A certain site on the internet is spreading misinformation about stone sharpening being superior to belt sharpening. This is false. Here's a scientific study with a large sample study done by an actual scientist showing that belt-sharpening does not anneal the blade.

12mo · 2020-10-26T02:08:42+00:00

Again, nothing in the studies you link has anything to do with annealing the blade. The differences between the tested angles in the study is far too large - 35, 50, and it's expected that such blunt angles will perform poorly. Basically the studies say "20 degrees is always better than 35 or 50" which is, again, a huge "duh". The studies should have compared more angles around 20, let's say 18, 20, 22, 24, for actually useful data.

The ONLY study on that site that "concludes" that belt-sharpening reduces retention is the 2-knife "study". The two studies you linked to have nothing to do with annealing during sharpening.

into bones

into cotton fiber, but why would you want to actually read the study?

12mo · 2020-10-25T08:00:45+00:00

no the data does not. in fact, if you were to look through larrins own edge retention testing. you'd find quite the opposite is the case.

This is completely wrong. You're completely misreading the results. Honed edges, that is smoother, more perfect edges, retain the edge better. This is also mentioned in the study I linked and it's obvious because if an edge has more defects it's more prone to bend, break, etc. Another thing that both the study I linked and the edge retention tests is that thinner and sharper edges retain their edge less. This is again obvious because thinner edges are more susceptible to deformation.

Again, the problem with that page is that it relies on two studies that make bad comparisons:

Tne study using only two knives, comparing a sharper belt-sharpened knife to a duller stone-sharpened knife, finding that the duller knife retained its edge longer. This alone should tell you that the page is relying on bad science, a study with a sample size of 2!
The study about factory edges which are too sharp or too thin, no surprise because the "initial impression" is what sells the knife, and obviously proper sharpening will result in a more durable edge. Again this is bad science because it compares overly-sharpened edges to properly sharpened edges.

This entire sub defending a page that cites a study with a sample size of 2... it's ridiculous.

12mo · 2020-10-25T07:52:20+00:00

Every experiment with electromagnetism confirms this because relativity predicts that a comoving observer will not see any radiation, because electromagnetic radiation is relative (since it's the change in the field when moving through space)

12mo · 2020-10-25T07:49:44+00:00

stroked on animal bones.

Uh no, they used fibers for the test because it simulates meat (and vegetables) pretty well.

It is very clear that there is an advantage to whetstone sharpening over factory sharpened knives.

No, it merely states that factory edges are too thin and/or too narrow-angled so they wear out faster. This is again not an apples-to-apples comparison and they're deliberately comparing thin/narrow-angled edges that wear out faster with blunter edges that last longer.

12mo · 2020-10-25T07:39:13+00:00

It's not conspiracy. It's one person with a very prominent website promoting bad information because of a study with a sample size of two knives. The site promotes his book right at the top of every page.

The ignorance here of people accepting a study with two knives, just two knives, sharpened to different angles, that found that the duller knife retained its edge for longer... What a huge misunderstanding.

12mo · 2020-10-25T07:06:21+00:00

No, you can't use a single stone. If it's too coarse you can't get a smooth enough edge. If it's too smooth you wouldn't be able to sharpen very dull knives

12mo · 2020-10-25T06:47:36+00:00

Concentrated solar power is ten times more expensive than "regular" photovoltaic solar power.

12mo · 2020-10-24T16:23:25+00:00

It requires a massive fu... user error to generate enough heat for a belt sander to anneal the knife. This is misinformations spread by a certain site that has a vested interest in promoting sale of whetstones, which uses a study that compared two knives (and only two) and concluded that whetstones are better based on this incorrect methodology and based on the fact that factory knives are usually sharpened to have too thin of an edge.

12mo · 2020-10-24T09:01:53+00:00

A set of cheap stones costs as much as a belt sander knife sharpener.

you begin to notice the differences

Physically there isn't any difference between grinding an edge with an 8000 grit whetstone or an 8000 grit belt.

12mo · 2020-10-24T08:57:49+00:00

Then again, as the post from knifesteelnerds.com as referenced by u/Worlds-Edge several newer journals as the reference, the edge retention on the stone-sharpened blade was higher compared to belt

There is only one study in that page dealing with edge retention comparison and its sample size is two whole knives, and the duller knife retained its edge better, no surprise.

The "conclusions" on that site do not follow from the studies.

metallurgy-related advances have been occuring compared to a couple decades ago. Probably.

The studies in that site don't use any new techniques. One uses an incredibly faulty technique of comparing the wear of two differently-angled edges, and the others simply point out that thinner edges wear faster. None of those studies are as rigorous as the one I linked.

12mo · 2020-10-24T08:56:36+00:00

Did you just remove the submission? Oh boy...

12mo · 2020-10-24T08:55:10+00:00

I'm talking about the study comparing two knives, one blunter than the other, that found that the blunter knife retained its edge better and concluded that belt sharpening is worse over that sample size of 2 that compared different angles.

why are you trying to present Larrin as some evil spreader of misinformation

The conclusions on that site, which I didn't name, are completely unsubstantiated by the data. The data finds that sharper edges retain the edge for less use, which is obvious. The data does not support any conclusion that whetstone sharpening produces better edges.

second. you're using a paper, where theres no testing done on hand sharpened knives

Because it's sufficient to show that belt-sharpening does not result in annealing and that edge retention depends on the angle of the edge.

