I have been sharpening my knives recently but am wondering just how
sharp I have made them. My cook knife still need a small forward/back
motion before it glides through the a grape. I was hoping it might
just drop through the grape skin almost under its own weight but this
doesn't happen. Is my knife edge still dull ?

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> I have been sharpening my knives recently but am wondering just how
> sharp I have made them. My cook knife still need a small forward/back
> motion before it glides through the a grape. I was hoping it might
> just drop through the grape skin almost under its own weight but this
> doesn't happen. Is my knife edge still dull ?

Yes, I would say that it is still a bit dull. In dentistry, the way we test
the sharpness of scaling instrument is to LIGHTLY test them on our
fingernails. You gently, and at a shallow angle, test the knife on your
nail with the blade towards you. That is how I test my kitchen knives when
I sharpen them. After agonizing for years over the best method of
sharpening my knives, wishing I had a fancy motorized hone, I realized that
I could just use a whetstone like I use on instruments. It is quick, easy,
and inexpensive - and it works.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
>I have been sharpening my knives recently but am wondering just how
> sharp I have made them. My cook knife still need a small forward/back
> motion before it glides through the a grape. I was hoping it might
> just drop through the grape skin almost under its own weight but this
> doesn't happen. Is my knife edge still dull ?

Not necessarily. The way a knife works requires some sliding movement. After
all it is a knife and not a chisel! I will never forget the demonstration of
this that my high school physics teacher gave us. He (very carefully)
pressed a single edge razor blade against his thumb without any side to side
motion and it did not cut him at all. When a knife appears to just fall thru
something you can be sure there is at least a small perhaps not visible
amount of sliding going on. My favorite test of a knife is whether it will
cut thin slices from a ripe tomato under its own weight.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:37:07 +0100, Tim
> wrote:

>I have been sharpening my knives recently but am wondering just how
>sharp I have made them. My cook knife still need a small forward/back
>motion before it glides through the a grape. I was hoping it might
>just drop through the grape skin almost under its own weight but this
>doesn't happen. Is my knife edge still dull ?

I don't know, but I think a grape skin is somewhat tough, much like a
tomato skin. I don't know if there are any knives that will cut a
tomato skin without a bit of slicing motion. Watch all the
infomercials for knives and they almost always have at one point a
demo of slicing tomatoes. Watch closely and you will see a slicing
motion involved, every time. I'm unaware of there ever having been a
tomato sliced that didn't involve a slicing motion (in other words,
NOT straight down).

The materials that CAN be cut straight down (no slicing) almost always
have a much firmer consistency (think carrots, onions, apples) under
the skin. Grapes and tomatoes are soft and/or mushy under the skin.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

in article , Peter Aitken at
wrote on 6/16/05 8:38 AM:

> Not necessarily. The way a knife works requires some sliding movement. After
> all it is a knife and not a chisel! I will never forget the demonstration of
> this that my high school physics teacher gave us. He (very carefully)
> pressed a single edge razor blade against his thumb without any side to side
> motion and it did not cut him at all. When a knife appears to just fall thru
> something you can be sure there is at least a small perhaps not visible
> amount of sliding going on. My favorite test of a knife is whether it will
> cut thin slices from a ripe tomato under its own weight.

I am also obsessed with knife sharpness. The tomato test is not a very good
one. The result, for me, has much to with the ripeness of the tomato. A
fully ripe tomato just has too much give to slice easily while a firm one
can be slice thinly. Similarly, a thin layer of moister lubricates the knife
and impedes the immediat penetration of the skin. Once I can cut through the
skin, my knives do well.

Bill

A knife CAN be made so sharp that it will cut through a grape or tomato
under its own weight. The edge would also be so delicate that it would
be theoretically less sharp after the first cut and noticeably less
sharp after the 10th or 100th cut.

Our goal for kitchen cutlery is an edge that will be serviceable for
thousands of cuts - a year in a home kitchen, a week in a restaurant or
a day in a food processing or harvesting operation. This edge can still
be efficient when used with a slicing motion. Slicing is the ultimate
in skew cutting and effectively lowers the angle or thickness of the
cutting edge by several orders of magnitude. Slicing also allows any
imperfections in the edge ("teeth") to act a tiny saws to initiate the
cutting action.

Steve

Sharpening Made Easy: A Primer on Sharpening Knives and Other Edged
Tools by Steve Bottorff
Copyright January 2002 Knife World Publications
www.sharpeningmadeeasy.com


Tim wrote:
> I have been sharpening my knives recently but am wondering just how
> sharp I have made them. My cook knife still need a small forward/back
> motion before it glides through the a grape. I was hoping it might
> just drop through the grape skin almost under its own weight but this
> doesn't happen. Is my knife edge still dull ?

