<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Phorum 5</title>
    <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/index.php</link>
    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:56:03 -0700</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:56:03 -0700</lastBuildDate>
    <category>Phorum 5</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.16a</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>[Results] Re: New Rockstead Manilla rope test</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?19,293,294#msg-294</link>
      <author>Larrin Thomas</author>
      <description><![CDATA[YXR7 is a high speed steel, likely similar to M2, though it may be an upgrade in toughness with less wear resistance, I have not looked much into the steel. They also use an ATS-34/ZDP-189/ATS-34 laminate, though the tests they show are all with YXR7, probably because of how brittle ZDP is. The toughness of this steel is likely pretty good, and with the heavy grinds given to it I am not surprised by the fact that it can chop bamboo and still slice paper.

As to the rope cutting, it is not nearly as difficult to push cut through rope as it is to slice through it, especially when given a high polished sharpening (which they advertize on their site). As Wayne Goddard has said in the past, you can chop through rope for about as long as you want, depending on how hard you want to push down. Though the knife is still slicing paper, you can tell that the guy is having more and more of a hard time at the end of the rope. Also, YXR7 likely is quite wear resistant as well as having pretty good toughness, so it's not a shock that they can conduct this type of test either.

Just about any fairly heavy knife with a heavy grind should be able to handle chopping, even if the steel was fairly brittle, and the wear resistance will allow it to cut for some time as well. The extra thickness limits cutting ability however, and if it was thinner it would be able to cut much longer (though they may no longer be able to conduct the bamboo test).]]></description>
      <category>Results</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?19,293,294#msg-294</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:56:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Results] New Rockstead Manilla rope test</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?19,293,293#msg-293</link>
      <author>Larrin Thomas</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I think this is new anyway: http://www.rockstead.jp/en/rockstead.html]]></description>
      <category>Results</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?19,293,293#msg-293</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:54:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,291#msg-291</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[With a thicker convex grind there should not be an issue with balance, and since the majority of the cutting is all shallow indexed, it doesn't really matter as to the primary grind anyway. Most of it tends to be focused on edge angle/thickness. I'd actually be curious as to if they ever quantified what damage means, is it simply still an &quot;eyeball&quot; measurement of the judge. In regards to performance yes, it is a great marketing tool, it is the 2000 version of the Ginzu infomercial. Have they tried actually approaching a decent production company and getting a few large blades made out of it?

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,291#msg-291</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:05:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,290#msg-290</link>
      <author>Larrin Thomas</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Oh and I forgot to mention that I believe there is also a width restriction.]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,290#msg-290</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:06:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,289#msg-289</link>
      <author>Larrin Thomas</author>
      <description><![CDATA[It's not necessarily performance I am interested in in this case, it's the perception of performance.]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,289#msg-289</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:58:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,288#msg-288</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[A convex grind on a wide blade could easily get the same or greater mass than a 1/4&quot; blade, there is much more to inertia than mass though and it is inertia that has cutting power. I would like to see it as well, but frankly those cutting competitions are not where I would look to evaluation performance.

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,288#msg-288</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:53:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,287#msg-287</link>
      <author>Larrin Thomas</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The reason for the thickness is to have greater weight. There are certain length restrictions, so you need greater thickness for weight. A lighter blade would be tough to compete with in some of the events.]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,287#msg-287</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:10:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,286#msg-286</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Yes, but there is no reason that they have to be 1/4&quot; thick, unless you need lateral strength that is not an issue.

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,286#msg-286</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:13:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,285#msg-285</link>
      <author>Larrin Thomas</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I don't know if there is a huge demand for that size, mostly I would like to see 12C27 tried out for the competition choppers, but all of them are 1/4&quot; or thicker. I would like people to see that a stainless steel can actually be tough, and 12C27 would have plenty of toughness for the competition knives.]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,285#msg-285</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:09:45 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Re: Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,284#msg-284</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Thanks Larrin. Do you see a large demand for 1/4&quot; stock in actual function based knives? I do realize the market is there but that is a separate issue.

