cbwx34 wrote:


Ah, cool, makes sense.

Ken

cbwx34 wrote:


I'd love to see that prototype.

cbwx34 wrote:


A CATRA vice!

Ken

Thanks Curtis. I've spent a LOT of time trying various "solutions" for serrated edges (did it show? )

Okay, so what in the world is that thing? Looks like some kind of microscope clamp (or camera?)

Ken

TedS wrote:


Yeah, I've thought about this quite a bit (way before I ever started with my WE )

The problem with a "solution" for serrated is almost all serrated knives have something unique that must be applied to them but causes failure for other serrated patterns. A few examples:

Some serrations are ground perpendicular to the edge. Others are ground perpendicular to the "cut line" or spine. Some fall somewhere in between. A fixed arm/clamped system will only work on the first, and that only with absolutely precisely mounted blades. For the others, the blade would need to travel along the arm mounting point or visa versa.

Serrations are different sizes and shapes. From wide shallow "U"s to deep "U"s to narrow "U"s to all the same variations of "V"s. then you have rounded "points" and apexed "points". You can find any combination of those intermixed together.

There have been several attempts from other companies to address this but none are perfect. DMT has a system of cylindrical and variablely tapered rods. Yes, there is usually a spot on each variable rod that fits most U shaped serrations but any travel on the rod (the sharpening motion) takes you from too narrow to too wide. It fails totally on V shaped serrations. Fixed radius rods work fine on "U"s IF you find a properly sized rod(s) for your serration pattern. Spyderco attempted to solve this by using triangles to create a single point of contact (the apex of the triangle) You work this single point in and out of the various serration shapes. It works (IMO) better than most of the cylindrical solutions but requires a very steady progression to maintain the original pattern. The best solution to date (IMO) is the Spyderco Profile set. Two different variably radiused curves (eg Spirals ) opposing two different V notch angles. I can usually find a place to set these very close to the original serration pattern but the angles have to be held unguided and each serration has to be sharpened individually, ugh

Add to this the wide variety of blade shapes you'll find and the combination quickly becomes overwhelming, especially in the context of a fixed arm system.

This may be the one area I find the floating blade design of the EP actually has an advantage. Yeah, you'd have to constantly adjust the blade against the stone path but it would remove a few of the variables, simplifying the process.

For WE to do this would require a complete redesign, allowing either the blade or the arms to slide relative to one another. No simple solution.

I know Clay is working on this, but just the 5 minutes I took to write down the basic issues gave me a headache I'd hate to be actually working on a solution Of course, if he finds one, I'm interested, but I'm not holding out a huge degree of hope.

Saying "offer a serrated option" sounds simple until you look at what that solution entails. It gets overwhelming very quickly, at least to my mind.

Ken

wickededge wrote:


Did you d/l the file to print a gun?

I'm sure even ordering a printer has you on a government watch list, brother!

Look out the window. You see that black SUV? They are there for YOU.....

We're gonna miss you, Clay!

Ken

Razoredge wrote:


Haven't tried it, but several people I trust have said the exact same thing about CBN.

Ken

Thanks Curtis, I figured, he's pretty thorough.

wickededge wrote:


Excellent news, Clay. I passed it along. I know he'll be much happier with a WE than an EP but he's really torn right now. May be the last bit to tip the scale.

Ken

cbwx34 wrote:


Thanks Curtis. That's basically what my friend thought happened. I was kinda surprised it would work that way. I don't think that going to be what he's looking for. He's heading toward the angle obsession we all experience

The only reason (as far as I know) he's looking at the F&S is (according to his research) the F&S is made completely in the USA. He says parts of the regular WE are made in China and that's a deal breaker for him.

Can anyone confirm or deny either point?

Ken

A friend is interested in this. Do the arms only lock into fixed positions? Or are they completely adjustable like the main system?

He seemed to think the former, and I've never seen one.

Thanks

Ken

Geocyclist wrote:


I do exactly this. It's actually one of those little benefits (there are several) over that other popular system . They always toute cost as they are just buying one of each stone. But, long term, that's a wash as two stones last twice as long. AND since you have 2 of each, you have this easy option as SOP.

Ken

I'll be interested to hear what you see under magnification, Josh.

Process sounds good. How many stokes are you giving it? Following what stone?

20CP on that knife is pretty wear resistant.

Ken

MarkMassie wrote:


Yeah, that's weird. My first thought was your angle was off. With Choseras you need to check every stone every time because of variation of thickness. But you said you double checked that so I was thinking about what else could be going on...

Some folks have seen uneven wear left to right and attributed it to being right handed and that hand being stronger / more force.

Along the same lines, perhaps one set of 600 scratches were deeper?

Kinda grasping here

Ken

jendeindustries wrote:


They definitely do. I still find even 400 Choseras leave a shaving edge. And yes, I'm talking scraping off arm hair, not tree topping or face shaving

Ken

Are the 600s your finest diamonds? (sorry, can't recall)

Typical usage (since diamonds scratch deeper than Choseras) is to go a step beyond, 1000 in this case, then "back up" to the 800 Choseras.

If that isn't an option, just take more passes with the 800 Chosera, but it can be a lot more to get rid of the 600 diamond scratches.

Ken

I see what you are saying, Tom, and it makes sense but wouldn't the Choseras then continue to refine the edge to the point it would shave? In other words, is this simply a case of more strokes are needed to get to this level with this stone? Something folks may not typically do if they know they are going further (finer grits)?

Ken

LukasPop wrote:


IMO, the micro ceramics are the first thing I would add after the 800/1000 stones. They are my favorite finishing stones for most EDC knives.

But I hear you on reprofiling.

One HUGE caveat on the 50/80s. BREAK THEM IN on something you don't care about. My initial use left such deep scoring the lines took forever to remove. If you let newer 50/80s get too close to the edge you WILL chip the edge and it takes a long time to remove those chips. After they are worn in that's less of an issue but I still wouldn't try to completely reach the apex with them. Watch closely (with a loupe or whatever) and when the deepest scratchs get near the edge switch to the 100s.

Ken

I've not found that, Josh. Mine will shave fine after the 400s. It's not the smooth shave I get after the 12k, of course, but it's perfectly serviceable. Can you see anything under magnification that would give you a clue? Is this one specific knife or a general trend? How much "stone prep" (soaking, rubbing together etc ) are you doing? How much pressure? I find I drop to almost no pressure for the last dozen strokes at each grit.

Ken

Kudos Curtis! Score 1 for an assist!

Ken

I have that exact MK I (I also have it's big brother, the MK II ) L6 tool steel. I LOVE that knife. Incredibly tough. I was sad when they switched to a lower grade tool steel.

For sharpening, I've always just used sandpaper. It has a zero edge (no bevel) That the only way I ever found to do it. Too many arcs to get results from a stone (for me anyway)

Ken

jendeindustries wrote:


Tom, I'm not ure I got the advantages of using Choseras on a Harley. Could you expand on that?

Ken