I just bought a set of Japanese waterstones (250,1000,4000 & 8000). After
going through the sequance I noticed that the blade wasn't that polished in
that I couldn't exactly count nosehairs, as I could with scary sharp. I did
a few laps then on 1000 and 2000 wet/dry, and my edge was a mirror.
Now my question, is it my technique, or is 8000 on a waterstone not fine
enough?
TIA
Glen
"Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Now my question, is it my technique, or is 8000 on a waterstone not fine
> enough?
4000 on a waterstone should be a mirror (although I go to 8000 for
woodworking tools).
Fine waterstones are usually hard, which means that they don't easily
generate a sluury, and it's the slurry that does the work. Are you
using a nagura stone to build this up before honing ?
A new synthetic waterstone may also have a surface "skin" to it. They
may even have had a glue-based size applied deliberately - especially
those that are then signed with a brush. It can take a little use
before they really start to work properly. I've stones that work OK
without a nagura now, but they needed one to begin with.
Thirdly, forget worrying too much about the mirror - it's not the
shine that cuts, it's the edge.
"phil" <[email protected]> wrote...
> I thought for plane blades, we were to use dual
> edge bevels. Did this change?
No.
The microbevel, while very, very thin, is still hopefully a flat, smooth
(and therefore shiny) surface.
/rick.
Strop with Chromium oxide after a fine Arkansas and count all the hairs you
want.
How's the edge work?
"Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I just bought a set of Japanese waterstones (250,1000,4000 & 8000). After
> going through the sequance I noticed that the blade wasn't that polished
in
> that I couldn't exactly count nosehairs, as I could with scary sharp. I
did
> a few laps then on 1000 and 2000 wet/dry, and my edge was a mirror.
>
> Now my question, is it my technique, or is 8000 on a waterstone not fine
> enough?
>
> TIA
> Glen
>
>
A ball bearing is pretty shiny, but cuts poorly.
Handsome is/handsome does.
"RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at-- comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Thirdly, forget worrying too much about the mirror - it's not the
> > shine that cuts, it's the edge.
>
> Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
>
> It is my understanding that the more flat and smooth the two surfaces are
> that meet to form an edge, the stronger and sharper that edge. While our
> goal is to get a good sharp edge, not mirrored surfaces, one begets the
> other.
>
> /rick.
>
>
Of course, I was tweaking about the word shine, which is why I used it.
> Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
I've been using Arkansas and ceramics forever, because I do most of my
honing on carving tools, which are not likely to keep waterstones flat for
plane irons. Most important is to clear the wire edge. Finer hone and a
quick rap into a piece of pine can do it, but the shiniest bevel suffers if
the slip isn't applied, or the back of the iron lapped.
Bet I've spent less overall in the last 20 years or so than you have on
sandpaper, though. Haven't thrown any of my four stones away.
"RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at-- comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote ...
>
> > A ball bearing is pretty shiny, but cuts poorly.
>
>
> Well, I did say "<<flat>> and smooth" (emphasis added).
>
Been using Chromium Oxide for almost 20 years. My carving teacher favored
it. It also works well on a powered disk or a felt wheel.
"Jeffo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> An alternative to a fine stone for finishing an edge is the green honing
> compound from Lee Valley. Rub some compound on a flat, smooth hardwood
block
> much the way some use diamond paste, and use that as a sharpening stone.
> I've been using this since December with great results - I usually start
> with 1 000 grit, then 4 000, maybe 6 000, and for something I want to
sing,
> the honing compound. Thanks to Ben and Doug at Shepherd Tools for this
tip.
>
"George" <george@least> wrote ...
> A ball bearing is pretty shiny, but cuts poorly.
Well, I did say "<<flat>> and smooth" (emphasis added).
But you do raise a valid point; a point that makes me somewhat skeptical of
claims that the Scary Sharp sandpaper on glass method is at least as good as
waterstones. While Scary Sharp will result in mirrored surfaces, I remain
concerned that the padding of the paper under the abrasive produces a very
slight "curved hill" right at the very edge of the iron/chisel, which would
likely be most pronounced while honing the microbevel (since such a small
surface is "digging" into the sandpaper, thereby producing a bigger hill --
or valley, if you prefer).
The action of this hill on the edge will not produce your ball bearing, but
it must be somewhat curving the bevel (and the flat side of the iron to a
lesser degree) right at the point of the edge, deterring sharpness.
I would think the hard, flat, non-giving surfaces of waterstones would
contribute to sharper, better cutting edges.
(Despite all this, I continue to use sandpaper on glass -- since it is much
cheaper than the cost of good high grit waterstones -- and I have been
getting results that are at least satisfactory for my needs.)
/rick.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:34:57 -0400, "phil" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Good Golly, I am out of my league here, but:
>
>I thought for plane blades, we were to use dual
>edge bevels. Did this change?
