Ceramic knives, imported in increasing numbers during the past 20, years, have attracted much attention in the United States and Europe because of their initial sharpness and durability especially when their use is confined to relatively soft and tender foods. Major drawbacks to their wider use are their tendency to break if dropped on hard surfaces and the lack of a good, convenient and inexpensive sharpener to restore their edge when they become chipped from use.
Several leading manufacturers of ceramic knives have urged users to return chipped blades to their factories in Japan for restoration. One manufacturer went as far as to install sharpening stations in retail outlets as a solution to the sharpening problem but the inconvenience of either means has hindered widespread use of ceramic knives and none of the sharpening stations has demonstrated that it can restore blades to their original factory quality.
Available information suggests that the Asian blade factories sharpen their ceramic blades depending on skilled artisans who place the blade edges in contact with the disks and as a result, the blade edge quality relies heavily on their dexterity, expensive equipment and skill.
Ceramic knife sharpeners supplied by one Asian manufacturer to retail shops to sharpen their ceramic blades was based on extremely high speed disks, using messy liquid abrasive mixtures. Their performance was very inconsistent and customers were dissatisfied with the results.
Even the most recent retail sharpeners offered by the ceramic knife manufacturers do little more than remove major chips from the edge. A battery powered offering uses conventional steel blade sharpening disks and creates a relatively dull edge far inferior to a typical factory edge. Prior to the sharpener described in this application there has not been a ceramic knife sharpener available to the public that can create a factory quality edge on such knives. In fact all sharpeners which have been available created only poor or inconsistent edges.
The present inventors evaluated whether any of the advanced commercially available sharpeners designed for metallic knives could sharpen ceramic knives, only to find they badly chipped the edge of ceramic knives. All such sharpeners tested were totally unusable to produce useful edges on ceramic blades.
An object of this invention is to provide novel and inexpensive techniques of sharpening ceramic knife blades in the home with a precision equal that to the highest quality Asian factories.
In accordance with one practice of this invention an electrically powered knife sharpener comprises at least one motor driven shaft on which is mounted one or more abrasive surfaced disks. Guiding structure guides and stabilizes the knife to align and position the knife facet precisely at a defined location on the abrasive surface of each rotating disk. The orientation of the knife blade relative to the surface of the rotating disks or other abrasive sharpening member, provides at the points of defined location at least one disk surface abrasives moving in the direction into the edge and across the supporting edge facet and provides at least one disk surface moving in the opposite direction across the supporting edge facet and then out of the edge itself.
The invention can be practiced for sharpening the cutting edge of a cutting instrument wherein the edge of the blade is made of a hard and brittle material of which ceramic is one example.
Various types of sharpening members can be used instead of disks, such as drums or belts.
Various preferred abrasive grit sizes are disclosed as well as preferred linear speeds of the abrasives.
The invention can be practiced where the sharpening members of the pre-sharpening stages move in one direction and the sharpening members in the final stage move in a different direction. Preferably, the directions are completely opposite each other although the invention can be practiced with less changes of direction. Different transmission mechanisms can be used to impart the different directions to the pre-sharpening members as compared to the final sharpening members. In one variation the sharpening members in the pre-sharpening stages are mounted on a first shaft to move in one direction while the sharpening members in the final stage are mounted on a displaced, parallel second shaft with the transmission mechanism being a gear train between the shafts. Preferably the gears are helical gears. Alternative transmission mechanisms can be a twisted belt and pulleys or a planetary transmission. A further variation would be to drive each shaft by separate motors or to mount all of the sharpening members on the same shaft and control the direction through use of a reversible variable speed motor.
What the present inventors have discovered is that even the most advanced technology used successfully in the past to sharpen metallic knives was counterproductive for ceramic knives or cutting instruments made of other hard, brittle, crystalline or amorphous media.
