# Flattening Water Stones



## Muina (14 Apr 2011)

Don't know if this is in the right section, sorry if it's not 

I was just wondering how everyone flattens their water stones? Using a commercial flattening stone, dry wall screen, diamond stones etc...

I use a (known) flat piece of wood with a thin kitchen scourer to get rid of the glaze and this flattens the stone while it's at it but I would like to hear any better methods.

Thanks

Anthony


----------



## Schtoo (14 Apr 2011)

I use a diamond plate. Actually, confession time, I use one of 5 different diamond plates...

General flattening I use an Atoma #400. Honestly, about as good as it gets without spending too much money. I wish I didn't sell so many of the things so that recommendation might carry more weight. Flat, fast, easy to use and they last for a very long time. Not exactly 'cheap', but best bang for the buck/yen/quid...

I also have a DMT Duo-sharp in coarse/fine and it works, but it also clogs very rapidly and needs to be flushed often. I've taken to using this one with fine grit stones for touch up and generating some slurry since getting the slurry off the plate and onto the stone is easier than with the Atoma. That's not a good enough endorsement for the DMT though.

Throw in an iWood #300/1000 two sided steel plate. Clears slurry better than the DMT, works fast, lasts well, isn't expensive. It's a good plate, but given the option of the Atoma, I regret that the iWood can't match it.

I use a small iWood #400/1000 plate as a 'nagura' stone for conditioning and generating slurry in a localised fashion. Just a rub on the ends of a stone, a quick swipe over the full length and it's job is done. I also have an oooooold lap sharp ultra fine that I use for the same task. 

I exclusively use ceramic stones now though, and they really do need something a little tougher/more aggressive than older style clay based stones like Kings. 

Sounds like I'm being obsessive-compulsive about it, but in all seriousness, the Atoma gets used 99% of the time and it's a very quick couple of rubs, a flush and get to sharpening. Maybe 30 seconds worth of effort. 

I used to use loose grit on a steel plate, and I've used flattening stones before as well. If you can swing for a decent diamond plate, it's not something that'll need replacing for a long time so long as you give it a modicum of care and attention. 

(And they'll flatten out oil stones as well, if you've got them.)

Stu.


----------



## Racers (14 Apr 2011)

Hi,

Thick perspex and wet and dry stuck down with water.


Pete


----------



## János (14 Apr 2011)

Hello,

I seldom use waterstones... I flatten my stones on a piece of concrete paving stone (40cmx40cm), cheap and affordable, so to speak...

Bye,

János


----------



## Evergreen (14 Apr 2011)

I also flatten my waterstones on concrete paving slabs - the ones in my front garden path. It gets the waterstones flat very quickly and it cleans up the paving slabs a treat!


----------



## Muina (14 Apr 2011)

Are all paving stones as flat as you'd need for sharpening or do you have to kinda hunt around for the perfect one?

I've wanted to try wet and dry but just haven't got round to it, how fast does it flatten the stone and do you have to use different grits for different grade stones?

I'm guessing for value for money the paving stones would be the cheapest overall because I can imagine going through quite a lot of wet and dry, I've also heard of diamond stones clogging up so much that they're not practical to use anymore if you're not careful.

Thanks

Anthony


----------



## matthewwh (14 Apr 2011)

The best thing i have found is 100 micron film on MDF, used dry it is remarkably quick and gives as much flatness as is sensible on a waterstone and a sharp bang on the edge causes the majority of the debris to fall off and you are back to square one. 

As a bonus you can use the film to get the tool to a standard where the waterstones are effective (i spent many frustrating hours with sore fingers learning the limitations and advantages of waterstones).


----------



## Schtoo (15 Apr 2011)

matthewwh":i2hbt91t said:


> The best thing i have found is 100 micron film on MDF, used dry it is remarkably quick and gives as much flatness as is sensible on a waterstone and a sharp bang on the edge causes the majority of the debris to fall off and you are back to square one.
> 
> As a bonus you can use the film to get the tool to a standard where the waterstones are effective (i spent many frustrating hours with sore fingers learning the limitations and advantages of waterstones).



Uhh, are you doing the 'dry flatten' thing with King stones? You are aware that when they are wetted they swell a little, and need to be flattened while wet, right? Most stones do change a little when wet, and flattening dry, well it's kinda pointless. And semblance of flat is gone as soon as the stone gets wet. Kings are not too bad, Chosera are notorious for it. 