"Steve B." > wrote in message
m...
>A knife CAN be made so sharp that it will cut through a grape or tomato
>under its own weight. The edge would also be so delicate that it would be
>theoretically less sharp after the first cut and noticeably less sharp
>after the 10th or 100th cut.
>
> Our goal for kitchen cutlery is an edge that will be serviceable for
> thousands of cuts - a year in a home kitchen, a week in a restaurant or a
> day in a food processing or harvesting operation. This edge can still be
> efficient when used with a slicing motion. Slicing is the ultimate in
> skew cutting and effectively lowers the angle or thickness of the cutting
> edge by several orders of magnitude. Slicing also allows any
> imperfections in the edge ("teeth") to act a tiny saws to initiate the
> cutting action.
>
> Steve
>

We (or more properly, I) appreciate your input and knowledge, but . . . . .
replying at the top is like sharpening a fine knife on a cinder block.


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:39:34 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

Top posting wouldn't be necessary if bottom posters learned how to
trim extraneous stuff from their posts. Like the OP message which had
nothing to do with the top posting rant, for example.

>"Steve B." > wrote in message
om...
>>A knife CAN be made so sharp that it will cut through a grape or tomato
>>under its own weight. The edge would also be so delicate that it would be
>>theoretically less sharp after the first cut and noticeably less sharp
>>after the 10th or 100th cut.
>>
>> Our goal for kitchen cutlery is an edge that will be serviceable for
>> thousands of cuts - a year in a home kitchen, a week in a restaurant or a
>> day in a food processing or harvesting operation. This edge can still be
>> efficient when used with a slicing motion. Slicing is the ultimate in
>> skew cutting and effectively lowers the angle or thickness of the cutting
>> edge by several orders of magnitude. Slicing also allows any
>> imperfections in the edge ("teeth") to act a tiny saws to initiate the
>> cutting action.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>We (or more properly, I) appreciate your input and knowledge, but . . . . .
>replying at the top is like sharpening a fine knife on a cinder block.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:39:34 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"Steve B." > wrote in message
om...
>>A knife CAN be made so sharp that it will cut through a grape or tomato
>>under its own weight. The edge would also be so delicate that it would be
>>theoretically less sharp after the first cut and noticeably less sharp
>>after the 10th or 100th cut.
>>
>> Our goal for kitchen cutlery is an edge that will be serviceable for
>> thousands of cuts - a year in a home kitchen, a week in a restaurant or a
>> day in a food processing or harvesting operation. This edge can still be
>> efficient when used with a slicing motion. Slicing is the ultimate in
>> skew cutting and effectively lowers the angle or thickness of the cutting
>> edge by several orders of magnitude. Slicing also allows any
>> imperfections in the edge ("teeth") to act a tiny saws to initiate the
>> cutting action.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>We (or more properly, I) appreciate your input and knowledge, but . . . . .
>replying at the top is like sharpening a fine knife on a cinder block.

Not cropping,as above, is even worse.
------------
There are no atheists in foxholes
or in Fenway Park in an extra inning
game.
____

Cape Cod Bob
Visit my web site at http://home.comcast.net/~bobmethelis
Delete the two "spam"s for email

>We (or more properly, I) appreciate your input and knowledge, but . . . . .
>replying at the top is like sharpening a fine knife on a cinder block.

Definitely not 'we'. Bottom posting is all too often pain as too many
people just quote the entire document and then add maybe one trite
line of text, typically: "me too". Top posting means I don't have to
manually scroll to the bottom of each message to read the
contribution. I see no problem with top or bottom posting provided
that the context is clear.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> >We (or more properly, I) appreciate your input and knowledge, but . . . .
..
> >replying at the top is like sharpening a fine knife on a cinder block.
>
> Definitely not 'we'. Bottom posting is all too often pain as too many
> people just quote the entire document and then add maybe one trite
> line of text, typically: "me too". Top posting means I don't have to
> manually scroll to the bottom of each message to read the
> contribution. I see no problem with top or bottom posting provided
> that the context is clear.
>

I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with top or bottom posting,
just as there is nothing wrong with driving on the left-hand or right-hand
side of the road. The problem is that when you mix the two styles, you have
chaos. It isn't where you post that is the problem, it is the lack of
consistency that is the issue. When messages fail to communicate your
message, then there is no point in posting or reading. Of course there will
always be people who pass on the right or drive the wrong direction on a
one-way street just because they can, and in most cases there is no harm
done.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:48:02 GMT, "Vox Humana" > wrote:

>.... Of course there will
>always be people who pass on the right or drive the wrong direction on a
>one-way street just because they can, and in most cases there is no harm
>done.

Ah, I see you've visited Rome!

