RESULTS SECTION TWO:
Still working with our 5,7,10, 12 we have sharpened them in the following manner:
These edges had a 19° micro bevel on them and we re-sharpened to 17°. So primary bevel = 15° and secondary = 17° in this set of samples. We used a 80 grit belt until we had raised a burr and then touched up with a 150 grit belt leaving a plenty toothy edge. We then removed the burr in exactly the same way for each sample. First we stropped on a thin HDPE plate, then on a rubber pad, then on a powered leather belt.
After taking our initial sharpness readings we ran all the edges through one cycle on the SET and then measured again. Here are the results:
This is about as tight a grouping as we have ever produced and would not expect results to remain this tight in future tests. One factor remains pretty consistent though through all of our tests to date; not a significant difference between lower and higher HRC hardness levels with regard to propensity for Phase I rolling.
Still working with our 5,7,10, 12 we have sharpened them in the following manner:
These edges had a 19° micro bevel on them and we re-sharpened to 17°. So primary bevel = 15° and secondary = 17° in this set of samples. We used a 80 grit belt until we had raised a burr and then touched up with a 150 grit belt leaving a plenty toothy edge. We then removed the burr in exactly the same way for each sample. First we stropped on a thin HDPE plate, then on a rubber pad, then on a powered leather belt.
After taking our initial sharpness readings we ran all the edges through one cycle on the SET and then measured again. Here are the results:
This is about as tight a grouping as we have ever produced and would not expect results to remain this tight in future tests. One factor remains pretty consistent though through all of our tests to date; not a significant difference between lower and higher HRC hardness levels with regard to propensity for Phase I rolling.