A question about edge bevel

[vivi]

I get sharper edges with no microbevel too, but using them on a knife with a wide bevel that sees frequent use is worth the trade off in convenience for me.

I use them on most my knives, save for chef knives. Don't use em on Axes though.

[Deadboxhero]

I get sharper edges with no microbevel too, but using them on a knife with a wide bevel that sees frequent use is worth the trade off in convenience for me.

I use them on most my knives, save for chef knives. Don't use em on Axes though.

That's why I like thin grinds. Less wedging, fast touch ups.

The primary edge is basically a microbevel.

I just don't like compound bevels.

https://imgur.com/a/NUcAHQc

[Bloke]

I don't think we'll all need to have a cenus on every little detail here. Plenty of ways to do stuff. I have the most success with no micro.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post.

I’ve only used micro bevels these last couple of years if that and as you stated as a matter of convenience. I’m simply not sure how actually sharpness which is obviously subjective is impacted by a micro bevel is all. :)

[vivi]

I get sharper edges with no microbevel too, but using them on a knife with a wide bevel that sees frequent use is worth the trade off in convenience for me.

I use them on most my knives, save for chef knives. Don't use em on Axes though.

That's why I like thin grinds. Less wedging, fast touch ups.

The primary edge is basically a microbevel.

I just don't like compound bevels.

https://imgur.com/a/NUcAHQc

If I had more control over the grinds, like you, I'd probably feel the same. I think a compound bevel works nice for a production knife, assuming you don't have the tools to regrind the full blade like me. Performs much better than factory, and is cheaper than sending them out for regrinds.

For a knife like that Para there's zero reason to use a microbevel.

[Deadboxhero]

I don't think we'll all need to have a cenus on every little detail here. Plenty of ways to do stuff. I have the most success with no micro.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post.

I’ve only used micro bevels these last couple of years if that and as you stated as a matter of convenience. I’m simply not sure how actually sharpness which is obviously subjective is impacted by a micro bevel is all. :)

Alex, I don't usually get into this kind of discussion because it takes up my valuable time.

I have a device that tests the sharpness.
It cuts a fiber like string on a scale.
The less weight needed to push though the string means the edge is sharper. It is measured in grams.

The lower the angle of the apex means it's going to cut the string better because the cross section of the apex radius is smaller so that means a lower number since less force is needed to displace and separate the string.

I find I can get lower numbers with a lower thinner angle, and higher numbers with higher angles, a microbevel used in the context to make a compound bevel is a higher, thicker angle.

Personally,

I can't get the knives as sharp as I like them to be with a micro so I don't like the trade off. It takes me under seconds to touch up an edge at the same angle and I don't build up more work to do later when the micro gets too thick removing the relief of the back bevel.


I'll have my stones set up at the show to try out if anyone wants to see my opinion on the subject and why I don't like microbevels.

[Pelagic]

While that device is a good measure of sharpness, it more measures cutting ability. Sharpness is a physical measurement of the width of the apex. As you noted apex angle affects results, and to a much smaller extent, apex stability will as well.

[vivi]

I don't think we'll all need to have a cenus on every little detail here. Plenty of ways to do stuff. I have the most success with no micro.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post.

I’ve only used micro bevels these last couple of years if that and as you stated as a matter of convenience. I’m simply not sure how actually sharpness which is obviously subjective is impacted by a micro bevel is all. :)

Alex, I don't usually get into this kind of discussion because it takes up my valuable time.

I have a device that tests the sharpness.
It cuts a fiber like string on a scale.
The less weight needed to push though the string means the edge is sharper. It is measured in grams.

The lower the angle of the apex means it's going to cut the string better because the cross section of the apex radius is smaller so that means a lower number since less force is needed to displace and separate the string.

I find I can get lower numbers with a lower thinner angle, and higher numbers with higher angles, a microbevel used in the context to make a compound bevel is a higher, thicker angle.

Personally,

I can't get the knives as sharp as I like them to be with a micro so I don't like the trade off. It takes me under seconds to touch up an edge at the same angle and I don't build up more work to do later when the micro gets too thick removing the relief of the back bevel.