-- Larry

As a pro chef in a former life the 'tomato test' is the best for
determining knife sharpness. If your blade can slice a very ripe
tomato without butchering it then your knife is sharp. If you can
shave hair off your forearm then your edge is "damn sharp". Either way
you're way ahead of the pack.
Green Bell Peppers are another good test. If you can finely slice the
flesh, skin side up, into jullienne then your blade is a good one.
Normally one has to flip the pepper to skin side down and slightly saw
into the cutting board to fully slice the pepper.

Bottom posting was necessary in the "good old days" so you could follow
the thought. Today with all newsgroups and most e-mail programs
threaded it is preferable to top post. Even better is to post only your
response. It makes easier reading and cleaner archives and digests.

Steve
Sharpening Made Easy: A Primer on Sharpening Knives and Other Edged
Tools by Steve Bottorff
Copyright January 2002 Knife World Publications
www.sharpeningmadeeasy.com

"Steve B." > wrote in message
m...
> Bottom posting was necessary in the "good old days" so you could follow
> the thought. Today with all newsgroups and most e-mail programs threaded
> it is preferable to top post. Even better is to post only your response.
> It makes easier reading and cleaner archives and digests.
>

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is never any reason other than laziness for top
posting - it is just plain dumb. As for posting only your own response, too
many problems. By the time the response is read, the original post is very
likely to have been forgotten, to have been cleared from the server, or to
have been marked as "read" and is no longer visible without changing
newsreader settings.


--
Peter Aitken

Steve B. wrote:

> Bottom posting was necessary in the "good old days" so you could follow
> the thought. Today with all newsgroups and most e-mail programs
> threaded it is preferable to top post. Even better is to post only your
> response. It makes easier reading and cleaner archives and digests.
>
> Steve
> Sharpening Made Easy: A Primer on Sharpening Knives and Other Edged
> Tools by Steve Bottorff
> Copyright January 2002 Knife World Publications
> www.sharpeningmadeeasy.com

I'm smelling troll bait but on the chance that you're actually serious,
here's a short example of why top posting sucks. Ans as for post only
your response? Me thinks that you need an education on how different
servers function and post retention periods. That's even worse than top
posting....

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

--
Steve
Ever notice that putting the and IRS together makes "theirs"?

Reasons to top post: my news reader opens each message at the TOP,
making it easier to read top posting or solo posting. The conversation
is threaded, so I can easily read any piece of the preceding
conversation. My server stores the messages for months, and Google
stores then for even longer. Top posting makes the best use of the
current newsgroup technology, and solo posting is best for listservers
that compile a digest.

Steve
Sharpening Made Easy: A Primer on Sharpening Knives and Other Edged
Tools by Steve Bottorff
Copyright January 2002 Knife World Publications
www.sharpeningmadeeasy.com

Steve B. wrote:
> Bottom posting was necessary in the "good old days" so you could follow
> the thought. Today with all newsgroups and most e-mail programs
> threaded it is preferable to top post. Even better is to post only your
> response. It makes easier reading and cleaner archives and digests.
>
> Steve
> Sharpening Made Easy: A Primer on Sharpening Knives and Other Edged
> Tools by Steve Bottorff
> Copyright January 2002 Knife World Publications
> www.sharpeningmadeeasy.com


Reasons to bottom post: The entire conversation is right there for you
to scroll through. Just the relevant points if the poster is a good
snipper, but most are not. And you get some really big messages this
way. Bet you did not even read down here to see this.

Steve

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:20:41 GMT, "Steve B."
> wrote:

>Reasons to top post: my news reader opens each message at the TOP,
>making it easier to read top posting or solo posting. The conversation
>is threaded, so I can easily read any piece of the preceding
>conversation. My server stores the messages for months, and Google
>stores then for even longer. Top posting makes the best use of the
>current newsgroup technology, and solo posting is best for listservers
>that compile a digest.


That may be just fine for you, but not all ISP's keep messages for
long periods. Not everyone has a news reader that threads. In other
words, think about the people you want to read your message. If you
do not follow newsgroup etiquette, many people will decide it is not
worth it to go find the previous messages and simply never bother to
read anything you have to say. It isn't for you, it is for the
readers.

"Steve B." > wrote in message
m...
> Reasons to top post: my news reader opens each message at the TOP,
> making it easier to read top posting or solo posting.

I think you are confusing two issues. You write that top posting is easier
for you. No doubt this is true. However, the reason for posting to usenet
is to communicate with others. When people mix top and bottom posting, the
conversation is impossible to follow and therefore doesn't communicate
anything. You may lament that top posting is not the standard. There is no
way to make others adopt your style, no matter how logical. Therefore, if
you want convenience, top post. If you have something to say, bottom post.
In the long run, I think it is easier to hit the "end" button or tap the
space bar a couple time to scroll down and post than to waste energy trying
to get other who you have no influence over to abandon protocol and top
post.

"Steve B." > wrote in message
m...
> Reasons to top post: my news reader opens each message at the TOP, making
> it easier to read top posting or solo posting.