Ceramic knives are formed from ceramic powders such as zirconium oxide and zirconium carbide which are heated to a high temperature appropriate to fuse the powders into knife shapes. The resulting structure is cured for periods of days to add strength to the resulting blades. The bonding of the granular particles is good—leaving a strong material but one that is brittle and unlike steel knives lacks any ductility or flexibility. As a consequence we found the process of sharpening of a ceramic knife must be handled entirely differently from that used successfully with steel knives. The flexibility and ductility of a steel knife allows its very thin edge to bend and distort as it is sharpened and polished vigorously. That ductility allows the steel edge at its extreme tip to bend away from the abrading surface and form a burr which hangs onto the edge in the shape of a microscopic sized hook. That burr must be removed carefully to leave an extremely sharp edge on a steel blade.
Because of its brittleness, the edge of a ceramic blade will not form a burr, instead the edge geometry must be created by chipping, ablating or fracturing process over the entire facets that create the edge—all the way to their terminus.
The inventors have found that the geometry of the facets that form the edge can be initially established reasonably well and relatively quickly by a unique chipping action or fracturing. The inventors have demonstrated that single bonded diamond particles supported on rigid disks and traveling at sufficient speed can successfully chip the ceramic facet surfaces. Diamonds, the hardest material known to man, is hard enough to abrade zirconium oxide or carbide knives but the forces required to abrade are sufficiently large that the fine edge being formed fractures away seriously before it becomes very sharp unlike a fine steel edge that can bend away from those forces.
Commonly the sharpest steel edges are formed by moving the abrasive across the edge facets of a steel blade in a direction from the steel knife body across the facet and on to its edge, then into space. That motion puts the extreme tip of a steel edge under tension, extending it slightly but forcing it away from the facet and bending it into a wire burr as described above.
What the inventors discovered surprisingly is that the brittleness and lack of tensile strength of the ceramic knives results in repetitive and severe edge damage to the edge when the dry abrasives, for example diamonds, move across the facet and exit the facet at the edge itself. Then surprisingly the inventors found if they drive the abrasive in a direction first into the edge terminus and then across the surface of the knife edge facet, the delicate ceramic edge is put under compression (not tension) by the moving diamond particles and the ablating process resulted in superior, sharper edge geometry. With this discovery the inventors were able to produce a partially sharpened edge, but an edge that must be sharpened further by a secondary and different process to create a final edge of factory quality. In these experiments conically surfaced metal disks were used, these were covered with single diamonds bonded securely onto the metal disk substrates by an electroplating process. The diamonds were driven in the direction first into the edge, then across its supporting facet.
Sharpening experiments on ceramic knives were conducted using a variety of abrasives considered to be harder than ceramic knives commonly made of zirconium carbide and zirconium oxide. These abrasives included diamonds, boron carbide, silicon carbide, and aluminum oxide. Other abrasives that could be considered are tungsten carbide, titanium nitride, tantalium carbide, beryllium carbide, titanium carbide. Any material harder than zirconia or zirconium carbide can be used as an abrasive.
It is the intent of this application to describe a practical precision sharpener designed to be used for ceramic knives (as well as other blades of various cutting instruments composed of other sufficiently hard, brittle, crystalline or amorphous material) in the home by the unskilled homemaker. Consequently it has to be compact, user friendly, and affordable. It should, for practical reasons, not depend on liquid for cooling, lubrication or dispersion of abrasives when sharpening. The handling of liquids in any form would as a minimum prove difficult, if not impractical, in the home environment.
Prototype sharpeners for ceramic knives were built to incorporate and demonstrate what we have discovered and consider to be unique using novel methodology developed for chipping, ablating and micromachining as described herein. This made it possible to realize the sharpness and perfection of the best factory-made Asian ceramic knives.
