This is a good conversation and we hope not to mess it up. We do have information at hand though that might be considered useful.
So first, a little history on how we express BESS measurements. First, we had a goal; to developed a sharpness scale that was useful and easily understood by everyone, scientist or layman. We also wanted it to be relatable and that's where DE razor blades entered the picture. In the USA, the term "pressure" is readily substituted for the more appropriate term "force". We are told to apply pressure to open wounds, not force. Any American homechef, in complaining about his/her dull knives, would describe the excessive pressure he/she had to apply in order to sever that evening's pork loin into chops. When we first introduced the KN100 we spoke in terms of how many grams of pressure were required to sever a test media. Jan was the first to raise this question with us and it became obvious to us that we needed to take a step toward the scientific so that not only Americans felt comfortable with our terminology and descriptions, but everyone else as well. We then adopted Jan's suggestion in our literature. Now, there seems to be interest in further dissecting this description.
For us this is simply a matter of convention. We calculate in feet and inches around here. Some would say that this is the English method of measurement, others would say it is Standard and yet others might say it is the Imperial system. There are arguments for which is the most correct but we all understand what the other means, feet and inches. At EOU, we speak of "BESS Scores", but typically we just say or write 150, or 234. If pressured to explain further we would simply say "It required 234 grams of force to sever the test media." If someone feels that it is better described as "gu" or "gf" that's fine with us because we understand your meaning. If different conventions arise in different parts of the world, that's just fine with us as long as we continue to understand one another.
Abbreviating the BESS at 1000? Here's the issue; If you manufacture common axes and hatchets 1000 may not be dull, it might be just right. If you are trimming composite plastics with circular blades 1000 might be too sharp. Our concern is that we might find that the published scale doesn't go high enough (although, in a practical sense, that is an instrumentation issue as opposed to a real scale problem). If someone wants to think in terms of the scale ending at 1000, that's fine. I can promise you that many knife sharpeners would be fine with a BESS that ended at 500.
Just one more item and this is simply a matter of how one sees the world. BESS certified instrumentation and test media, via a process of interpolation and derivation, posits on the thickness or thinness of an edge. This posited conclusion is then displayed to the user as a BESS Score. It is not displayed as an actual, physical measurement of the edge apex, but rather, a score. Can the two, BESS Score and apex width, be linked? Of course, they have to be linked or the system wouldn't be of value. The value of this linkage is where the question lies and we refer back to our opening comments. If we tell you, or anyone, that an edge is, in fact, as sharp as a razor blade, then that has meaning because they can relate to it. If we tell someone that the edge has a radius of 50nm then what does that mean to the average Jack or Jill?
It's like this though, scientists argued for decades over whether 0C or 32F (can't remember which) should represent the freezing point of water or the melting point of ice. We can't remember who the winners were either but a little good debate on the finer points of the BESS will never hurt anyone and is likely to help.
So first, a little history on how we express BESS measurements. First, we had a goal; to developed a sharpness scale that was useful and easily understood by everyone, scientist or layman. We also wanted it to be relatable and that's where DE razor blades entered the picture. In the USA, the term "pressure" is readily substituted for the more appropriate term "force". We are told to apply pressure to open wounds, not force. Any American homechef, in complaining about his/her dull knives, would describe the excessive pressure he/she had to apply in order to sever that evening's pork loin into chops. When we first introduced the KN100 we spoke in terms of how many grams of pressure were required to sever a test media. Jan was the first to raise this question with us and it became obvious to us that we needed to take a step toward the scientific so that not only Americans felt comfortable with our terminology and descriptions, but everyone else as well. We then adopted Jan's suggestion in our literature. Now, there seems to be interest in further dissecting this description.
For us this is simply a matter of convention. We calculate in feet and inches around here. Some would say that this is the English method of measurement, others would say it is Standard and yet others might say it is the Imperial system. There are arguments for which is the most correct but we all understand what the other means, feet and inches. At EOU, we speak of "BESS Scores", but typically we just say or write 150, or 234. If pressured to explain further we would simply say "It required 234 grams of force to sever the test media." If someone feels that it is better described as "gu" or "gf" that's fine with us because we understand your meaning. If different conventions arise in different parts of the world, that's just fine with us as long as we continue to understand one another.
Abbreviating the BESS at 1000? Here's the issue; If you manufacture common axes and hatchets 1000 may not be dull, it might be just right. If you are trimming composite plastics with circular blades 1000 might be too sharp. Our concern is that we might find that the published scale doesn't go high enough (although, in a practical sense, that is an instrumentation issue as opposed to a real scale problem). If someone wants to think in terms of the scale ending at 1000, that's fine. I can promise you that many knife sharpeners would be fine with a BESS that ended at 500.
Just one more item and this is simply a matter of how one sees the world. BESS certified instrumentation and test media, via a process of interpolation and derivation, posits on the thickness or thinness of an edge. This posited conclusion is then displayed to the user as a BESS Score. It is not displayed as an actual, physical measurement of the edge apex, but rather, a score. Can the two, BESS Score and apex width, be linked? Of course, they have to be linked or the system wouldn't be of value. The value of this linkage is where the question lies and we refer back to our opening comments. If we tell you, or anyone, that an edge is, in fact, as sharp as a razor blade, then that has meaning because they can relate to it. If we tell someone that the edge has a radius of 50nm then what does that mean to the average Jack or Jill?
It's like this though, scientists argued for decades over whether 0C or 32F (can't remember which) should represent the freezing point of water or the melting point of ice. We can't remember who the winners were either but a little good debate on the finer points of the BESS will never hurt anyone and is likely to help.