I'll have my stones set up at the show to try out if anyone wants to see my opinion on the subject and why I don't like microbevels.

I used a similar sharpness tester at one point. It's a lot of fun putting numbers to edges. IIRC, most factory knives scored 80-100 grams of force to cut my thread, and my better edges were 30's-40's.

[Deadboxhero]

While that device is a good measure of sharpness, it more measures cutting ability. Sharpness is a physical measurement of the width of the apex. As you noted apex angle affects results, and to a much smaller extent, apex stability will as well.

Cutting ability is different that's the thickness or thinness behind the edge.

For example,
An Opinel knife out of the box has great cutting ability since they are incredibly thin behind the shoulder but they don't come very sharp(they didn't even try to remove burr from factory on all the ones I checked new in box out of a pile of them)


Sharpness is the radius of the apex itself assume it's a crisp, clean, burr free apex. The lower the angle the smaller the radius.

For example,

8dps is going to be sharper then 15dps.

Larrin has written a great article that doesn't get as much attention as it should from folks that really goes into detail.

https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/08/06/ ... g-ability/

[Deadboxhero]

I don't think we'll all need to have a cenus on every little detail here. Plenty of ways to do stuff. I have the most success with no micro.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post.

I’ve only used micro bevels these last couple of years if that and as you stated as a matter of convenience. I’m simply not sure how actually sharpness which is obviously subjective is impacted by a micro bevel is all. :)

Alex, I don't usually get into this kind of discussion because it takes up my valuable time.

I have a device that tests the sharpness.
It cuts a fiber like string on a scale.
The less weight needed to push though the string means the edge is sharper. It is measured in grams.

The lower the angle of the apex means it's going to cut the string better because the cross section of the apex radius is smaller so that means a lower number since less force is needed to displace and separate the string.

I find I can get lower numbers with a lower thinner angle, and higher numbers with higher angles, a microbevel used in the context to make a compound bevel is a higher, thicker angle.

Personally,

I can't get the knives as sharp as I like them to be with a micro so I don't like the trade off. It takes me under seconds to touch up an edge at the same angle and I don't build up more work to do later when the micro gets too thick removing the relief of the back bevel.


I'll have my stones set up at the show to try out if anyone wants to see my opinion on the subject and why I don't like microbevels.

I used a similar sharpness tester at one point. It's a lot of fun putting numbers to edges. IIRC, most factory knives scored 80-100 grams of force to cut my thread, and my better edges were 30's-40's.

Very nice, sounds like a very crispy edge. Was it a homemade model? Or something made by edge on up? I believe I have the PT250a

[Bloke]

I don't think we'll all need to have a cenus on every little detail here. Plenty of ways to do stuff. I have the most success with no micro.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post.

I’ve only used micro bevels these last couple of years if that and as you stated as a matter of convenience. I’m simply not sure how actually sharpness which is obviously subjective is impacted by a micro bevel is all. :)

Alex, I don't usually get into this kind of discussion because it takes up my valuable time.

I have a device that tests the sharpness.
It cuts a fiber like string on a scale.
The less weight needed to push though the string means the edge is sharper. It is measured in grams.

The lower the angle of the apex means it's going to cut the string better because the cross section of the apex radius is smaller so that means a lower number since less force is needed to displace and separate the string.

I find I can get lower numbers with a lower thinner angle, and higher numbers with higher angles, a microbevel used in the context to make a compound bevel is a higher, thicker angle.

Personally,

I can't get the knives as sharp as I like them to be with a micro so I don't like the trade off. It takes me under seconds to touch up an edge at the same angle and I don't build up more work to do later when the micro gets too thick removing the relief of the back bevel.


I'll have my stones set up at the show to try out if anyone wants to see my opinion on the subject and why I don't like microbevels.

