness compensator only measures a very small part of your stone. For the thickness compensator to really work there are some things that it must do, which are actually really hard to do. The part where you put the stone needs to be co-planar with the sagittal plane of the blade you're sharpening. Then this part needs to be harder than the stone, because when you put it on the stone tightly, the stone will wear it out when you pull the stone out. This could be solved by some mechanics involving a spring though, so you can first adjust it and then pull it back a bit and release it again. A thickness compensator like that would not be cheap anymore though. It has multiple parts, it has mechanics and 4 precision surfaces (2 on the outside and 2 on the inside for the spring).
Now assuming we have this wear-free, precision thickness compensator, the next problem are the stones themselves. For the thickness compensator to actually work, the stones need to not only be flat, but also co-planar. And that is very hard to do. You'd need some kind of planing machine like they have for woodworking, but I don't think that's possible for sharpening stones. Such a machine would be very expensive.
You could use a sliding caliper and measure the thickness of each corner of the stone, then flatten it again, measure the corners again, flatten it again, and so on, until you've reached a satisfactory co-planarity. But I think at this point you're thinking "Hell no, way too much work!". And of course you'd inherit the inaccuracy of the sliding caliper and how well you can handle it (which brings us back to the human-error-prone angle gauge).
All in all, what I want to say: A professional solution involving a thickness compensator, requires a lot of work and maintenance and it would be more expensive than a digital protractor.
EDIT:
I forgot something. The problem with co-planarity of the stones actually applies to any scenario, but only once. In case of using a thickness compensator the effect would double.
And some more words on the second paragraph. I'd really be interested to see whether you can achieve an accuracy of ~0.25 with the angle gauge. Because if you can, that's really the last nail in the coffin for the thickness compensator. Otherwise I'd be convinced. The thickness compensator would have a reason to exist between angle gauge and digital protractor as long as the cost is less than $20.
I didn't realize that you actually adjusted the angle gauge. Recalculating the accuracy for your angle gauge measurements, the result would be 0.70278. Now that casts a completely different picture. Now your thickness compensator is about 3.5 times as good.
I think the angle gauge can do better though. Even from the pictures I can tell that there's an obvious parallax error. If you want to repeat the experiment, you could try to close one eye, then line it up with the angle gauge in a way that the part that sticks forward, vanishes completely behind the little bent part. With some practice, one should be able to achieve an accuracy between 0.5 and 0.25 degrees.
About the accuracy of thickness compensators. A thickness compensator only measures a very small part of your stone. For the thickness compensator to really work there are some things that it must do, which are actually really hard to do. The part where you put the stone needs to be co-planar with the sagittal plane of the blade you're sharpening. Then this part needs to be harder than the stone, because when you put it on the stone tightly, the stone will wear it out when you pull the stone out. This could be solved by some mechanics involving a spring though, so you can first adjust it and then pull it back a bit and release it again. A thickness compensator like that would not be cheap anymore though. It has multiple parts, it has mechanics and 4 precision surfaces (2 on the outside and 2 on the inside for the spring).
Now assuming we have this wear-free, precision thickness compensator, the next problem are the stones themselves. For the thickness compensator to actually work, the stones need to not only be flat, but also co-planar. And that is very hard to do. You'd need some kind of planing machine like they have for woodworking, but I don't think that's possible for sharpening stones. Such a machine would be very expensive.
You could use a sliding caliper and measure the thickness of each corner of the stone, then flatten it again, measure the corners again, flatten it again, and so on, until you've reached a satisfactory co-planarity. But I think at this point you're thinking "Hell no, way too much work!". And of course you'd inherit the inaccuracy of the sliding caliper and how well you can handle it (which brings us back to the human-error-prone angle gauge).
All in all, what I want to say: A professional solution involving a thickness compensator, requires a lot of work and maintenance and it would be more expensive than a digital protractor.
EDIT:
I forgot something. The problem with co-planarity of the stones actually applies to any scenario, but only once. In case of using a thickness compensator the effect would double.
