Messages

I'd agree with Rick. I had not thought of using the USB real close to the wheel, it will definitely give welcome support, then some kind of a laser line can be used to keep the angle constantish.

The SVMs will not provide enough clearance : the handles will hit the USB.

I would give it a try freehand. Not much you can do aside from that.

My question is, if the KS123 is not satisfactory for high volume such as "weekend warrior" farmers market sharpeners, what is satisfactory?

The way I see it, a sharpener at a farmer's market will not reset the angle but rather reproduce the existing one using the sharpie method. If one wants to reset the angle to, say, manufacturer's specs then the KS-123 will do just fine but my gut feeling is it's not going to be the majority of cases.

When I'm talking about high volume sharpening, I'm thinking more of a "I want to sharpen these 10 knives @15dps". In that case, KJs, vernier calipers and a calculator/Dutchman's tables/a simple arccos+arcctan formula are a bliss.

Ken, you're right, I'll give it a shot.

TL/DR : 15 dps.

For a more detailed summary : most members recommend something in the 15-20dps range, with a majority grinding closer to 15dps. Setting this angle using the KS-123 is practical for low-volume sharpeners.

[follow the instructions]

As long as I follow the instructions and always start from a smaller angle when using the KS123 to approach the desired angle, I have no problem with precision.

Unfortunately that's not how friction works: once the static friction coefficient is no longer sufficient to keep the needle in place, it will switch to kinetic friction, and the needle will move as much as necessary to get back into the friction cone. Then stay in place, and here we go again. So while the error may always be on the same side, we have little control on where the needle stops.

As for a 160 grit stone raising a burr quickly, I have no doubt.

[measure]

When I hear concerns about using the KS-123 due to it being less than needed accuracy, I wonder why the angle on the blade must be accurate to 0.1°.  In the sharpening I do for most things, if the angle is good to +/- 1 degree I am good.  What am I missing?

Nothing.

I think this is an example of going to the extreme without any clear delineation of the benifit. When Wootz proposed some new idea he backed it up with extensive testing and real world usage in meat packing plants. I believe only a miniscule number of users have the ability to measure the angle to this accuracy.

If I may introduce a modicum of nuance and open-mindedness to "Nothing" :
- I agree being able to measure the edge angle with 0.1° precision has no benefit in terms of sharpness or edge retention
- However, being able to reproduce a given angle quickly with the smallest deviation possible results in raising a burr much faster, with less metal removal.

As we are talking small angles, the amount of metal being removed is proportional to the ratio of angles : you remove 5 times more metal if you're 1° off compared with .2° off. It is to me a clear delineation of the benefit. [EDIT] Actually, much more than this if you take into account cases where you will be thinning the blade [/EDIT]

There are two phenomena with hysteresis here :

- One linked to the threaded rods, which can be compensated by always ending with slightly raising the USB. This is standard operation and does not cause any issue. It will prevent the USB from settling lower due to the rod moving slightly insided the nut before getting fastened.

- Another one linked to friction inside the KS-123. Going down, then up, will ensure that the error is always on the same side. For a given static friction coefficient, that is, which will depend on when it was lubricated, if it is slightly wet or not, how tight the nut is, etc. Plus, the amplitude of USB movement necessary to put the needle back in motion on the way up is much, much higher than with vernier calipers resting against the top of the USB and the wheel where only the slightest turn of MicroAdjust nut is enought to lift the lower end of the wheel.

So while using the down-then-up routine will minimize the error, it will still be more important than using the distance method, less reproducible, and therefore the amount of material that needs to be removed before raising a burr will statistically increase.

the KS-123 has significant hysteresis

I have not noticed any.

Do you mean that says, one 8th of a turn on the MicroAdjust always results in the plastic needle moving on the KS-123 ? On mine, even after some lubrication, if I move the USB down, then up, I can change the angle by almost 3/4th of a degree before the needle starts moving up again. And I can move the needle up and down by hand, the flexibility and friction will let it stay wherever I put it within one degree.

[...] the KS-123, which has halted the growth of computer programs and all communication about it.

What a relief, more focus on the real work.

