|
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nor California & Pac NW
Posts: 24,863
|
Knife Sharpening For The Microscopically Anal
Didn't have much to do today so sharpened some of my kitchen knives. Really didn't have much to do, so examined the edges under a microscope, before and after different operations, using red marker pen to determine the portion of the bevel that was being ground in each step and comparing to the angle at which the blade was being held.
I learned that most of my knives have been sharpened at about 30 deg (angle between stone and nearest flat of blade) - so, total included angle 60 deg. I re-sharpened a couple at about 20 deg (total included angle 40 deg). Will be interested to see how well the more acute bevel holds up.
I also learned that when a blade is steeled using too much pressure, the edge gets many jagged protrusions where tiny bits of metal have been torn partly off. Under microscope it looks a bit like a ragged saw blade. The blade superficially "feels" sharp, and cuts well at first, since the jagged bits are acting like an invisible serrations. But after a little while, the jagged bits round off or smear away, leaving the dull edge. Exasperated ("dammit I just sharpened this thing"), the user reaches for the steel again, and so on.
If a blade is sharpened properly, on a stone, then steeled very lightly - hardly any more pressure than the weight of the blade - under microscope the edge is smooth. That edge not only feels sharp, it really is sharp, and stays sharp longer than the faux-sharp edge that has been abused with the steel.
Finally, even if an edge that has been carefully stoned and delicately steeled, the bevel still looks rough under the microscope, with the metal furrowed not smooth. So I'd like to try stropping my blades for a smoother finish.
You know, stropping on a leather band, like barbers used to do. Anyone do this to their knives? Any tips to share?
__________________
1989 3.2 Carrera coupe; 1988 Westy Vanagon, Zetec; 1986 E28 M30; 1994 W124; 2004 S211
What? Uh . . . “he” and “him”?
|