08-02-2018, 11:24 AM
Yes, we think that the chisel grind results are intuitive, as well, Jan. That's a nice departure from some of the other indicators that we have uncovered. It also seems to indicate that bevel angle must matter. The hardness versus roll rate results are not intuitive in our estimation but that intuition was based in what we thought we knew about sharpened edges i.e. harder steels are more brittle so should therefore be less prone to edge rolling and, since there is no free lunch in the physical world, more prone to fracture and chipping. According to our results, other laws of physics have inserted themselves into our intuitive equation. Right now, your suggested theory of "foil effect" is the leading interloper. Speaking of foil, we offer the following strictly as food for thought;
If we think in reverse on this topic we know that very thin sheets of many metals, foils, even hardened versions, can be formed, creased and folded flat practically as if they were wet paper. We would not expect .125" thick versions of these same metals to have the same attributes. We might even expect the thicker .125" versions to split and fracture when forced into tight bends and radiuses. So should we really be all that surprised that very thin edge apexes might not act exactly as the thicker metal they emanate from?
We're somewhat on the fence regarding the amount of force that the SET unit exerts on the edge apex, Jan and for a couple of reasons. The current design seems to produce "real use" kinds of roll characteristics. If the current design accomplishes this then we ask "why be more gentle with our test edges than real use itself is?" Here's the second reason; it requires multiple passes over the same point with the current SET force used (150 grams) to produce significant rolls. In fact it may take a total of some 50 -70 passes over the same point until maximum roll has been achieved. This indicates to us that we are probably not setting thumb tacks with a sledge hammer at 150 grams of force.
This all brings us to our next test. We think that Phase I SET results need to be given some relativity to ordinary use. In other words, how many carrots do we have to chop before the edge has been rolled 100 points? We think that this will be our next experiment and one that anyone with an edge tester and a carrot or onion can participate in.
If we think in reverse on this topic we know that very thin sheets of many metals, foils, even hardened versions, can be formed, creased and folded flat practically as if they were wet paper. We would not expect .125" thick versions of these same metals to have the same attributes. We might even expect the thicker .125" versions to split and fracture when forced into tight bends and radiuses. So should we really be all that surprised that very thin edge apexes might not act exactly as the thicker metal they emanate from?
We're somewhat on the fence regarding the amount of force that the SET unit exerts on the edge apex, Jan and for a couple of reasons. The current design seems to produce "real use" kinds of roll characteristics. If the current design accomplishes this then we ask "why be more gentle with our test edges than real use itself is?" Here's the second reason; it requires multiple passes over the same point with the current SET force used (150 grams) to produce significant rolls. In fact it may take a total of some 50 -70 passes over the same point until maximum roll has been achieved. This indicates to us that we are probably not setting thumb tacks with a sledge hammer at 150 grams of force.
This all brings us to our next test. We think that Phase I SET results need to be given some relativity to ordinary use. In other words, how many carrots do we have to chop before the edge has been rolled 100 points? We think that this will be our next experiment and one that anyone with an edge tester and a carrot or onion can participate in.