A reliable but inexpensive two pole shaded pole motor 2 operated at the conventional 120, volts AC was selected to drive a series of three (3) sets of specialized truncated conical shaped disks or sharpening members. The surface of the first two sets of these disks 3 and 4 in the pre-sharpening stages are coated with appropriate super hard abrasive-like particles such as diamonds, alumina, or silicon carbide that can efficiently remove the ceramic materials from the blade and create relatively quickly a reasonably good ceramic knife edge. The principles used in this example are equally applicable for sharpeners of widely different external cosmetic designs. The shape of these disks approximate truncated cones but the shape of the abrasive sharpening member can be altered without deviating from the intent of this design.
Selection of the optimum size of the chipping and ablating particles depends on several related parameters—particularly on the hardness of the abrasive, the particle velocity and the force applied (commonly by springs 6 and 7) in Stages 1, and 2. The optimum combination must also be determined with practical regard for the time it takes with a given combination to obtain an edge of sufficient sharpness before proceeding to the subsequent stage. Stages 1, and 2, are very similar in design but they must sequentially prepare an edge of sufficient quality that it can be given a final finishing (which could be polishing or lapping) in a reasonable time in final Stage 3. Stage 3, as described later is of an entirely different design than Stages 1, and 2, as necessary to complete the creation of a factory quality edge.
While other ablating and chipping materials (referred to here as “abrasives”) were evaluated and can be used, in Stages 1, and 2, of this prototype, diamonds were selected. The supporting disks used in both stages were approximately 2, inches in diameter and the point of contact between the disk and the knife facet when sharpening was rotating at a radius of about ¾, inch. Tests were made of edge formation over a wide range of disk speeds (RPM) and with a variety of grit size and crystalline structure. While higher and lower RPM produced a reasonably good edge, the preferred speed that gave satisfactory edge in a reasonable time was in the range of 700, to 4000 RPM which is about 275, to 1570, feet/minute average particle velocity at the location of edge formation. The spring forces found best in Stages 1, and 2, with this speed and velocity range varied from 0.1, to 1.0, pound, with the preferred force being less than 0.6, pound. Spring forces greater than 0.6, pound resulted in more irregularities along the edge and reduced edge sharpness. Size of the diamond crystals during these tests of Stages 1, and 2, varied from 600, to 2000, grit. Satisfactory results were obtained within this range but the greater the particle size, the more dependent the edge condition was on rotational speed.
Pre-sharpening the ceramic blade in Stage 1, requires a relatively larger grit in order to remove promptly any large chips that may exist along its edge. Stage 2, contains a finer grit to create a sharper edge. Both of these stages are designed to rotate in that same direction (See
Experiments and testing indicate that the approach angle of the abrasive particles is less critical so long as the abrasive particles are driven in such a way to compress the blade material in pre-sharpening stages. The approach angle could be nearly parallel to the edge facet or could be nearly perpendicular to the edge facet. The approach angle of abrasive particles at point of contact can be at any angle between 10, to 90, degrees relative to the blade facet with a preferred angle of 90, degrees. To be clear the approach or departure angle is not the facet angle. Previous art of precise abrasive facet angle control can be used for blades composed of ceramic or other suitably hard brittle, crystalline or amorphous material.
The detailed design of Stage 1, considered a unique combination of effective “abrasive” particles of optimized size and crystalline structure, suitable particle velocity (disk size and RPM), and a carefully determined abrasive force against the blade edge (e.g. spring 6) is used to establish and limit the abrasive force of contact between the abrasive and blade facet. Other forms of force could be used to establish and limit the abrasive force such as foam, tensioned plastic components, and other resilient materials. This stage must be sufficiently aggressive to remove all major nicks from the edge and leave an edge of sufficient refinement for Stage 2.
The purpose of Stage 2, is to refine the edge created in Stage 1, sufficiently that the much more sophisticated finishing of final Stage 3, will be able in reasonable time refine the edge to factory quality. In considering the design of Stage 2, it is convenient for purposes of design and construction to drive the disks 4,4 of Stage 2, at the same RPM as Stage 1.