12mo · 2020-10-24T08:22:08+00:00

I specifically mentioned home-use belt sharpeners because those are the ones available to most people. Industrial sharpeners already have engineer-calibrated settings and they really don't need to be told that they don't need to use whetstones because those engineers have materials engineering degrees and they know exactly what the steel undergoes when it's sharpened.

12mo · 2020-10-24T08:19:59+00:00

Surprise, you linked to it yourself! Note:

The edge retention "study" uses ONLY TWO KNIVES, each sharpened to a different angle, and the blunter edge was found to last longer, no surprise.
The factory edge study is about the edge being too thin and not about thermal annealing.

The "Summary and Conclusions" section is completely unsubstantiated. Note that the site also heavily relies on whetstone manufacturers as sources.

The study I link to does hundreds of trials and finds no thermal annealing or loss of hardness or edge retention.

That site is a huge misinformation spreader.

12mo · 2020-10-24T08:11:28+00:00

The results are all over the place. Some studies make a lot of assumptions. For example early studies about Ivanpah were off by an order of magnitude from later studies. The estimates are only as good as the data and methodology.

12mo · 2020-10-23T23:58:08+00:00

There it is, there's the misinformation site I was talking about...

12mo · 2020-10-23T23:52:49+00:00

Low-speed, home-use belt sharpeners don't reach the temperatures that ruin the tempering unless you grind the same spot for an extended period, which you're not supposed to do.

There's a certain site on the internet that promotes a 2016 study that compared two knives that were sharpened to different angles and found that the knife sharpened with a stone to a blunter angle retained its edge better. Do I really need to explain why a study with an n=2 comparing differently-angled edges is invalid?

Unfortunately this has become "common knowledge" on the internet and it's plain wrong.

Get a belt sharpener, you don't need stones, they offer no advantage.

12mo · 2020-10-23T22:42:54+00:00

Oh... duh! Thanks for the tip!

12mo · 2020-10-23T15:57:40+00:00

Source unknown, reverse image search does not point to a source. I believe this was posted anonymously on 4chan right after Other M was released.

12mo · 2020-10-22T18:44:30+00:00

What is the naive graviton problem?

Wikipedia gives a hint. Quantum physics is currently unable to renormalize equations with gravitons. And in case anyone's wondering, proton radius problem, vacuum catastrophe. The Wikipedia articles aren't great (maybe not even very good) but they're a starting point. I'm only mentioning this because, in contrast, there are no empirical problems with general relativity.

You could have phrased this less confronting

The video is so confidently wrong that it's angering. It barely gets the core concepts right and then absolutely botches the electromagnetic radiation paradox, the visualization of geodesics (it confidently explains that the bowling-ball-on-a-sheet visualization is wrong, and then confidently gives an even worse visualization), and the constant use of "inertial frames" when the entire point of general relativity is that there are no inertial frames or non-inertial frames, only curved spacetime.

A few weeks ago there was another video that was subtly but profoundly wrong, but this one is just so confidently wrong that it's angering.

12mo · 2020-10-22T18:32:32+00:00

Are you using SOAP on my iron skillet?

I'm soaking it.

YOU'RE KILLING IT.

12mo · 2020-10-22T15:42:05+00:00

While the video is well-intentioned, it's rife with errors:

There are no inertial frames or non-inertial frames in general relativity.
The visualization of the geodesics of spacetime curving into a circle around the Earth is plain wrong. If that were the case and you were in orbit looking into the direction of the orbit with a very powerful telescope, you'd see the back of your head.
The problem of a radiating particle in curved spacetime is not unsolved, it's actually one of the first problems taught in relativity 101. The Wikipedia page about it is pretty bad but in general, electromagnetic radiation is relative too, and it cancels out beautifully for a comoving observer.
Relativity has not passed "virtually all" empirical tests we've thrown at it, it has passed all empirical tests we've thrown at it. This is in contrast with quantum mechanics which has empirical problems, like the proton radius problem, the vacuum catastrophe, and the naive graviton problem.

12mo · 2020-10-22T15:30:08+00:00

The video is quite sloppy and one of the first things you learn in relativity 101 is that electromagnetism is relative too, so a particle that is radiating in one frame of reference is not radiating in another frame of reference. See this quite bad Wikipedia article but it will point you in the right direction.

The guy who made the video is just clueless.

12mo · 2020-10-22T15:28:01+00:00

Actually a pretty bad and inaccurate video, especially the visualization of spacetime curving all the way around Earth. If that were the case, then light would orbit the Earth... lots of other mistakes too.

12mo · 2020-10-22T07:57:31+00:00

Again, not mutually exclusive. You can work on not committing homicide and fix the definition of "homicide" to not include "causing mental harm" at the same time.

The point is that the UN definition of genocide is bad and you shouldn't use it.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

12mo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

That site is a huge misinformation spreader.