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,284#msg-284</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:13:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Materials] Sandvik steels</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,283#msg-283</link>
      <author>Larrin Thomas</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Sandvik now has a website up for their knife steels. It is quite in depth and provides much more information than I thought it would: http://www.smt.sandvik.com/hardeningguide

Also, 12C27 is now available from Admiral. This is especially good news because it is available in the 5/23&quot; and 3/16&quot; sizes, which 13C26 isn't, so there is finally a stainless steel with high toughness and high attainable hardness readily available. It's too bad it's not also available in 1/4&quot;.]]></description>
      <category>Materials</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?22,283,283#msg-283</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:08:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sign-Up] Re: Passaround #1 CPM-D2 (Spyderco Military) and D2 (Mel Sorg)</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?10,38,282#msg-282</link>
      <author>robert schini</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I'd like to be in.]]></description>
      <category>Sign-Up</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?10,38,282#msg-282</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 18:32:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[In-Progress] Re: Kershaw Knives : Junkyard Dog</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,262,281#msg-281</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[A lot of knives have the CAD style design, the one is obviously that but not among the worst I have seen. One folder was so bad that I actually cut myself on the sharp edges of the grip within a few minutes of heavier use. Those are knives designed to have a particular visual appeal and never actually used.

Yes, the thing about 13C26 though is that it is designed to be burr-minimal, so kind of ironic that is one of the common reported problems. However such low carbide steels are very sensitive to heat treating unlike high carbide steels which are very resistant to over soaking. 13C26 got a bad name years back for the same reason where it was classified as a 440B-beater type steel.


-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>In-Progress</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,262,281#msg-281</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:22:24 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Videos Relating To Sharpness And Reprofiled Edges</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,279,280#msg-280</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mike I think this is a great idea and very valuable information. It is indeed absurd that small folding knives are being made with edges which are thicker than are needed on full size parangs. 

I think what would be useful would be to look at some task specific applications. For example for a bushcraft (Mears style) knife, what is the minimal functional profile?

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,279,280#msg-280</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:13:09 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Videos Relating To Sharpness And Reprofiled Edges</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,279,279#msg-279</link>
      <author>Mike Cook</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I recently started making knife related videos.  With my modest equipment I thought a good start would be demonstrating how a sharp knife should cut.  Next, inspired largely by the people I talk with on Bladeforums, I made videos showing the durability of thin edges.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Neimuar&amp;p=r

I always did find the notion that cutting bread requires a serrated knife to be absurd...

Anyways, I wouldn't mind hearing some suggestions for more comprehensive testing and demonstration of proper knife edges.  In the video, my heavily reprofiled Spyderco UKPK and Byrd Cara Cara are seen doing light chopping and batoning, as well as cutting power cables and being stabbed into cans.  I personally find it absurd that many factory knives ship at 40 degrees inclusive, while my ~12 degree inclusive UKPK in S30V, known as a brittle steel, can chop and baton through wood and press cut through metal cabling.  Through my videos I hope to bring this to light for others in the knife community.  It's a long shot, but I'd like to try and influence as many people as I can, enough to get the industry to notice, and start producing at least one or two knives in their line-up ground in such a manner.  I would love to see Spyderco put out a knife ground from 2mm stock, full flat ground, with a 10-14 degree inclusive bevel and a steel to showcase this edge type.  Maybe even put a disclaimer saying their warranty does not cover this &quot;unusual&quot; blade profile.

Here is a link to a discussion I started on bladeforums concerning the topic.  I await further responses.  http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548305]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,279,279#msg-279</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:00:57 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: How thin to go on a regrind?</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,217,278#msg-278</link>
      <author>Mike Cook</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Chad, here is a Byrd Cara Cara I reground flat to the stone, then gave a microbevel.  The first video shows you the knife edge, the second gives you an idea of the toughness these thin edges retain.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xrSpXfrGa68

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMpS-pKQlzI]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,217,278#msg-278</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:53:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[In-Progress] Re: Kershaw Knives : Junkyard Dog</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,262,277#msg-277</link>
      <author>Mike Cook</author>
      <description><![CDATA[My experiences with the knife were similar.  13C26 seems like a good steel except for the burring issues, which might be attributed to the hardness Kershaw runs the blades at.  I don't know enough about bladesteels to say.

