Advanced Search

Chisel / Plane blades & Wicked Edge Mods

Recent Forums Main Forum Sharpener and Accessory Maintenance MODS Chisel / Plane blades & Wicked Edge Mods

This topic contains 1 reply, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  tcmeyer 12/11/2018 at 2:21 am.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48450

    tcmeyer
    Participant
    • Topics: 33
    • Replies: 1807

    Hi Folks:

    I’ve been farting around, using the Chisel Adapter and made a video to demonstrate the mods I use.  Hope to generate some discussion.

    Something I meant to mention in the video has to do with the 45 micron DLF.   On inspection with my ‘scope set at 157X, I was surprised to see that the film is quite different from other films I’ve used.  Instead of being a densely  packed matrix of diamond particles, they were widely scattered, and I could readily see indentations or pockets where diamond particles were knocked loose in the first few sessions.  It didn’t seem to negatively affect its performance and an inspection today showed the same general appearance, even after six or seven additional sessions.  Maybe the missing particles were simply not secure enough to prevent such loss?  Could it be that the more widely scattered diamonds actually cut better than a more densely packed film?

    I’ll post a photo later.

     

     

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #48484

    tcmeyer
    Participant
    • Topics: 33
    • Replies: 1807

    So here’s a couple of photos of the 45 micron film…  The scale is such that the image is almost exactly 2.5 mm wide.  On using the Celestron measuring software that comes wit their camera, the dark particles measure very close to the 45 microns.  I measured three of the dark blobs and they all fell between 42 and 43 microns.

    I caught the light just right so you could see the 3 dimensional effect on dimples where diamond particles used to be.  Aside from the widely scattered pattern, here’s the interesting part:  This first image was taken after a few vertical strokes – certainly less than twenty.

    45 micron dlf

    This second image is of the same film.  The only differences are the lighting and the fact that it has seen somewhere between 100 and 200 strokes.  It’s been cleaned, but could have somewhat more staining from the dry swarf.

    45 micron dlf 2

    Notice that there doesn’t seem to have been a further loss of particles you would expect after the losses in the first photo.  Like the diamonds that were going to come loose have already done so, and the remaining particles are securely attached.

    If anything, you’d think that there were fewer diamond particles per square mm in the first image, but I can state firmly that the photos are in the right order.  The images were taken in areas rather centrally located, except that they were off center a bit to let light in from the back.  They may have been as much as a couple of inches apart.

    Are the diamonds scattered because of their cost?  There is nothing in the performance that would get you to suspect they were using fewer diamonds.  The scratch patterns are beautiful.   Bigger diamonds cost a lot more.  Ask any guy whose wife had insisted on putting a bigger rock on her wedding ring.

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.