That's really the crux of it, right? Too much bother to scroll down. This is
called being lazy. Maybe you can get a "PgDn button pusher" from a local
charity.

> The conversation is threaded, so I can easily read any piece of the
> preceding conversation.

As you should know, posts disappear from servers after varying periods. And
anyway it's "easier" to read the previous post in the same message.

> My server stores the messages for months, and Google stores then for even
> longer.

Guess what, Einstein, other people do not use your server. And I sure do not
want to have to go fight with google to read a post that someone was too
lazy to quote with their reply.

> Top posting makes the best use of the current newsgroup technology, and
> solo posting is best for listservers that compile a digest.
>

And why should I care about listserves and digests?


--
Peter Aitken

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:26:26 GMT, "Steve B."
> wrote:

>Bottom posting was necessary in the "good old days" so you could follow
>the thought. Today with all newsgroups and most e-mail programs
>threaded it is preferable to top post. Even better is to post only your
>response. It makes easier reading and cleaner archives and digests.

In many cases, the best posting method is to type your response in
Notepad, or whatever text editor you use, save the file in the Recycle
Bin (/dev/null for Linux geeks), then reboot your machine.

This method would have improved the accuracy of your post above
immensely.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:43:29 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is never any reason other than laziness for top
>posting - it is just plain dumb.



Sorry...but when you "quote 259 lines" of drivel on top ...the whole
thread gets kill filed. There is nothing more irritating than a
"quote" and some imbecile says.... "Me too"

Ward Abbott > wrote:
>"Peter Aitken" > wrote:
>>Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is never any reason other than laziness for top
>>posting - it is just plain dumb.
>
>Sorry...but when you "quote 259 lines" of drivel on top ...the whole
>thread gets kill filed. There is nothing more irritating than a
>"quote" and some imbecile says.... "Me too"

There's never any excuse for not trimming the quoted material to the
minimum required to preserve context, whether you're top-posting
or bottom-posting.

--
Donald Tsang (Make your signature McQ. For more info,
see http://www.zrox.net/Mail/Signature/)
Because it interferes with the natural flow of the message.
> Why is top posting frowned upon?

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:16:22 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
wrote:
>"Steve B." > wrote in message
om...
>> Reasons to top post: my news reader opens each message at the TOP,
>> making it easier to read top posting or solo posting.
>
>I think you are confusing two issues. You write that top posting is easier
>for you. No doubt this is true. However, the reason for posting to usenet
>is to communicate with others.

Vox once again speaks the truth. Only post-only assholes top post in
cases where a real discussion thread is taking place, so if you want
to actually communicate the founts of your wisdom, snip the relevant
bits, and reply below them. It takes mere minutes more than reading
the posts you're responding to. Seriously. And we'll all thank you
for it and actually read your material.

"Ward Abbott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:43:29 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>>Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is never any reason other than laziness for top
>>posting - it is just plain dumb.
>
>
>
> Sorry...but when you "quote 259 lines" of drivel on top ...the whole
> thread gets kill filed. There is nothing more irritating than a
> "quote" and some imbecile says.... "Me too"
>
>

And what does improper trimming have to do with top posting? Nothing. Of
course quoted replies should be trimmed but that's not what we are
discussing.


--
Peter Aitken

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> He's right, you know.
>

And who is "he?" Whether intended or not, your post is a perfect example of
replying without quoting is a bad idea.


--
Peter Aitken

Steve B. wrote:
>
>
> Reasons to bottom post: The entire conversation is right there for you
> to scroll through. Just the relevant points if the poster is a good
> snipper, but most are not. And you get some really big messages this
> way. Bet you did not even read down here to see this.
>
> Steve

You'd lose that bet. What I didn't read was the TOP posted bullshit.
Keep it up and you'll join other top-posters in my filters. Top posters
usually have nothing worthwhile to say anyhow. Your thread is a case in
point. Simply trolling.

--
Steve
Ever notice that putting the and IRS together makes "theirs"?

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote:
>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > He's right, you know.
>> >
>>
>> And who is "he?" Whether intended or not, your post is a perfect example
>> of
>> replying without quoting is a bad idea.
>
> (pssst--that was my intention. sorry you missed the sarcasm.)
>

As my post says, I *did* get it but was not sure it was intentional. It was,
I msut say, a beautiful example!


--
Peter Aitken

In article > ,
Steve B. > wrote:
>Today with all newsgroups and most e-mail programs
>threaded it is preferable to top post.

False.

The best way to post is to trim your attributions down to only the
minimum necessary to retain context, or to paraphrase if you can do
so accurately. Once you have done that, the new text should go
below the minimally-quoted material.

Note that I could have started this message without quoting, simply
by writing, "Steve B says that it's best to top-post these days."

-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | Failure is not an option.
http://www.pattib.org/ | It comes bundled with
Check out www.tribe.net ! | your Microsoft product.