I agree on your assessment of the handle design.  I found the thumb ramp placed incorrectly as well, cramping my hand and making any extended cutting uncomfortable.  I've gotten rid of my Kershaws because they all tend to have ergonomic issues for me, aside from concerns over their blade steels and heat treatments.]]></description>
      <category>In-Progress</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,262,277#msg-277</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:40:44 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[In-Progress] EKA Swede 92</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,276,276#msg-276</link>
      <author>jonathan coupe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[EKA Swede 92 Folder – Design Review 

I’m a sort-of-an-engineer and sort-of-a-designer - I work in the software business, and I have experience of engineering products with contradictory requirements, and I’ve spent quite a lot of time on interface design issues, especially making products usable. I suggested to Cliff that he review this knife because it is a fascinating one, especially when contrasted to what are probably the most profitable and hyped knives in the knife industry, and offered to write down some of my own thoughts. 

Hopefully Cliff will add a picture of the knife, but it’s a folder with a “3 1/2&quot; long, .108&quot; thick and an inch wide” Bowie blade ground to 40 degrees from “stainless Sandvik 12C27 hardened to 57 - 59 Rc.” (http://www.ragweedforge.com/eka-catalog.html) It has tough rubber(?) handles. 

The tough-use folder aka the tactical folder aka the survival folder

IMO this is one of the most contradictory niches a knife can try to occupy. Folders lose a full tang and get a lock, which is rather like losing your ribs and having opening doors installed in your rib cage. Yes, it’s convenient, but the possibility for accidents is dreadful. This is the role that the 92 tries to fill, although it lacks the “instant open” that Rainbow 6/Hannibal Lecter want to be’s will require. 

Why it’s not easy being a tough-use folder

This is probably stating the obvious, but here are the problems: 

    * Lock safety
    * Lock strength
    * Cutting power
    * Chopping power
    * Grip safety and comfort
    * Cost

 

The EKA 92 solves all of these problems extremely well, which is why it is worth discussing. It solves each problem through simplicity rather than complexity, and making just the right trade-off in functionality.  

Lock safety

A lot of high-end folders carry their locks on their spine. While the typical mid-spine position might be acceptable for a knife that is only going to used for delicate slicing, it is much less so for a knife that is going to be used for heavy work, especially if prying and chopping are to be included. Fingers will adopt a variety of positions depending on the work being done, and will inevitably wonder during really heavy work if it is repeated frequently. A real working tough folder has to have a lock catch that is NOT on any part of its handle that fingers might grip. Or, a more complex solution, has to have a lock that is on the handle, but which is reasonably accident proof – perhaps the axis lock might qualify here. 

The EKA solves this problem by taking the simplest possible route: its lock release is on the part of the handle that hands are least likely to go to – the butt of the handle. Short of being a very determined stabber, you’re not going to inadvertently release the blade and injure yourself with this knife. 

Lock strength

I doubt that I am the only person who can defeat the standard Spyderco locking mechanism by pushing at the spine of the knife with my thumb – certainly a quick You Tube search revealed other people defeating the locks of their Spydies with a deft tap on the spine. Of course, for normal slicing use this doesn’t matter at all – but start battoning a knife, or prying with its blade deep in wood, and it is crucial to keeping your fingers. 

As far as I can tell, the lock on the EKA is undefeatable. I’ve hit the thing repeat hammer blows on the spine and not defeated the lock. As far as I can tell, the mechanism that EKA uses is conventional liner lock. The secret seems to the much greater lever arm from the release to the pivot – the EKA has three or four times the distance, and hence leverage, of a standard spine catch design. A simple solution but very, very effective. 

Cutting power

The 92 employs every trick in the book, short of saw teeth, to get the most of a three inch blade.  

    * It uses what is perhaps the world’s most under rated steel, 12C27. Sharpenable, tough, capable of holding an ultra fine edge – my 92 was easy to make shaving sharp.

 

    * Blade shape with belly – probably much easier to engineer into 12C27 than it is into most glamour steels.

 

    * Prying capable. No, the 92 isn’t a pry bar, but get its nose into a slice resistant piece of wood and you can tear up the fibres apart with prying. The tough steel and sensible, not over-emphasize Bowie geometry make it an ideal tool for this use.

 

    * Batton cutting. Strong blade, strong lock – could have been made for this job.

 

    * Cutting leverage. As Cliff has pointed out, the closer the tip-most part of the handle comes to the start of the cutting edge, the force you can put into this critical part of the blade. The EKA excels here – the handle makes a slant so that the upper part of your hand is over rather than close behind the blade. Simple, but very effective.