Cool! I kind of figured what you were getting at in you initial post just that "less sharp" threw me a little. I s'pose that's why I was apprehensive about micro bevels in the first place and as I said earlier if I was a proficient free hander I wouldn't use them either. Alas I'm not. :o

I certainly understand and agree with what you say. :)

[vivi]

I think you may have misinterpreted my post.

I’ve only used micro bevels these last couple of years if that and as you stated as a matter of convenience. I’m simply not sure how actually sharpness which is obviously subjective is impacted by a micro bevel is all. :)

Alex, I don't usually get into this kind of discussion because it takes up my valuable time.

I have a device that tests the sharpness.
It cuts a fiber like string on a scale.
The less weight needed to push though the string means the edge is sharper. It is measured in grams.

The lower the angle of the apex means it's going to cut the string better because the cross section of the apex radius is smaller so that means a lower number since less force is needed to displace and separate the string.

I find I can get lower numbers with a lower thinner angle, and higher numbers with higher angles, a microbevel used in the context to make a compound bevel is a higher, thicker angle.

Personally,

I can't get the knives as sharp as I like them to be with a micro so I don't like the trade off. It takes me under seconds to touch up an edge at the same angle and I don't build up more work to do later when the micro gets too thick removing the relief of the back bevel.


I'll have my stones set up at the show to try out if anyone wants to see my opinion on the subject and why I don't like microbevels.

I used a similar sharpness tester at one point. It's a lot of fun putting numbers to edges. IIRC, most factory knives scored 80-100 grams of force to cut my thread, and my better edges were 30's-40's.

Very nice, sounds like a very crispy edge. Was it a homemade model? Or something made by edge on up? I believe I have the PT250a

Home made. I have some photos on my desktop I think.

[Deadboxhero]

Alex, I don't usually get into this kind of discussion because it takes up my valuable time.

I have a device that tests the sharpness.
It cuts a fiber like string on a scale.
The less weight needed to push though the string means the edge is sharper. It is measured in grams.

The lower the angle of the apex means it's going to cut the string better because the cross section of the apex radius is smaller so that means a lower number since less force is needed to displace and separate the string.

I find I can get lower numbers with a lower thinner angle, and higher numbers with higher angles, a microbevel used in the context to make a compound bevel is a higher, thicker angle.

Personally,

I can't get the knives as sharp as I like them to be with a micro so I don't like the trade off. It takes me under seconds to touch up an edge at the same angle and I don't build up more work to do later when the micro gets too thick removing the relief of the back bevel.


I'll have my stones set up at the show to try out if anyone wants to see my opinion on the subject and why I don't like microbevels.

I used a similar sharpness tester at one point. It's a lot of fun putting numbers to edges. IIRC, most factory knives scored 80-100 grams of force to cut my thread, and my better edges were 30's-40's.

Very nice, sounds like a very crispy edge. Was it a homemade model? Or something made by edge on up? I believe I have the PT250a

Home made. I have some photos on my desktop I think.

Nice I thought about making one since these things are so expensive but figured it would be nice to be on the same page with other peoples results and have less variables between other results.

[Pelagic]

While that device is a good measure of sharpness, it more measures cutting ability. Sharpness is a physical measurement of the width of the apex. As you noted apex angle affects results, and to a much smaller extent, apex stability will as well.

Cutting ability is different that's the thickness or thinness behind the edge.

For example,
An Opinel knife out of the box has great cutting ability since they are incredibly thin behind the shoulder but they don't come very sharp(they didn't even try to remove burr from factory on all the ones I checked new in box out of a pile of them)


Sharpness is the radius of the apex itself assume it's a crisp, clean, burr free apex. The lower the angle the smaller the radius.

For example,

8dps is going to be sharper then 15dps.

Larrin has written a great article that doesn't get as much attention as it should from folks that really goes into detail.

https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/08/06/ ... g-ability/

No, thickness bte is nothing more than thickness bte. It is a physical distance measurement as is sharpness. You can re-profile a Military to 3dps and it will have excellent cutting ability despite being thick bte. Cutting ability is much more broad and mostly split into 2 subsets: pushcutting ability and slicing ability. Pushcutting ability much more closely correlates with sharpness, but not exactly. As you said, edge geometry effects the results of the "sharpness" test, therefore it isn't truly a measure of sharpness. The thinner the thread, the more closely the test correlates with sharpness. In theory, if the test involved an edge with impervious stability and a thread thinner than at atom, it would be essentially be an alternative way to measure sharpness.

