Straight Razor Place Forums - View Single Post

Bart · 06-23-2008, 09:35 AM

Joël,

E1 indeed is the DMT 1200. You got it right.

You're also right that my equipment and setup leaves a lot to be desired. That said, I do think that my pictures are consistent enough for them have at least some significance.
The light source is mounted on a swivel-type of attachment. I adjusted it for a shearing lighti angle, to maximize contrast in the scratch patterns. I placed all the specimen free hand on the base plated. Due to the shape of the T-bars, and the way they are resting on it, my honed surfaces end up parallel with the base plate, at a fixed height. Of course there are tolerances, and some of the specimen are a tiny bit more honed down than others, so I had to readjust the focal point of the scope for each specimen. That is something that can be done very precisely with any quality stereo microscope, and I'm sure there was no noteworthy difference in focus between the different samples. The weak link is that my scope lacks a picture tube, and that I shoot with a very generic digital camera (a Canon Digital Ixus V2). I left the camera's settings untouched for all shots and allowed the lens to rest against the hard plastic of one of the scope's eye pieces. I shot all of them twice. There was only very marginal difference between any of those two pictures.

I think it's no coincidence that the DMT looks better focused. What the pictures don't really show, as opposed to looking with both eyes through the tubes and seeing depth, is that the coticule scratches are way more shallow than the DMT pattern. It looks to me as if the coticule leaves very rounded scratches with soft corners, while the DMT leaves a far more harsh, "squared" scratch pattern. After all, the coticule's abrasive particles are little spheres. That makes the DMT's pattern more something like "uuuuuuuu" and the coticules more like "~~~~~~"
It's a pity that I couldn't throw in a DMT-EE (8000grit) or a Norton 8K into the experiment, it sure would be very interesting to do a professional version of this experiment on a larger test group of hones in a real lab with all the right equipment.

Best regards,
Bart.

06-23-2008, 09:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
Bart Status: Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Belgium Posts: 894 Thanks: 88 Thanked 307 Times in 170 Posts	Joël, E1 indeed is the DMT 1200. You got it right. You're also right that my equipment and setup leaves a lot to be desired. That said, I do think that my pictures are consistent enough for them have at least some significance. The light source is mounted on a swivel-type of attachment. I adjusted it for a shearing lighti angle, to maximize contrast in the scratch patterns. I placed all the specimen free hand on the base plated. Due to the shape of the T-bars, and the way they are resting on it, my honed surfaces end up parallel with the base plate, at a fixed height. Of course there are tolerances, and some of the specimen are a tiny bit more honed down than others, so I had to readjust the focal point of the scope for each specimen. That is something that can be done very precisely with any quality stereo microscope, and I'm sure there was no noteworthy difference in focus between the different samples. The weak link is that my scope lacks a picture tube, and that I shoot with a very generic digital camera (a Canon Digital Ixus V2). I left the camera's settings untouched for all shots and allowed the lens to rest against the hard plastic of one of the scope's eye pieces. I shot all of them twice. There was only very marginal difference between any of those two pictures. I think it's no coincidence that the DMT looks better focused. What the pictures don't really show, as opposed to looking with both eyes through the tubes and seeing depth, is that the coticule scratches are way more shallow than the DMT pattern. It looks to me as if the coticule leaves very rounded scratches with soft corners, while the DMT leaves a far more harsh, "squared" scratch pattern. After all, the coticule's abrasive particles are little spheres. That makes the DMT's pattern more something like "uuuuuuuu" and the coticules more like "~~~~~~" It's a pity that I couldn't throw in a DMT-EE (8000grit) or a Norton 8K into the experiment, it sure would be very interesting to do a professional version of this experiment on a larger test group of hones in a real lab with all the right equipment. Best regards, Bart. __________________ ______ "A straight will no more make you an expert shaver than a basket ball will turn you into a Magic Johnson" Kaptain_zero ______ "On a tangent, badassness is frowned upon in my generation, and I severely doubt that you will find more than the odd specimen in this community admitting to the social equivalent of disposable cartridge razors." BeBerlin