 

Chopping power

The EKA’s handle is a banana shaped affair, thicker at each end than at the middle. This, plus a lanyard (vital for chopping safety on any knife – it stops the knife flying away if you lose your grip during a chop) allow you to hold the knife firmly with just the last two fingers of your and your thumb around the handle butt, nicely increasing the length of the knife to build up speed for a chop.  

Grip safety and comfort

In addition to other factors I’ve already mentioned, the 92’s handle is made out of a tough, textured rubbery material. It’s easy to hold in bare hands or gloves and absorbs some cutting shock. It’s a nice thick handle, with no clips to get in the way of comfort. 

Cost

A working folder should be cheap: knives that get used hard and often get broken or lost. The 92 costs just $34 in the US – I suspect it costs even less in Scandanavia. Given that it seems, for all practical purposes, to be as tough as fixed blade this makes it rather a bargain – a Strider folder that attempts to do the same job costs more than ten times as much, and I'm not sure that it matches the EKA's grippiness. 

Compromises

The EKA does not have one-handed operation or a pocket clip – which, together with the lack of a sexy name and a talked about steel probably cut its sales to a fraction of what they should be for a bargain knife that I suspect competes well with a Strider or Manix.

The clip would compromise its ergonomics, both sticking in the user’s hand and probably requiring a change of handle material to something more rigid and less holdable, like G10.  

One handed operation would mean a thumb stud that would get in the way of baton cutting or a finger hole in the blade, which would probably require a redesign of both the blade and the handle, probably reducing either prying or baton cutting ability (but Cliff would know more than I about this). Perhaps the most important benefit of a stud or hole would be easier opening of the knife with wet or gloved hands. Cliff suggested epoxying a stud to the blade, but the amount and shape of exposed blade doesn't allow for this imo.

A big-name steel would probably be less effective, certainly less cost effective, than the 12C27 used for this knife. 

A sexy name… probably wouldn’t compromise functionality to any significant degree, so I therefore suggest that EKA rename the 92 as the “Bagdhad Dominatrix Death Talon” and put its price up to $500 – and an extra $100 for Teflon coated versions. (Which would, I admit, with this handle look very cool. Or possibly even &quot;kewl&quot;.) 

Criticisms

There is some play to the blade when this knife is locked. In my experience this is no more than the amount of play you would expect from a Spyderco. 

But most of all, I can’t help thinking that this knife would be even nicer if it was a fixed blade! The 92’s handle on a longer, slightly wider blade would be an ideal tool – the design really is that good.

Conclusion

By losing exactly the right functions and thinking creatively but keeping their engineering simple, EKA have created a superb, very functional, very rugged, and very cost effective tool.]]></description>
      <category>In-Progress</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,276,276#msg-276</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:52:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,275#msg-275</link>
      <author>John Harper</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mike,

Quote:

Cliff, with ZDP 189 it is mainly a burr issue, but on the all hard M2 and Super Blue I actually got microchipping on the ceramic stones, as well as some burring. I find that I have to use hard pressure with those steels to get the ceramics to cut them, which is what I believe leads to the problems. With ZDP those problems are burring, with the other 2 steels was microchipping as well. As you have told me in the past the key is using just enough pressure to get the stone to cut the steel, while not using so much that you form a burr. With ceramics quality steels that take minimal pressure to abrade the microbevel, which happens to be most common folder steels, work great on ceramics. The main steels I have problems with are the hard ones I noted and softer, burr prone stainless (though those give me trouble on waterstones as well). 

I think that you hit the nail on the head. This has been my experience as well. Seems like ceramics have a narrow range in steels with which they interact satisfactorily. Outside of this range, they don't work all that well.

Cheers
John]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,275#msg-275</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:30:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,274#msg-274</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[That is interesting Mike, I wonder if it is the shape of the abrasive particles which is causing the problem. I have not seen any micro-chipping with ceramics but I do very little honing with them, less than 10 passes per side is the goal for the ceramics, they are only used to micro-bevel.

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,274#msg-274</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:08:45 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,273#msg-273</link>
      <author>Mike Cheshareck</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Cliff, with ZDP 189 it is mainly a burr issue, but on the all hard M2 and Super Blue I actually got microchipping on the ceramic stones, as well as some burring.  I find that I have to use hard pressure with those steels to get the ceramics to cut them, which is what I believe leads to the problems.  With ZDP those problems are burring, with the other 2 steels was microchipping as well.  As you have told me in the past the key is using just enough pressure to get the stone to cut the steel, while not using so much that you form a burr.  With ceramics quality steels that take minimal pressure to abrade the microbevel, which happens to be most common folder steels, work great on ceramics.  The main steels I have problems with are the hard ones I noted and softer, burr prone stainless (though those give me trouble on waterstones as well).  

Mike]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,273#msg-273</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:23:48 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,272#msg-272</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mike Cheshareck Wrote:

&gt; I do
&gt; know that the Glasstones are much better for me on
&gt; ZDP 189, Super Blue, and other very hard steels

Mike, is this just a burr issue?

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,272#msg-272</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:38:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,271#msg-271</link>
      <author>John Harper</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi Mike,

Thank you for your thoughts. I also noticed that the ceramic stones work better with some steels. 

Cheers
John]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,271#msg-271</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:49:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,270#msg-270</link>
      <author>Mike Cheshareck</author>
      <description><![CDATA[John, I know I am not forming a microburr because I check by 100x lighted magnification (I have been doing this almost since I started sharpening and it is by far the best aid I have had in improving my edges) and my edges don't go away quickly when cutting.  I use very light, edge leading, alternating strokes on microbevels when I use the UF benchstone (and all of my ceramic benchstones) to sharpen.  When you are only honing that tiny bit of steel and using only a few passes per side as I do it helps to minimize burr formation.  I had more trouble doing this with the SM, but then again I was not as good at sharpening as I am now.  With some steels, like the Kershaw Cyclone I mentioned, I end up with a microburr that is easily seen under the lighted magnification I use most of the time I sharpen that knife.  At that point I do as Cliff said and cut straight into the stone and start over.  With Spyderco steels like VG-10, S30V, and CPM D2 I have no such issues as long as I don't have a ham fisted day.  I also follow some of Cliff's other advice and cut directly into the stone before I sharpen any knife, every time, so that I know I have removed all of the burr prone, weakened steel from the edge.  This also helped me greatly in reducing my burrs, and is especially important if you have done a lot of cutting that weakens the edge.  

Again, I find the waterstones to be very good for quick, clean cutting, but sometimes the edge I get with my UF ceramic rivals or beats the edge I get with my 8000 grit Glasstone on most folder steels.  From what I have heard the finish the UF leaves is approximately equal to a 4000 grit waterstone, so it doesn't surprise me that you get sharper and cleaner edges with a 10000 grit waterstone.  The waterstones are much more forgiving of a sloppy stroke that would raise a burr on a ceramic stone, as the clean cutting generally just cuts the steel without raising an unwanted burr unless you really blow it on that stroke.  Lately I have been able to get hair whittling edges by using the Spyderco medium stone (at minimum I have been getting tree topping edges on quality steels), so maybe it is from a lot of practice with those particular stones that I am able to get good results with the ceramics, as they have been my main stones for a long time before I got the Glasstones when I started getting into Japanese kitchen knives (and they still are my main stones for folders).  I do know that the Glasstones are much better for me on ZDP 189, Super Blue, and other very hard steels, but for most folders I have a hard time seeing myself getting rid of the ceramics.  I just keep in mind that my ceramics are for finishing microbevels on my folders, and that full bevel sharpening and most of the harder steels are best left to waterstones.

Mike]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,270#msg-270</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:36:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,269#msg-269</link>
      <author>John Harper</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi Mike,

Thank you for your  very comprehensive reply.

1. On Creamics: For some tome now, I have been doing all my serous sharpening with the aid of a microscope and this allows me to detect details that otherwise I would miss. It also forced me to re-evaluate many of my beliefs and techniques.

I agree with you that conventional abrasives, especially Japanese style stones are vastly superior to ceramics and even diamond. This said, both ceramics and diamonds score very heavily in terms of convenience and general utility. My problem is to establish where their limits lie.

I find the SM a very good system, but so far on my experience I could not get a burr free edge from the UF, though I did manage to get my edges very sharp indeed. 

