This application is a U.S. National phase application of the International application WO 2010/019071 A1 (PCT/RU2008/000773) and claims priority to application 2008132961 filed on Aug. 12, 2008, in the Russian Federation, both applications being hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to portable cutting tools, namely to safety razors.
2. Description of the Related Art
Known is a razor, which contains a holder with handle and at least one pair of blades installed in the holder at a sharp angle symmetrically about the longitudinal axis of the razor (see patent RU 2161088, C1. B26B21/00, published Dec. 27, 2000). Disadvantages of the known device are the unreliable locking of blades located in the central part of the holder, presence of sharp cutting angle within this part and non-optimal selection of blade setting angle. Affording to the customer himself the opportunity to control the angle is not a satisfactory solution of the problem. The retainer holding the blade in the selected position wears out in the course of time and cannot ensure the reliable securing. Besides, the user is not an expert in assessing the efficiency of the selected angle setting, and the optimal angle should be determined for maximum convenience during multiple checks conducted prior to the production of the razor.
The object of the invention is to eliminate the above-mentioned disadvantages. The technical result consists in increasing comfort and effectiveness of shaving, as well as in reducing material expenses for production of the razor. The object and the technical result are achieved in the razor comprising a holder with a handle and at least one pair of blades by installing the blades in the holder at a sharp angle and symmetric about a razor axis, by providing in the center of the holder a cross-piece, which fixes the blade setting, and by selecting the blade setting angle within 75-80°.
It is preferable that the razor contain between two and four pairs of blades with different angle setting. It is expedient that the setting angle of each previous pair of blades in the direction of the razor movement be less than the setting angle of the next pair of blades.
The concept of the present invention will be better understood by referring to the following drawings wherein
Referring to
Referring to
The number of blade pairs may reach four.
The razor 10 operates as follows.
As it moves along the surface being processed, the hairs are being shifted along the cutting edge, thus increasing the cutting capacity of the blade. Thus, the requirements for grinding the blade and quality of steel imposed upon traditional razors with blades perpendicular to the longitudinal axis can be reduced. Additionally, the traditional location of the cutting edge at straight angle results in its rapid wear and respectively in the reduction of the shaving quality.
The tests that were conducted showed that the setting angle of 75-80° is optimal. At a greater angle, the effect of shifting hairs along the blade edge practically disappears, and the razor becomes similar to traditional ones. At a smaller angle, the probability of cutting the skin sharply increases which adversely affects the comfort of shaving.
The symmetrical setting of blades at an angle to the longitudinal axis l of the razor forms cutting corner in the holder center, which is able to hurt the skin. If the razor contains several pairs of blades, each of which extends from the upper (as shown in the drawing) edge of the holder to the lower one, a region is formed in the center, which is processed by the first blade in the direction of the razor movement. Thus the efficiency of the razor can be substantially reduced in the center of the processing zone. This disadvantage is eliminated by making the holder with the cross-piece in the center of the holder to thereby camouflage the cutting corner.
Researches show that using from two to four pairs of blades in the razor is optimal. Setting these pairs at differing angles makes it possible to effectively cut hairs growing in different directions. Moving the razor opposite the direction of the hair growth results in better shaving. In this case, if the setting angle of the first pair of blades in direction of movement is less than those in other blade pairs, most of hairs are immediately cut out at the optimal angle. The second blade pair located at a larger angle shaves hairs growing at a small angle to the direction of the main growth. The third pair of blades shaves hairs growing at a greater angle, and so on. In this case, the described sequence of the setting angles provides for maximum efficiency of shaving at the first stage and increasing further the quality of shaving by next blades. If the blades are set in reverse order, the shaving quality is sharply reduced.
Thus, the razor allows to sufficiently increase the efficiency and comfort of shaving, as it becomes almost painless, as well as to reduce the material expenses for the production of the razor since it makes it possible to use blades with grinding from steel of lower quality.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2008132961 | Aug 2008 | RU | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/RU2008/000773 | 12/17/2008 | WO | 00 | 2/14/2011 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2010/019071 | 2/18/2010 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1226614 | Hiskey | May 1917 | A |
1726570 | Keene | Sep 1929 | A |
1824338 | Finn | Sep 1931 | A |
2156559 | Oldham et al. | May 1939 | A |
2315785 | Greenleaf | Apr 1943 | A |
2342291 | Morelli | Feb 1944 | A |
2382296 | Crowell | Aug 1945 | A |
2565062 | Blanchard | Aug 1951 | A |
3137940 | Curci | Jun 1964 | A |
3466746 | Dawidowicz et al. | Sep 1969 | A |
3722091 | Gagnon | Mar 1973 | A |
4501066 | Sceberras | Feb 1985 | A |
4599793 | Iten | Jul 1986 | A |
4663843 | Savage | May 1987 | A |
4791724 | Dumas | Dec 1988 | A |
4854042 | Byrne | Aug 1989 | A |
4901437 | Iten | Feb 1990 | A |
4980974 | Radcliffe | Jan 1991 | A |
5133131 | Hoffman | Jul 1992 | A |
5307564 | Schoenberg | May 1994 | A |
5426853 | McNinch | Jun 1995 | A |
5522137 | Andrews | Jun 1996 | A |
5579580 | Althaus et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
D378147 | Hegemann | Feb 1997 | S |
5848475 | Hill et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
6055731 | Zucker | May 2000 | A |
6082007 | Andrews | Jul 2000 | A |
6161288 | Andrews | Dec 2000 | A |
6263576 | Drapak et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6418623 | Marcarelli | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6519856 | Dischler | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6823594 | Kludjian et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
7918027 | Colthurst | Apr 2011 | B2 |
20030182802 | Vega et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040231161 | Coffin et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050166404 | Colthurst | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20070220755 | Dror | Sep 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2161088 | Dec 2000 | RU |
61625 | Mar 2007 | RU |
2006134514 | Apr 2008 | RU |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110146081 A1 | Jun 2011 | US |