For Stage 2, the major change needed beyond Stage 1, is to use a slightly finer particle size. Because the resulting edge created in Stage 2, will be sharper and its width smaller, it is optimal to use a slightly lower spring force for spring 7 than in Stage 1. The best results are believed to be obtained with spring force in the range of 0.2, to 0.5, pounds. The best particle size is also lower, with grits as fine as 2000, grit.
Stage 3, represented the greatest challenge. Surprisingly the inventors found it is impossible to create a factory quality edge using the technology of Stages 1, and 2. Finishing to the factory level could not be achieved with particles of diamond using the rigid metal backed disks that performed well in the first two stages. Mechanical perfection of the sharpener and its drive was shown to be a serious requirement if rigid disks were used or as the speed increases. For optimum, desired results it proved critical for Stage 3, disks to imbed the “abrasive” particles within a soft plastic medium. The inventors found surprisingly that it is better to reverse or at least change the direction of the abrasive particles, to use higher abrasive speeds and to direct the abrasive laden wheel “out of the edge.” (See
The inventors discovered that the plastic embedment in Stage 3, provides a slightly elastic and gentler impact of the particles against the ceramic knife edge facets and consequently the facets could be eroded and thinned with substantially less damage to the edge itself. The spring tension primarily used in Stage 3, from spring 8 was within the range of 0.6, to 1.24, pounds with a preferred force of 0.8, to 1.1, pounds. The edge thickness could be reduced to that size typical of the best Asian ceramic knives produced by skilled artisans. The abrasive speed in this configuration was found to be most efficient and effective at higher speeds than the pre-sharpening stages. The linear velocity was found to be effective in the range of 700, to 3500, feet per minute with the optimum being 1000, to 1500, feet per minute which corresponds to 3000, rpm and higher. The higher particle velocity is preferred for the final edge finishing in Stage 3.
Satisfactory plastic based disks for Stage 3, were compounded with special epoxy resins supplied by Masterbond (Hackensack, N.J.) composition EP37-3FLF. A ratio of 60% by weight of abrasive and 40% epoxy by weight was used for most of the experiments.
The physical characteristics of that material as determined on a modified Rockwell hardness test with a primary load of 60, Kg and a recovery load of 10, Kg with a ⅞, ″ diameter steel compressor ball was as follows:
In order to incorporate into one sharpener-housing the three disks with Stages 1, and 2, operating with the abrasive driven “into the edge” and with Stage 3, abrasive disk “driven out of the edge,” also in need of higher abrasive velocity in Stage 3, in this prototype shown in
A further variation would be to drive each set of pre-sharpening members on its own shaft with separate motors to drive each stage of sharpening members at its own speed. This would result in three shafts and three motors.
The various alternative forms of electrically powered drive structure can provide the higher abrasive speed and different direction of rotation in the final stage. Thus, such alternative designs can use two motors (
It is also possible to practice the invention with a sharpener having only two stages. The stages of such two stage configuration would use the technology similar to Stage 2, and Stage 3, of the larger (3, stage) sharpener described above.
The two stage configuration would require more time to sharpen a very dull chipped knife. An intermediate sized grit in the first stage would likely be used in the two stage sharpener and consequently it will take longer to remove large chips along the edge. Because of the lower quality of the edge in this first stage it will take longer to finish in the new third stage.
The present invention broadly involves providing an electrically powered sharpener for sharpening the cutting edge of a cutting instrument. In particular, the cutting edge is made of a hard and brittle material, such as a ceramic knife. The sharpener has at least one pre-sharpening stage and at least one final or finishing stage. At least one abrasive surfaced pre-sharpening stage sharpening member is in the pre-sharpening stage and at least one abrasive surfaced final stage sharpening member is in the final stage. Preferably, a guiding structure is provided in each pre-sharpening stage and final stage to guide and stabilize the cutting instrument blade and align and position the cutting instrument edge precisely at a defined location on the abrasive surface of the respective sharpening member. Electrically powered drive structure moves the pre-sharpening stage sharpening member in one direction and moves the final stage sharpening member in a second direction which differs from the first direction.