[Deadboxhero]

While that device is a good measure of sharpness, it more measures cutting ability. Sharpness is a physical measurement of the width of the apex. As you noted apex angle affects results, and to a much smaller extent, apex stability will as well.

Cutting ability is different that's the thickness or thinness behind the edge.

For example,
An Opinel knife out of the box has great cutting ability since they are incredibly thin behind the shoulder but they don't come very sharp(they didn't even try to remove burr from factory on all the ones I checked new in box out of a pile of them)


Sharpness is the radius of the apex itself assume it's a crisp, clean, burr free apex. The lower the angle the smaller the radius.

For example,

8dps is going to be sharper then 15dps.

Larrin has written a great article that doesn't get as much attention as it should from folks that really goes into detail.

https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/08/06/ ... g-ability/

No, thickness bte is nothing more than thickness bte. It is a physical distance measurement as is sharpness. You can re-profile a Military to 3dps and it will have excellent cutting ability despite being thick bte. Cutting ability is much more broad and mostly split into 2 subsets: pushcutting ability and slicing ability. Pushcutting ability much more closely correlates with sharpness, but not exactly. As you said, edge geometry effects the results of the "sharpness" test, therefore it isn't truly a measure of sharpness. The thinner the thread, the more closely the test correlates with sharpness. In theory, if the test involved an edge with impervious stability and a thread thinner than at atom, it would be essentially be an alternative way to measure sharpness.

Nah, you're describing edge finish as cutting ability.

That's is edge finish, it plays a big role but is separate and won't make a thicker knife cut like a thinner one so that is another subject.



The primary grind on a military is 5dps (use an angle cube to measure) with a 0.135" stock at the thickest point where the grind starts before tapering distally. So you can't make it 3dps unless you grind the spine down to 0.80" which is irrelevant because you can still have it be 3dps on the primary grind (flat side of the blade) with a 0.80" thick spine but still be more wedgy behind the edge at 0.015" some cheaper kitchen knives do this and get passed off as very thin but using behind the edge thickness is important because it weeds that out.

If you cut a carrot you'll see that even when dull, something that is 15dps, 0.003" bte and 0.135" will slide through the carrots better then something 15dps on the edge, 3dps on the primary grind (which can still be 0.015" bte) and 0.80" stock thickness.

There are some great graphs to check out in that link I sent you and you can cut some carrots if you have the time to see for yourself.

[youmakemehole]

Appreciate all the input guys, I think I know better now what to do next time I am reprofiling. Although I don't think I have any point to make in regards to the ongoing debate, other than it seems both sides understand the same thing and are just expressing it in different ways.. one person is saying a microbevel makes a blade less "sharp", evidenced by the string test by widening the angle of attack and apex of the edge, and the other person is saying that widening the apex constitutes more of a geometry change and therefore a change in "cutting ability" as opposed to "sharpness". I think it really boils down to semantics, as "sharpness" and "cutting ability" are more or less the same thing depending on perspective and what is relative. If we were giant dinosaurs, and we did a blind cut test on ourselves with a variety of human sized knives, the ones with the best "cutting ability" would be what we'd define as dinosaurs as "sharp". If we are talking about a thin piece of string, it would seem to be reasonable that we assign every area of the knife that would come in contact with the string before it breaks as factors that would be involved in its "sharpness".

All that aside, I think an important point that has been missed is that microbevels are not for increasing sharpness, or cutting ability, but rather to create extra stability along the apex. I wonder now how much of an impact, if quantifiable, is made by a microbevel to help in this regard, especially when it comes to harder use in less controlled environments? It seems to be very common for manufacturers to include them on their knives, but could there be that big of a difference coming from something that almost is invisible in many cases?