Quote:

As far as the UF stone, I find it to offer a significant improvement in hair whittling ability and how far out I can pushcut newsprint from the point of hold compared to the fine stone, so I would hardly say it is useless for me. I use very light pressure with it and have had good luck.

How do you know that you are not cutting with a burr or a &quot;fin&quot;? And how do you hone the edge? (alternating sides? edge leading?, or several strokes per side before changing? any edge trailing movements? etc)

Quote:


....but with the larger surface area of their benchstones I have had better luck.

I have their UF benchstone and no matter how light I keep the pressure, it still leaves a micro burr - This is not the case with my #10,000 Japanese water stone, or even P2000W&amp;D. I'll mention that one technique that I found to minimize burring with the UF stones is to coat them with Brasso or a similar grade metal polish.

I suspect that we may well two different factors at play here: a) the interaction between the abrasive and the particular steel and b) the general inferiority of fused ceramic stones, relative to conventional abrasives.  

Here is an interesting post by Yuzuha: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-443022.html  His observations match mine. 

2. On Diamonds: Depending on the brand, diamond stones  have tiny islets of nickel that form during the electro deposition process. I find that these islets rub and gall against the steel, at times gouging it very severely. This is not much of an issue with the coarser grades, but becomes a problem if we try and use diamond as a final polish. I found Eze lap to be far worse than DMT in this respect. 

Cheers
John]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,269#msg-269</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:47:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: How thin to go on a regrind?</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,217,268#msg-268</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I was out recently and was shooting some elevations of a piece of ground and had to remove a 1/8&quot; layer of ice from snowbank to reach solid ground. I used my small Sebenza which has been sharpened flat to the stone to ice pick through the ice. I then, using a reverse grip, very quickly cut all the ice from the hole. This is again a flat to the edge grind on a brittle steel, which I have even had problems with due to microchipping (heat treat is off on this one), yet there was no visible damage to the primary bevel. I would wonder how many people even use their folding knives (Sebenza or otherwise) that much (which I don't consider overly hard use) and yet that very acute edge held up perfectly fine.

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,217,268#msg-268</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:25:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,267#msg-267</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[John Harper Wrote:

&gt; But when it comes to the UF rod,
&gt; whilst its finish is finer than that of the MF, it
&gt; leaves a very tenacious micro burr (hardly visible
&gt; @50x) that can't be removed by stropping.

Removing a burr by stropping is very ineffective in general, though often promoted, edge trailing sharpening *increases* burr formation.


&gt; Also if I use the
&gt; alternating strokes, then the burr folds over and
&gt; is next to impossible to remove with finer
&gt; abrasives.

The edge once heavily so burred will never be removed as you noted. Remove it by cutting right into the edge and start over.

&gt; Something else that I notices is that the SM
&gt; ceramic stones, including their benchstones are
&gt; given to galling much more than conventional
&gt; stones.

Yes they load much quicker. I use them, but only as finishing hones and keep them well cleaned as Mike noted.

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,267#msg-267</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:20:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Re: Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,266#msg-266</link>
      <author>Mike Cheshareck</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I switched to ceramic benchstones due to microburring I was getting with the Sharpmaker on my off sharpening days.  With proper technique and lots of practice the microburrs can be avoided on the SM, but with the larger surface area of their benchstones I have had better luck.  On the knives I use on the ceramics (mostly VG-10, S30V, and CPM D2 pocket knives) I mainly microbevel, so it only takes a few light passes per stone to get a really sharp edge and minimizes the chance of burring.  A Kershaw Cyclone I have is a different story, though, as it can be real hard to get a clean edge on.  Keeping the ceramic stones clean is very important, and I frequently use rust eraser or a magic eraser to keep mine free from being loaded, and I get cleaner abrasion than when I can really see the steel building up.  These stones are capable of putting on very sharp edges in minimal time with minimal maintenance, so I am partial to them.  As far as the UF stone, I find it to offer a significant improvement in hair whittling ability and how far out I can pushcut newsprint from the point of hold compared to the fine stone, so I would hardly say it is useless for me.  I use very light pressure with it and have had good luck.