Some of the features of the sharpener and its method of use include the following.
A sharpener for sharpening knives and other ceramic cutting instruments, comprises two or more stages, where one or more stages provide the rough sharpening (pre-sharpening) and subsequently one or more stages provide the finishing of the edge.
The abrasive grit sizes for effectively sharpening ceramic knives and other hard and brittle cutting instruments can range as follows:
The linear speeds of the abrasives in the sharpener, vis-a-vis the edge of the ceramic knife, is critical for successfully developing the best quality sharp edge.
The abrasive members in the sharpener are motor driven to achieve optimum speeds and direction for the pre-sharpening and finishing stage(s). Since the pre-sharpening stage(s) move in at a different speed and direction than the finishing stage(s), the speed variation and change in direction can be accomplished by:
Some preferred characteristics of the finishing stage(s) are that its sharpening member has an active area for contacting the cutting instrument. The sharpening member is flexible in the active area to allow the disk to flex and bend under repeated loading to provide a gentler impact of the abrasive particles against the cutting instrument edge facets and consequently the facets would be eroded and thinned with substantially less damage to the edge itself and the final edge thickness can be reduced to optimal sharpness. The finishing stage sharpening member is an abrasive loaded polymeric resin system that has a recovery in the range of 61% to 64% and a remaining depression of 145-150, divisions as measured on a Wilson Rockwell test using a ⅞, ″ diameter steel ball with a minor weight of 10, kilograms and a major weight of 60, kilograms. The sharpening member is an abrasive loaded polymeric resin system, loaded 50%-70% by weight with abrasive material particles having a grit size of 5-30, microns, preferably 8-15, microns. The preferred abrasive is tungsten carbide, silicon carbide, boron carbide or diamonds. The abrasive material is harder than the material of the blade to be sharpened, e.g. ceramic.
As would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art other variations are possible within the teachings of this invention.
This application is based upon provisional application Ser. No. 61/578,954, filed Dec. 22, 2011, all of the details of which are incorporated herein by reference thereto.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4627194 | Friel | Dec 1986 | A |
4716689 | Friel | Jan 1988 | A |
4807399 | Friel | Feb 1989 | A |
D303209 | Friel | Sep 1989 | S |
D310620 | Friel | Sep 1990 | S |
5005319 | Friel | Apr 1991 | A |
D328410 | Friel | Aug 1992 | S |
5148634 | Bigliano | Sep 1992 | A |
5245791 | Bigliano | Sep 1993 | A |
5390445 | Giovanazzi | Feb 1995 | A |
5611726 | Friel | Mar 1997 | A |
D409891 | Friel | May 1999 | S |
6012971 | Friel et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6071181 | Wightman et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6113476 | Friel | Sep 2000 | A |
6267652 | Friel | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6863600 | Friel | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6875093 | Friel | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6881137 | Friel | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6997795 | Friel | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7121923 | Sweet | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7198558 | Levsen | Apr 2007 | B2 |
D542616 | Elek | May 2007 | S |
D543430 | Barr | May 2007 | S |
7235004 | Friel | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7287445 | Friel | Oct 2007 | B2 |
D567611 | Elek | Apr 2008 | S |
7452262 | Friel | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7488241 | Elek et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7494403 | Friel | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7517275 | Friel | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7686676 | Friel | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7722443 | Levsen | May 2010 | B2 |
7740522 | Walker | Jun 2010 | B2 |
D620332 | Elek | Jul 2010 | S |
8043143 | Elek | Oct 2011 | B2 |
D651887 | Elek | Jan 2012 | S |
D652284 | Elek | Jan 2012 | S |
D665647 | Friel | Aug 2012 | S |
8267750 | Friel | Sep 2012 | B2 |
20090233530 | Friel et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20110034111 | Elek et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report for PCT/US2012/070779, mailing date Mar. 8, 2013. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130165021 A1 | Jun 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61578954 | Dec 2011 | US |