And some more words on the second paragraph. I'd really be interested to see whether you can achieve an accuracy of ~0.25 with the angle gauge. Because if you can, that's really the last nail in the coffin for the thickness compensator. Otherwise I'd be convinced. The thickness compensator would have a reason to exist between angle gauge and digital protractor as long as the cost is less than $20.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 423
Once again I agree with what you say for the most part, but we aren't splitting atoms here or reinventing the wheel by trying to design a thickness compensator to replace or outperform an angle cube/digital protractor, just a cost effective alternative to an angle cube if someone desires.
But you speak 100% truth the tighter the fit in the compensator the more accurate but material fatigue/degradation would become an issue after extended use.
For people trying to squeeze the most out of the system should just get the digital angle cube and be done with it.
For others that don't want to spend 25 dollars or more on and angle cube, should be served well by a thickness compensator designed well but not overly built.
To get the most out of a thickness compensator before losing its cost-benefit ratio would only require a few things -
Harder material with a wider shoulder to cover more of the stone for a higher degree of precision
Non-marring screws
and like you suggested if feasible a spring loaded system.
There are 3 cheap thickness compensators out there right now that I am aware of and there are even more than that but not necessarily cheap. WE, KME, Hapstone, Edge pro all have them along with other sharpeners.
EP Apex stop collar is 3 dollars and some change
Hapstone is around 6 or 7 dollars
KME is somewhere around 20 I think but it is also more sophisticated (don't know price for sure)
I did try to adjust for parallax and be objective as possible when conducting the test.
I did not want to be overly technical in my review and loose people and I tried to mention after one of the pictures that although the pointer looked like the incorrect adjustment in the camera, the pointer was sitting in nearly the same place every time but due to parallax and the lining up of the camera with one hand and paper with the other to allow for focus it was difficult to maintain a steady aspect angle from lack of a rest for consistency.
A thickness compensator would also have limitations on stones if a stone has been dished or uneven ware or has not been properly lapped it could provide an inaccurate reading... but once again we aren't splitting hairs... Oh, wait isn't that the goal???!
Bottom line - consistency is the key to a hair-splitting edge and can be achieved with or with out technical equipment but a TC seems to be an attractive alternative to someone on a budget.
Thanks again for crunching the numbers!
But you speak 100% truth the tighter the fit in the compensator the more accurate but material fatigue/degradation would become an issue after extended use.
For people trying to squeeze the most out of the system should just get the digital angle cube and be done with it.
For others that don't want to spend 25 dollars or more on and angle cube, should be served well by a thickness compensator designed well but not overly built.
To get the most out of a thickness compensator before losing its cost-benefit ratio would only require a few things -
Harder material with a wider shoulder to cover more of the stone for a higher degree of precision
Non-marring screws
and like you suggested if feasible a spring loaded system.
There are 3 cheap thickness compensators out there right now that I am aware of and there are even more than that but not necessarily cheap. WE, KME, Hapstone, Edge pro all have them along with other sharpeners.
EP Apex stop collar is 3 dollars and some change
Hapstone is around 6 or 7 dollars
KME is somewhere around 20 I think but it is also more sophisticated (don't know price for sure)
I did try to adjust for parallax and be objective as possible when conducting the test.
I did not want to be overly technical in my review and loose people and I tried to mention after one of the pictures that although the pointer looked like the incorrect adjustment in the camera, the pointer was sitting in nearly the same place every time but due to parallax and the lining up of the camera with one hand and paper with the other to allow for focus it was difficult to maintain a steady aspect angle from lack of a rest for consistency.
A thickness compensator would also have limitations on stones if a stone has been dished or uneven ware or has not been properly lapped it could provide an inaccurate reading... but once again we aren't splitting hairs... Oh, wait isn't that the goal???!
Bottom line - consistency is the key to a hair-splitting edge and can be achieved with or with out technical equipment but a TC seems to be an attractive alternative to someone on a budget.
Thanks again for crunching the numbers!
freehouse32:
I didn't realize that you actually adjusted the angle gauge. Recalculating the accuracy for your angle gauge measurements, the result would be 0.70278. Now that casts a completely different picture. Now your thickness compensator is about 3.5 times as good.