Waterstones, specifically my Shapton Glasstones, have impressed me as cutting cleaner and much faster than my Spyderco ceramics.  They do require some water and flattening, so they are a little more work to keep maintained, but on steels like ZDP 189, all hard M2, and Aogami Super Blue I find they are way more forgiving as far as avoiding burring or microchipping while sharpening compared to the Spyderco ceramics.  Also, if you are doing full bevel sharpening, they load way slower than the ceramics.  The Glasstones leave a very polished finish on the bevel if that is your thing, as well, and are slow to dish and require no soaking (just a little water sprayed on the surface) like most waterstones.

For coarser work I use a DMT XX Coarse, DMT Coarse, and DMT Fine.  The XX Coarse cuts fast enough to turn a VG-10 Spyderco Endura into a zero grind by completely removing the edge bevel in under 15 minutes, which is extremely fast for removing that much steel.  It will leave ragged burrs at the edge and scratch the crap out of your blade, but it really cuts.  If you concentrate the stone is capable of getting a shaving edge, but I think of it mainly as a shaping stone.  The DMT Coarse and fine will remove DMT XX Coarse scratches and put on a good, shaving and hair popping edge, but I find they can sometimes leave debris on the edge of the knife.  I prefer to go to the Spyderco ceramics or the Shapton stones for my finished edge, though I will leave a DMT Coarse edge on a knife if I plan to do a lot of slicing with it.

Mike]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,266#msg-266</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:18:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Sharpness] Spyderco SM</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,265#msg-265</link>
      <author>John Harper</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi,

For some time nowI have been using a Sharp Maker system with the additional ultra fine (UF) rods on a variety of steels, stones .

 In my experience the brown coarse and the white medium fine (MF) rods do a pretty decent job, with minimal burring. But when it comes to the UF rod, whilst its finish is finer than that of the MF, it leaves a very tenacious micro burr (hardly visible @50x) that can't be removed by stropping. I have tried the lightest pressure possible  as well as altering the sharpening strokes in various combinations, all to no avail. Also if I use the alternating strokes, then the burr folds over and is next to impossible to remove with finer abrasives.

Despite the fact that P2000 W&amp;D paper yields a coarser finish, it leaves much less of a burr than the UF. This I put down to that fused ceramic rods tend to smear as well as abrade the metal, in contrast to conventional abrasives which mostly abrade.

Nowadays, when I am done with the MF,  I glue a strip of P2000 W&amp;D to the rods and make a small number of polishing strokes and then strop - Better results every time. My conclusion is that the SM UF rod is useless.

Something else that I notices is that the SM ceramic stones, including their benchstones are given to galling much more than conventional stones.

Any comments?

Cheers
John]]></description>
      <category>Sharpness</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?6,265,265#msg-265</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:20:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[In-Progress] Re: Kershaw Knives : Junkyard Dog</title>
      <link>http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,262,264#msg-264</link>
      <author>cliffstamp</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mike Cheshareck Wrote:

&gt; ... actually
&gt; quite thin compared to the Kershaw Cyclones I have
&gt; handled (.030&quot;/22 per side).

Yes, I read the reports on those, awhile back I did some durability limit testing and found that 0.030&quot;/15 was enough to keep the edge stable on big bowies while chisel cutting through seasoned knotty wood using a framing hammer as a mallet. This raises the question why does a folding knife has an even thicker edge still, what is that possibly designed to cut? The answer of course is that it isn't functionally designed at all.
&gt; I far prefer the
&gt; ergonomics of the Spyderco Military, though it
&gt; costs over twice as much and some people complain
&gt; of it's handle being too big for the blade.  

I never understood that complaint. From a wood working background I am used to large handles on working knives, even small 1&quot; chip blade had full length handles. From memory, the Military is so large to be able to work with gloves on but I like large grips, then again I also have large hands.


&gt; The liner lock
&gt; did look really beefy on the JYD II and locked up
&gt; very solid, though I wonder how much the cutout
&gt; weakens it compared to the thinner, nested lock on
&gt; the Military.  

Security is high on this one, 25 random white knuckle grips did noting to it and both fast and heavy spine whacks had no effects. It is one of the better liner locks I have seen in that respect. I'll look at ultimate strength later.

-Cliff]]></description>
      <category>In-Progress</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cutleryscience.com/forum/read.php?15,262,264#msg-264</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:33:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