Wow, that's a tad judgmental. There are very good apps out there, and the KS-123 has significant hysteresis. Surely there is room for people who already own vernier calipers and are fine with using apps/spreadsheets ? Why the condescension ?

While I have occasionally experimented with 12°, based on Wootz' recommendation, 15° has remained my go to setting.

Same here. 12 dps is for a very specific subset of knives : suisin inox honyaki series knives whose steel is quite robust, or some of my high hardness knives. The problem with 12dps in my opinion is that although edge retention is usually better, the apex is prone to chipping. So it's only for knives that are going to be handled carefully.

As chipping is much less of an issue at 15dps, I feel this is the good compromise with good edge retention.

As a side note, when one is not concerned with initial efficiency, I find that a 10dps primary bevel with a 15dps secondary bevel works wonders as it allows for very quick touchups afterwards.

I used to sharpen @20dps a long time ago. Then I came across Wootz's litterature and decided to give 15dps a try.

It has been my standard since. I made comparisons using the same knife model sharpened at 20 dps and 15dps, the 20 dps got dull significantly faster. I have not noticed 15dps being too fragile for standard to fairly high quality knives.

For more details, you can read a piece I've written in my personal blog.

Hello Jamie,

I sincerely hope your presonal blog is not a collection of AI-written articles. Still, a couple of things would have me either believe the contrary or at least think you should cross-check what you present as definite truths.

A few examples amongst many :
- On your page about "hollow edge knives", what you are describing is not a hollow edge (the edge being the part that actually cuts the food, a hollow edge or concave edge is created by a convex sharpening medium such as a wheel). I suggest you quickly compute an estimate of the weight difference between a scalloped blade and a plain one, you'll see soon enough that there is no significant difference in knife weight. And... "I prefer chef knives because they're thick"? Really ? The "hollow" santoku you show is probably twice as thick as the thickest of my chef knives. The thicker the knife, the higher the resistance to cutting because of the effective surface.

- What you present on your article as a chef knife is actually a santoku, the chef knife being a gyutou instead. I  fail to see how a chef knife would be less able to handle mincing herbs than a utility knife. A chef knife, having a higher blade, allows for more control and consistency while mincing.

And there are countless others.

Well, actually it does look like AI slop. I'm not sure it does anyone a service, including yourself.

As a side note, you can also get an accurate value of this offset if you use one of the many calculators available (calcapp, tormekcalc, etc.) by both changing the diameter of the wheel to 254mm *and* reducing the distance to top of the wheel by 2mm.

The work being done can be measured by the material being removed (bonds being broken within the steel) and the generation of heat. You need to maximise the first and minimise the second. We want as little heat as possible and as much material removal as possible for maximum efficiency.

Agreed 100%.

To complement my response to OP's objection, the Higher MOH of the abrasive relative to the material being ground allows it to scratch said material. In doing so, there is resistance to the relative motion of the abrasive and the material. This resistance is precisely friction, and overcoming it generates heat (due to resistance to gliding at the molecular level AND to the the energy released by the breaking bonds within the material AND to the wear within the abrasive).

Lubricants work by separating surfaces. A lubricant that would work so well that there would be no resistance to the relative movement of the abrasive with respect to the ground material would also prevent the abrasive from scratching the material. For grinding to be effective, surfaces have to be allowed to come into contact. Where they come into contact, the kinetic friction coefficient depends only on the surfaces, not the lubricant.

Machinists know that a dry bit removes material much faster than a lubricated one. Unfortunately, it also breaks down so much faster that it is impractical to use it dry.

Water for the Tormek is a good compromise : it properly transfers heat away from the point of contact, lubricates a bit but still allows grinding to happen quickly enough.

TL/DR : the better the lubricant, the less abrasive and steel come into contact, the slower steel is being ground.

I apologize if this is a stupid question but, I was wondering if anyone knows the degree difference on the angle master setting of 250mm to the middle scale of 10"?

It's not stupid at all. If you play with the model here, you'll see that for a given setup (USB height set, projection distance set), the difference in angle when the stone diameter varies from 250 to 254mm is about 1 degree. So for a given position of the WM-200 on the wheel while resting on the flat of the blade, the angle read on the WM-200 should be off by the same amount.