(I was loathe to mention that to you Matthew, but it is how it is. We must get you off them King things...)

To the OP, some diamond plates do clog, but it's NEVER enough to render the plate useless. It can always be removed, and much easier done while the stuff is still wet. Loading can and will bring the proceedings to a halt. In my experience, DMT are the worst, followed by the 'diamond' pattern ones, then Atoma and finally the Shapton diamond plate (overpriced by about 200%). I use the Atoma because even when it's loaded up to a point where it should stop working, it still works and by that point, the stone is flat again. And they last a long time. I have thousands of flattenings on mine (most of them documented) and it still shows no signs of being worn. They're good.

I've not yet a concrete paver flat enough, and half the stones I have will eat concrete paver blocks, concrete building blocks, concrete footpath, asphalt, bricks, sanding belts and sand paper. Actually, I should say the stones will flatten concrete nicely. The stone, not so much. 

I keep forgetting that most of the folks here associate 'waterstone' with King stones and similar soft, older style stones. It's a problem to switch terminology depending on geography, and I'll try to keep it in mind from now on.

The problem is comparing a standard King stone to something ceramic, it's not really comparable in the usual sense. Kind of like comparing the Wright flyer to Concorde. They both fly, and that's where the similarities end.

Hope that helps, and I wish you luck.

Stu. 

(Who's used every flattening method known to man, and wish I'd just used a diamond plate or loose grit on glass/steel from the get go. Would have saved me hours of frustration. I like to save others the trouble of trial and error if I can.)


----------



## Muina (15 Apr 2011)

I am indeed using the king stones, and considering up until I got one I'd just been using a coarse oil stone I find it absolutely incredible!

The method I use with the scourer does work, but every time I use it I can't help but think "this isn't right, it's going to end up in tears" so I want to try using a method that won't make me cringe.

Thanks

Anthony


----------



## János (15 Apr 2011)

Hello,

Mechanically compacted concrete paving stones are remarkably flat. Flattening a bench stone on a paving stone will flatten both of them even further. Concrete is made from the same abrasive materials as the bench stones themselves, so the paving stones are effective on almost every kind of sharpening stones. (diamond plates are not stones in any sense, as you can not call a piece of steel electroplated with crystalline carbon a "stone").

The world is not more than the permanent reappearance of the same old things... Men, who were eager to evangelize about the merits of SOFT JAPANESE WATERSTONES, now switched to newer gods; hard vitrified stones, and ceramic stones, and diamond coated steel plates. Perhaps they have been tempted by the kami of Japanese quarries. :wink: But now the eyes of theirs are open to the TRUTH...

The main problem is the abundance of self-appointed procators of woodworking mythology... Abrasive technology have not changed much since the XIXth century invention of manmade grinding stones. And in the context of woodworking there has been no relevant advancement since the development of reliable sanding paper....

Selecting a sharpening method and/or medium is (and always was) a compromise, but on the level of hand woodworking there is no real difference between the suitability and merits of the options available. Select the cheapest one which works for you... And on the money saved, buy some nice wood :wink: 

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Schtoo (15 Apr 2011)

Anthony, 

Does the scouring pad get the stone flat? If yes, and you can flatten with it while the stone is still wet and ready to use, there's no truly wrong answer if it works. 

My standard answer to folks who want to get their stone flat on the cheap is to find some #80-200 abrasive grit and a piece of glass. Wet down the glass, apply some grit and flatten away. Can be used with the stone still wet, is fast and effective. 

Also approved by all sharpening stone manufacturers here in Japan. 

Good luck with it,

Stu.


----------



## Muina (16 Apr 2011)

The pad does get the stone flat, but leaves behind little bits of green nylon which can be pretty tricky to get off without flushing it for a minute. Also it doesn't do the best job of removing the glaze unless it's a brand new pad.

I would like to try the glass and wet 'n' dry method actually, mainly because I could use the same stuff for lapping my planes and it'd save space for the brasso-on-glass-super-sharp sharpening method too.

I guess as a rookie (like almost every other before and after me) I've been blinded by the "Buy our product, it's better than anything else" attitude, I'm only just starting to realise that, more often than not, something you make yourself/improvise will actually be better and much cheaper!

After all, this is probably how most of the products were started in the first place anyway.

Thanks

Anthony


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Apr 2011)

> Uhh, are you doing the 'dry flatten' thing with King stones? You are aware that when they are wetted they swell a little, and need to be flattened while wet, right? Most stones do change a little when wet, and flattening dry, well it's kinda pointless. And semblance of flat is gone as soon as the stone gets wet.



Hi Stu

Thank you for saying so! For years, when I used King stones, I would recommend that they _only _be flattened when wet... that the surface was different when dry - and they were used wet and not dry. I have read recommendations in magazines to leave the stones to dry so that they may be flattened, to do so once a week, and on that day do all the sharpening! Does this person reckon that their stones only need to be flattened once per week (!), or that one only sharpens blades once per week (!!)?

Even with my Shaptons I only ever flatten them before they are used, leaving them alone at the end of the day, gunge and all.

There are issues here: how often does one flatten a stone ... or how flat does a stone need to be? 

Firstly, in reply to the OP, I use Shapton ceramc waterstones (1000/5000/12-15000), and these are flattened on a Shapton diamond plate (275 grit). Is the Shapton DP overkill? Probably, but I picked it up new and relatively cheaply at an estate sale. Prior to this I used a DMT Extra Coarse duostone (275 grit), and that worked very well. The DMT is now used to flatten blades.

When I used King stones I was satisfied with plasterboard/drywall mesh (220 grit). These are soft stones and may need to be flattened after - sometimes during - every blade.

How often do I flatten? It depends: if I use a honing guide, then the stones need to be very flat. If I am lapping the backs of a blade, then the stones need to be very very flat. However, if I am freehanding a blade, then the stones need to be reasonably flat, but it is not critical. The difference between a honing guide and freehand is that the effective length of the sharpening area changes. The smaller flat needed when freehanding means that the stone can still be effective with a curvature.

Janos, there is nothing wrong - or right - about using a paving stone. I might argue the same for a laser system (I'm sure someone will invent it, and some will thenm want it  ). What ever floats your boat. There is nothing right or wrong about whatever works for anyone. I went for a diamond stone because it makes my life easier. The cost was not a big consideration at the time.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Schtoo (16 Apr 2011)

Muina":307s162i said:


> I guess as a rookie (like almost every other before and after me) I've been blinded by the "Buy our product, it's better than anything else" attitude, I'm only just starting to realise that, more often than not, something you make yourself/improvise will actually be better and much cheaper!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Anthony



Hi Anthony,

I can understand that, it's difficult to wade through everything, especially when you're still accumulating information about something. It's good to be cautious about what you spend your hard earned money on, and even better to seek advise from those who have no vested interest, but they should also be honest and knowledgeable too.

It is difficult to wade through all the sales pitches too. Which is why I don't make them in the conventional sense. If I know something will work, I'll say it but never pressure anyone into buying it if it's something I sell, or even if it isn't. 

From my side of the counter, it's always frustrating following up after someone has gotten something that hasn't lived up to expectations, and is looking for something better. It's nice to be able to provide "exactly what's required" on occasion, but I often wish I'd been able to provide that from the very start.


Derek, I know. Not saying it to try and sell something, only because that's how it is. Some here fail to realise that though... :roll: 

Kind of hard to use the completely wrong thing for the job (a concrete block) when the right thing (loose grit on a flat surface) is so cheap and easy to find, and you're only trading practicality for money. Why on earth anyone might decide that flattening a valuable 'glorified brick' on an actual brick escapes me. It's not like a piece of scrap glass and a smattering of sandblasting grit will cost more than a dollar anywhere on the planet. 

If any of you are that hard up, you find a piece of glass and send me your address. I'll send some loose grit to use with it for free. I can't do much more than that... 

Stu. Who's growing weary of sharpening threads. They always end up a mess...


----------



## SeanG (16 Apr 2011)

Hi Anthony,

I was taught to use waterstones by David Charlesworth, his method is to flatten often - after every operation. The flattening is done using wet & dry (240 from memory) wetted down onto a known flat surface (float glass in this case) . The surface of the stone is marked with pencil first, this will be removed by the fllatening process - no more pencil = job done.

this is my sharpening setup 





https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/PlCHR4HlKKWqDEGytTZ8Ew?feat=directlink
Sean


----------



## Muina (16 Apr 2011)

I always love to hear other peoples' methods of doing anything, it makes it easier to perfect my method. I think about it like this: Try one method a million times you've got the expertise of one person, try a million methods once and you've got the expertise of a million people.