>
>The micro-edge bevel was supposed to be for quick
>touch up sharpening. No matter how sharp you start
>out with, it is going to get dull, and with a second micro-
>bevel you can get a quicker edge than polishing the
>entire bevel.
>
>Again, did this change?
>
>Phil S.
it applies to some blades more than others....
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:18:59 -0400, "RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at--
comcast.net> wrote:
>Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
No. Shine and edge sharpness are not related. Once I used Scary Sharp
to re-establish the edge of my plane irons. When I got up to 600 grit
I noticed the edge was taking on a nice polish. Then, when I went over
to my waterstones to hone I noticed the edge on the 4000 grit stone
wasn't nearly as shiny as the 600 grit sandpaper but, the 4000 grit
stone was much more sharp.
I surmised that the slurry of tiny metal particles and the quick
dulling of the aluminum oxide sandpaper contributed to the polishing
effect of Scary Sharp. FWIW, once I'm done honing on my 8000 grit
stone the edge looks like chrome and can shave off the fine hairs on
my knuckles. My chisels and plane irons are so sharp I've often cut or
knicked myself while hoing without even knowing!
Layne
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Thirdly, forget worrying too much about the mirror - it's not the
> shine that cuts, it's the edge.
Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
It is my understanding that the more flat and smooth the two surfaces are
that meet to form an edge, the stronger and sharper that edge. While our
goal is to get a good sharp edge, not mirrored surfaces, one begets the
other.
/rick.
Good Golly, I am out of my league here, but:
I thought for plane blades, we were to use dual
edge bevels. Did this change?
The micro-edge bevel was supposed to be for quick
touch up sharpening. No matter how sharp you start
out with, it is going to get dull, and with a second micro-
bevel you can get a quicker edge than polishing the
entire bevel.
Again, did this change?
Phil S.
"RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at-- comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Thirdly, forget worrying too much about the mirror - it's not the
> > shine that cuts, it's the edge.
>
> Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
>
> It is my understanding that the more flat and smooth the two surfaces are
> that meet to form an edge, the stronger and sharper that edge. While our
> goal is to get a good sharp edge, not mirrored surfaces, one begets the
> other.
>
> /rick.
>
>
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bet I've spent less overall in the last 20 years or so than you have on
> sandpaper, though. Haven't thrown any of my four stones away.
>
You are probably right, George.
All else being equal (which they are actually not since I have only been in
this game for a short time -- certainly much less than your 20 years), the
sandpaper replacement costs do add up. But I look at $50-70 for a 8000 grit
stone against $3 for a small pack of 2000 grit wet/dry, and I go the cheap
route. I never was very good at investments.
/rick.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:34:57 -0400, "phil" <[email protected]> wrote:
snip
>The micro-edge bevel was supposed to be for quick
>touch up sharpening. No matter how sharp you start
>out with, it is going to get dull, and with a second micro-
>bevel you can get a quicker edge than polishing the
>entire bevel.
Phil,
FWIW, I don't put a microbevel on my plane or chisel edges. These are
western tools too...not Japanese. The reasoning behind a micro bevel
is so one can rehone the ege without taking off too much metal. Also,
the edge is a bit more resistant to chipping. I don't know if it saves
any time or not. Every once in a while...and this is why I don't like
microbevels...is that you have to reestablish the primary bevel.
Once, while spending much time reestablishing the bevel of a couple of
plane irons by hand I decided not to hone a microbevel. I put the iron
in my #6 fore plane and set it for as fine a cut as I could set. For
me it was like an epiphany. I could make shavings much thinner than I
could when the iron had a micro bevel. So thin they weren't coming out
of the plane curly, they were coming out wavy...and so thin, thin like
1-ply tissue. And this was with a stock iron too.
So, that was it for me. No more fussing with micro bevels any more.
Layne
Glen wrote:
> I just bought a set of Japanese waterstones (250,1000,4000 & 8000). After
> going through the sequance I noticed that the blade wasn't that polished
> in
> that I couldn't exactly count nosehairs, as I could with scary sharp. I
> did a few laps then on 1000 and 2000 wet/dry, and my edge was a mirror.
>
> Now my question, is it my technique, or is 8000 on a waterstone not fine
> enough?
"Sharp" is measured by cutting ability, not shine. I use a ceramic stone
followed by black arkansas for finishing. I tried scary sharp and the
result sure looked pretty but didn't cut very well. A few strokes on the
black arkansas took some of the shine off but the cutting ability was back.
8000 on a waterstone is fine enough for just about any purpose--after that
hone with a strop if you need sharper.
> TIA
> Glen
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at-- comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Glen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> Thirdly, forget worrying too much about the mirror - it's not the
>> shine that cuts, it's the edge.
>
> Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
>
> It is my understanding that the more flat and smooth the two surfaces are
> that meet to form an edge, the stronger and sharper that edge. While our
> goal is to get a good sharp edge, not mirrored surfaces, one begets the
> other.
