It just describes the degree of convexity on the stone. So the arc of the first stone, if it was a full circle, would have a 6 foot radius, and the second one would have a 25 foot radius.I've tried googling this, but with no luck: can someone please post a photo of these wheels? The idea that I have in my head is, like most of it's compatriots, weird and likely wrong.
Convex Honing: 6-Foot Wheel Question
- Thread starter Stapelfeld
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #42
I've tried googling this, but with no luck: can someone please post a photo of these wheels? The idea that I have in my head is, like most of it's compatriots, weird and likely wrong.
Coticule is shaped like a 6 foot wheel and the la Loraine is shaped what would be a 25 foot wheel. The 25 foot wheel is around 93-95% close to flat so you can barely see anything there.
Yeah, I have a 6" (150mm) ark that is something like 0.4mm lower at one end and 0.5mm lower at the other, compared to the center, which works out to somewhere between 18 and 23' in radius, and I might not have noticed if I hadn't put a straight edge on it.
- Thread starter
- #45
I think back in the day they had some like this, saw some old coticule wheels some time back but it was old old old
I think this thread has actually been pretty friendly towards convex honing! Some debate though on pressure vs no pressure with convex honing. Mostly babbling about formulas vs real world results and measuring everything.
The original question though was asking why we go from the 6' wheel to the 25' wheel, or why not take the 6' wheel all of the way to the edge.
As I understand it the changed geometry of the bevel is a means not an end. The end is to make it easier to hit the apex when the edge is very thin and prone to micro flexing off the stone.
It occurs to me that this also might be a reason that X strokes are so successful. Intuitively, if the force is somewhat parallel to the edge rather than perpendicular, it seems it would be harder to flex it. By the same token, heel leading strokes should also make it easier to hit the apex, not only because of the force, but because the bevel shoulder will appear less acute in an oblique cross section.
Of course, speculative talk is cheap. Time to try some things out!
Jed Clampett was using a wheel to hone with on an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies.
- Thread starter
- #49
Jpo started throwing out bars what the heckSomeone dropped my leash and I started running free. Sorry if I derailed the thread
I use one wheel size in-between the 6' and the 25'.
Maybe i can skip this middle step.
My biggest motivation and driving force in life have been people telling me what I couldn't do.
The climber who reached the summit is probably a better candidate for advise then those who failed, or never tried.
- Thread starter
- #50
I would say to us yes, other people like an edge that bites down but that is their flavor I would guess but I wouldn't tell them their edge is not in the same level just different
I addressed his question, I use 2 size wheels but one size will work, if you have a razor that has the steel to take it. I rather be more conservative. I use torque, medium to more pressure until on flat. But I like pressure, I like slurry, I hope we make a friendly thread for that too. It’s nice to be friendly once in a while. I am glad your all my friends. Let me know when the sleepover starts.
Happy honing.
I will sadle up my polar bear. Just give me a few days. Hopefully your alligator will get along with my bear
- Thread starter
- #53
So I used my microscope and stopped right before reaching the apex and went back and forth between the different stones and the resulting edge was amazing! Didn't feel like there was an edge there but it was gliding effortlessly, the hht was silent heel to toe. What do you think about doing a progression on flat and then just thinning everything afterwards? Basically doing it backwards, would that work?I will sadle up my polar bear. Just give me a few days. Hopefully your alligator will get along with my bear
So, if you finish a bevel on a flat stone, then remove the back of the bevel on a curved stone, not touching the original edge bevel, how are you improving the original untouched edge?
Same question if you remove the back of the bevel first, not touching the edge and finish on a flat stone to the original bevel angle, where is the improvement to the edge?
Same question if you remove the back of the bevel first, not touching the edge and finish on a flat stone to the original bevel angle, where is the improvement to the edge?
- Thread starter
- #55
The flex on the edge is the best I could say, JPO could probably say more, I was just asking him a question so that way of doing it might be a wrong way of doing it but definitely the flexibility gives a different feel.
That is basically what I do most of the time. All my bevels are set using flat stones.
Approximately 1/3 of the bevel will be bending a little to conform to the new bevel shoulder when you move to the flat stone. This creates a more acute bevel angle (sharper edge).
You want to spend as little time as possible at this step. I.e. why creating a perfect edge using flat stones and going back is so effective.
You are just putting the final thouch on an already good edge.
If you go directly to a flat stone after the first convex shape you risk overstressing the edge.
I recently honed a refurbished CV Heljestrand razor. This had a 19 deg bevel angle. I created a jnat edge, and shaved. It was perfectly usable. However, i created a back bevel and did some weight of the blade work on the same flat jnat. This changed the cutting efficiency and the flexibility of the edge.
If I hone on coticules, I do a full dilucot on a flat stone and work my way back. In that case, I don't finish on a flat stone.
When you understand the basic principles it's all about finding what works for you.
I probably forgot to set the bevel the first time
Maybe aliens did some work to my little Helje overnight. Anything is possible..
Last edited:
