Your link to Dave Martell's site was to a vocabulary page. I read it in its entirety and didn't find anything about "deposit" burrs, just a bunch of stuff that's in line with the things I said. I read the entire page, searched for "burr" several forms of "deposit," and several forms of "residue," but no joy in terms of deposit burrs for either burr formation or deburring.
Dave's entry on burrs had very little about the physical process of burr formation beyond the practical reality of formation as a byproduct of sharpening. Here it is in its entirety:
– A raised edge or small piece of steel remaining attached to the blade after grinding or sharpening. This is a natural byproduct of the sharpening process. Just like modeling clay being formed into peaks by hand will develop uneven, super thin portions the size of your fingers, steel will form the same peaks of weak material the size of the particles being used to abrade it. The solution is to either deburr
the edge, or wear it down through a rigorous process of refinement
As you can read, this is along the lines of what I've written dozens of time on this forum. But maybe I missed what you meant, could you please furnish a quote from the linked page?
I did read Dave's description of wire edges, and he's in total agreement with what I've repeatedly said here in CT and on other boards. For instance:
Chasing the Burr
– Sharpening on alternate sides of the blade until you can feel or otherwise detect the burr
on one side, then abrading it, until it flips to the other side. The goal is to weaken the burr(s) like a tab on a soda can, so that it will eventually pop off when deburring
. Chasing the burr is not necessary if you are handling burrs and wire edges
through careful and complete refinement
Removal of a wire edge
is the same as deburring, since a wire edge is a type of burr.
– A burr
that is uniform, and runs the length of the cutting edge
. Often mistaken by novice sharpeners for a satisfactory edge. Though it is very sharp, it is structurally weak, and due to the hard use kitchen knives see, it will need to be removed, or the edge will fail
I happen to know that Dave believes in deposit burrs. He's written about metal "finding a new home on the edge" [not a direct quote, but the flavor's right] several times. I don't know if that's the only type of burr he thinks is important or not, and don't much care. He's not an expert in the scientific aspects of the subject in the same way Verhoeven is.
Here's the quote and link:
Let's face it, if you sharpen a steel tool you're going to get a burr at the edge. You know, that little peice of steel that's been abraded away from it's home and is hanging on for dear life.
[Sic] Cf Sept 30, 2009, entry
Dave's belief's aside, you misrepresented your own linked citation. Credibility? Not so much.
Name dropping the American sharpening community isn't going to work terribly well for you -- at least not with me. While I don't know Dave in the same way I know Jon (for instance), I keep up with his blog, his posts on KF and Fred's, and have had a few email/PM conversations with him about sharpening. We're online "friendly acquaintances," very much on the same page, and I've taken a lot from him over the past six or seven years as my own sharpening style moved away from what it was to what it is. He's one of the foremost modern sharpeners, especially for traditional Japanese style edges.
That said, arguing with Verhoeven by citing Dave Martell is very weak. Dave will certainly get your knife sharper, but Verhoeven is THE AUTHORITY on physical processes. He's a legitimate scientist, full professor (emeritus), materials guy, metallurgist, pioneer in the field, author of the classic, "Fundamentals of Physical Metallurgy, author of the more recent "Steel Metallurgy for the Non-Metallurgist," etc., etc.
Dave is nice, knowledgeable, an honest merchant, an expert practical sharpener, and all sorts of other good things, but he's not in the same league as Verhoeven when it comes to this sort of stuff. Whether you honestly don't realize that, or are throwing stuff against the wall in the hope something will stick is not for me to say.
Our disagreement is not about "[my] interpretation of Verhoeven's publishing," which I not only understand quite well but which I posted above, it's about your writing which I found unclear; and your correction of me which I was gratuitous and unedifying.
What's are your empirical, theoretical and/or academic bases for your disagreement with Verhoeven regarding "bending" burrs?
Getting down to cases: While I'm not by any means the world's foremost expert -- or an "expert" of any sort, I know what I'm talking about, my positions are researched as well as experience based, drawn and synthesized from a wide variety of sources, and very middle of the road. Quit being so competitive and wasting so much time trying to prove me wrong. And for God's sake knock off the various innuendo you use to suggest that I'm ignorant; not an expert; not a professional; learned everything I talk about from the internet; don't have "real" experience; the invidious comparison implied when you write that you "only talk about knives you own;" etc., etc., ad nauseum. The whole thing is tiresome and makes you appear foolish -- which you aren't -- to anyone left who might still care.
Nice photographs, btw.
Edited by boar_d_laze - 11/9/11 at 10:08am