I think the angle gauge can do better though. Even from the pictures I can tell that there's an obvious parallax error. If you want to repeat the experiment, you could try to close one eye, then line it up with the angle gauge in a way that the part that sticks forward, vanishes completely behind the little bent part. With some practice, one should be able to achieve an accuracy between 0.5 and 0.25 degrees.
About the accuracy of thickness compensators. A thickness compensator only measures a very small part of your stone. For the thickness compensator to really work there are some things that it must do, which are actually really hard to do. The part where you put the stone needs to be co-planar with the sagittal plane of the blade you're sharpening. Then this part needs to be harder than the stone, because when you put it on the stone tightly, the stone will wear it out when you pull the stone out. This could be solved by some mechanics involving a spring though, so you can first adjust it and then pull it back a bit and release it again. A thickness compensator like that would not be cheap anymore though. It has multiple parts, it has mechanics and 4 precision surfaces (2 on the outside and 2 on the inside for the spring).
Now assuming we have this wear-free, precision thickness compensator, the next problem are the stones themselves. For the thickness compensator to actually work, the stones need to not only be flat, but also co-planar. And that is very hard to do. You'd need some kind of planing machine like they have for woodworking, but I don't think that's possible for sharpening stones. Such a machine would be very expensive.
You could use a sliding caliper and measure the thickness of each corner of the stone, then flatten it again, measure the corners again, flatten it again, and so on, until you've reached a satisfactory co-planarity. But I think at this point you're thinking "Hell no, way too much work!". And of course you'd inherit the inaccuracy of the sliding caliper and how well you can handle it (which brings us back to the human-error-prone angle gauge).
All in all, what I want to say: A professional solution involving a thickness compensator, requires a lot of work and maintenance and it would be more expensive than a digital protractor.
EDIT:
I forgot something. The problem with co-planarity of the stones actually applies to any scenario, but only once. In case of using a thickness compensator the effect would double.
And some more words on the second paragraph. I'd really be interested to see whether you can achieve an accuracy of ~0.25 with the angle gauge. Because if you can, that's really the last nail in the coffin for the thickness compensator. Otherwise I'd be convinced. The thickness compensator would have a reason to exist between angle gauge and digital protractor as long as the cost is less than $20.
hi guys, first time posting.
freehouse32:
thoughtful and illustrative experiment. could have just been demonstrated with some trigonometry, but nice to see a real world example and mechanical compensation for the angle differential.
i think most of all you've shown me the importance of shelling out a measly $30-$40 for a digital angle gauge. the analog gauge that comes built in is nice to have, but i won't be relying on it too much.
i've read the entire thread, and i am super tempted to buy one of these! nice system.
i'm really lost when it comes to what kind of stones to get with it though. perhaps someone can advise?
i definitely want a good range of grits (all the way up to 6000+ grit polishing), and i know for example that i will be sharpening some japanese kitchen knives with hardness in the ~63HRC range.
should i just skip the stones from tsprof and get some stuff from CKTG?
there are so many options, my head's spinning.
also i have a nice strop setup already, and i don't mind doing that by hand after sharpening and polishing.
thanks
freehouse32:
thoughtful and illustrative experiment. could have just been demonstrated with some trigonometry, but nice to see a real world example and mechanical compensation for the angle differential.
i think most of all you've shown me the importance of shelling out a measly $30-$40 for a digital angle gauge. the analog gauge that comes built in is nice to have, but i won't be relying on it too much.
i've read the entire thread, and i am super tempted to buy one of these! nice system.
i'm really lost when it comes to what kind of stones to get with it though. perhaps someone can advise?
i definitely want a good range of grits (all the way up to 6000+ grit polishing), and i know for example that i will be sharpening some japanese kitchen knives with hardness in the ~63HRC range.
should i just skip the stones from tsprof and get some stuff from CKTG?
there are so many options, my head's spinning.
also i have a nice strop setup already, and i don't mind doing that by hand after sharpening and polishing.
thanks