Shiny != flat. I remember a couple of students trying to make optical
flats. One was getting them incredibly shiny but the interference patterns
were all over the place. The other wasn't getting so shiny but his
interference patterns were nearly perfect.
First you want the edges to meet at the right angle, then you want them
flat, then you want them smooth IMO.
>
> /rick.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:18:59 -0400, "RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at--
comcast.net> wrote:
>Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
No, only if the technique is right,.
For one thing, I can easily give you a mirrored bevel on an old
refurbished chisel. But if I didn't flatten the rust-pitted back
properly, the edge will be rubbish.
--
Smert' spamionam
An alternative to a fine stone for finishing an edge is the green honing
compound from Lee Valley. Rub some compound on a flat, smooth hardwood block
much the way some use diamond paste, and use that as a sharpening stone.
I've been using this since December with great results - I usually start
with 1 000 grit, then 4 000, maybe 6 000, and for something I want to sing,
the honing compound. Thanks to Ben and Doug at Shepherd Tools for this tip.
Jeffo
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Of course, I was tweaking about the word shine, which is why I used it.
>
> > Do shine and edge not go together, regardless the technique?
>
> I've been using Arkansas and ceramics forever, because I do most of my
> honing on carving tools, which are not likely to keep waterstones flat for
> plane irons. Most important is to clear the wire edge. Finer hone and a
> quick rap into a piece of pine can do it, but the shiniest bevel suffers
if
> the slip isn't applied, or the back of the iron lapped.
>
> Bet I've spent less overall in the last 20 years or so than you have on
> sandpaper, though. Haven't thrown any of my four stones away.
>
>
> "RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at-- comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "George" <george@least> wrote ...
> >
> > > A ball bearing is pretty shiny, but cuts poorly.
> >
> >
> > Well, I did say "<<flat>> and smooth" (emphasis added).
> >
>
>
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:09:57 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>Bet I've spent less overall in the last 20 years or so than you have on
>sandpaper, though. Haven't thrown any of my four stones away.
Take up sword polishing. I realised I'd spent more on a stone than I
paid for a Norris plane !
--
Smert' spamionam
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:30:00 -0400, "RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at--
comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"George" <george@least> wrote ...
>
>> A ball bearing is pretty shiny, but cuts poorly.
>
>
>Well, I did say "<<flat>> and smooth" (emphasis added).
>
>But you do raise a valid point; a point that makes me somewhat skeptical of
>claims that the Scary Sharp sandpaper on glass method is at least as good as
>waterstones. While Scary Sharp will result in mirrored surfaces, I remain
>concerned that the padding of the paper under the abrasive produces a very
>slight "curved hill" right at the very edge of the iron/chisel, which would
>likely be most pronounced while honing the microbevel (since such a small
>surface is "digging" into the sandpaper, thereby producing a bigger hill --
>or valley, if you prefer).
>
>The action of this hill on the edge will not produce your ball bearing, but
>it must be somewhat curving the bevel (and the flat side of the iron to a
>lesser degree) right at the point of the edge, deterring sharpness.
>
>I would think the hard, flat, non-giving surfaces of waterstones would
>contribute to sharper, better cutting edges.
but it does work ; ^ >
yes the paper does have some give in it. not much, but more than the
stone. under the microscope I'd ecpect to see the last few thousandths
to be at yet *another* microbevel (submicrobevel?)
>
>(Despite all this, I continue to use sandpaper on glass -- since it is much
>cheaper than the cost of good high grit waterstones -- and I have been
>getting results that are at least satisfactory for my needs.)
>
>/rick.
>
>
>
Rick,
It won't take 20 years to see the return on investment. :-) In terms
of getting started quickly and economically Scary Sharp is good. But,
over the long haul stones are cheaper and better. The higher grit
stones (3000 and up) should last most people a life time. FWIW, I
bought a complete set of stones (200, 1000, 4000 and 8000 w/nagura)
for about $100. The lower grit stones (the 200 and 1000) were
incredibly cheap at under $20 each. The 8000 cost somewhere around
$60. If you buy more than 3 stones from Japan Woodworker you get a 10%
discount. It's not mentioned in the catalog so it was a pleasant
surprise when I ordered them over the phone.
Layne
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:40:48 -0400, "RickS" <rick --dot-- s --at--
comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"George" <george@least> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Bet I've spent less overall in the last 20 years or so than you have on
>> sandpaper, though. Haven't thrown any of my four stones away.
>>
>
>You are probably right, George.
>
>All else being equal (which they are actually not since I have only been in
>this game for a short time -- certainly much less than your 20 years), the
>sandpaper replacement costs do add up. But I look at $50-70 for a 8000 grit
>stone against $3 for a small pack of 2000 grit wet/dry, and I go the cheap
>route. I never was very good at investments.
>
>/rick.
>