[Pelagic]

Not once did I refer to edge finish.....

[Deadboxhero]

Not once did I refer to edge finish.....

Push cutting (polish) ability and slicing ability (toothy) correlate to edge finish. With Geometry, you would want them thin either way. Thinner always cuts better but requires a better user to use it. A polished edge is thinner but it's doesn't apply to the mechanics of slicing.

[Deadboxhero]

Appreciate all the input guys, I think I know better now what to do next time I am reprofiling. Although I don't think I have any point to make in regards to the ongoing debate, other than it seems both sides understand the same thing and are just expressing it in different ways.. one person is saying a microbevel makes a blade less "sharp", evidenced by the string test by widening the angle of attack and apex of the edge, and the other person is saying that widening the apex constitutes more of a geometry change and therefore a change in "cutting ability" as opposed to "sharpness". I think it really boils down to semantics, as "sharpness" and "cutting ability" are more or less the same thing depending on perspective and what is relative. If we were giant dinosaurs, and we did a blind cut test on ourselves with a variety of human sized knives, the ones with the best "cutting ability" would be what we'd define as dinosaurs as "sharp". If we are talking about a thin piece of string, it would seem to be reasonable that we assign every area of the knife that would come in contact with the string before it breaks as factors that would be involved in its "sharpness".

All that aside, I think an important point that has been missed is that microbevels are not for increasing sharpness, or cutting ability, but rather to create extra stability along the apex. I wonder now how much of an impact, if quantifiable, is made by a microbevel to help in this regard, especially when it comes to harder use in less controlled environments? It seems to be very common for manufacturers to include them on their knives, but could there be that big of a difference coming from something that almost is invisible in many cases?

Yet, it's not semantics. It's an important concept to understand.

To understand why a knife that is sharper isn't cutting as well as duller knife that is thinner is a very important thing to under if on wishes to master geometry.

Sharpeness and cutting ability are terms used to help people understand this if they choose.

[Bloke]

Not once did I refer to edge finish.....

Push cutting (polish) ability and slicing ability (toothy) correlate to edge finish. With Geometry, you would want them thin either way. Thinner always cuts better but requires a better user to use it. A polished edge is thinner but it's doesn't apply to the mechanics of slicing.

Shawn, in your experience would you say a folding knife with liners cuts better than its counterpart without liners?

Just asking for a friend.

[vivi]

Appreciate all the input guys, I think I know better now what to do next time I am reprofiling. Although I don't think I have any point to make in regards to the ongoing debate, other than it seems both sides understand the same thing and are just expressing it in different ways.. one person is saying a microbevel makes a blade less "sharp", evidenced by the string test by widening the angle of attack and apex of the edge, and the other person is saying that widening the apex constitutes more of a geometry change and therefore a change in "cutting ability" as opposed to "sharpness". I think it really boils down to semantics, as "sharpness" and "cutting ability" are more or less the same thing depending on perspective and what is relative. If we were giant dinosaurs, and we did a blind cut test on ourselves with a variety of human sized knives, the ones with the best "cutting ability" would be what we'd define as dinosaurs as "sharp". If we are talking about a thin piece of string, it would seem to be reasonable that we assign every area of the knife that would come in contact with the string before it breaks as factors that would be involved in its "sharpness".

All that aside, I think an important point that has been missed is that microbevels are not for increasing sharpness, or cutting ability, but rather to create extra stability along the apex. I wonder now how much of an impact, if quantifiable, is made by a microbevel to help in this regard, especially when it comes to harder use in less controlled environments? It seems to be very common for manufacturers to include them on their knives, but could there be that big of a difference coming from something that almost is invisible in many cases?

Yet, it's not semantics. It's an important concept to understand.

To understand why a knife that is sharper isn't cutting as well as duller knife that is thinner is a very important thing to under if on wishes to master geometry.

Sharpeness and cutting ability are terms used to help people understand this if they choose.

Being able to understand how to properly implement different finishes is important as well.

It's a wonder you don't see many PE saws with mirror edges, or many box cutter blades with saw teeth :D