I flatten my stones after every single sharpening, that way all the gunk gets removed almost instantly and I can use it straight away next time. I can't really imagine why you'd wait till the end of the week to flatten your stones, your tools would develop curved edges over the week and by the beginning of the next week you'd end up having to regrind them to get them all flat again. You take care of your tools in other ways by storing them correctly and protecting the edges etc. but why not take the same care of your stones? The only thing I don't really take that much care of is my strop, that's because it's so cheap and has the least destructive effect on your blades, but I still try and make sure it's not damaged.

It can get frustrating for anyone when a salesman tells you "This is the best product I've ever tried" when you know for a fact they've never used it in their life. Like TV salespeople saying "It's really good, I've got this one at home" - How big is their house if they've got all this stuff! I want their job if they can afford everything in the shop! I was looking to buy a table saw a couple of years ago and we found a flip over saw in B&Q, the salesman was in the middle of telling us how good it was and that he uses his all the time when he got stuck and had to go ask his supervisor to show him how to flip it to the table saw!

So that's kind of the same thing with the original topic, as long as you aren't hounded by salespeople trying to tell you which product is best you get a much better picture from trustworthy people telling you their own ways of doing it without spending a ton of money. Although there will be some products on the market which really are the bee's knees.

Anthony (I think that's the longest post I've ever done  Sorry if I went off on one!)


----------



## matthewwh (16 Apr 2011)

The reason I like King stones is precisely because they are soft, or more accurately graduated from soft to hard - the clay used for the coarse ones being softer than the fine ones. The Charlesworth method exploits the way that the stones wear away in order to first promote minute concavity in the back of the blade, then use that concavity to ensure that the underside of the cutting edge can be reliably polished with minimal effort on a freshly flattened stone. 

Dry flattening is significantly faster and less messy for producing the initial surface - which I am going to deliberately take out of flat anyway, hence I'm not going to worry about minute disparities of absorption rates across the surface etc. For flattening between stages one and two the stone will always be wet anyway so there is no choice, but the surface of a soft stone moves as you use it seems rational to me that 'once the pencil marks are all gone' is about as flat as it is relevant to consider.

I did have a go with one of David C's Shapton (iirc) ceramic stones a while back and was left with more questions than answers. Yes it was flat and hard and cut quickly, but it glazed almost on the first stroke! I spent more time cleaning the surface than I did sharpening. If it's hard and stays flat you can't exploit the wear patterns as described above and if you want something hard and flat why not use something properly hard and flat like a diamond stone? I'm happy to retain an open mind about them and would welcome any edification / explanation anyone can offer.

For the vast majority of my own sharpening I now use PSA backed lapping film on glass, working through a broad selection of grades is arguably a more significant factor than which type of abrasive is used. The film is cheap enough that you can have all of the grades for less than the price of one stone. I prefer this to loose grit because it stays put and doesn't abrade the substrate, but each to their own.

I do still get the stones out occasionally just because I enjoy using them, but it's a bit of a guilty pleasure. There is something rather nice about the ritual of using them - in a kind of tea ceremony way.

On the salesman front, I'd like to hope that the contributors on here from both sides of the counter typically provide a rather more informed and considered discourse than just 'buy this - it's good'. For example, if Stu wasn't confident that his stones could live up to the hype, I'm sure he wouldn't be extolling their virtues in a public forum - hence the open mind.


----------



## Muina (17 Apr 2011)

I'm the same, I do love using the stones even though I know there are cheaper and ultimately easier ways of doing the same job. I think it's the fact that it's the only real thing that's been used in basically the same way for hundreds, if not thousands of years and only now are we really starting to use other ways.

Actually I did have a thought on this, I've heard about a method rubbing two stones together until they're flat. Would this be a good idea? It'd be the same kind of thing as rubbing it on a paving block wouldn't it?

Anthony


----------



## SeanG (17 Apr 2011)

Rubbing two waterstones together is done to prepare the surface just prior to use - but both stones will already be flat - the rubbing together isn't to flatten them.

Rubbing two erodable surfaces together will only ensure they end up as mirrors of each others shapes, not flat. To make sure things are flat you need three of them - http://home.comcast.net/~jaswensen/mach ... _edge.html

The paving block thing probably works because the slab is harder than the sharpening stone, sort of like a lapping plate. If you use the same slab often enough I reckon it won't stay flat for long. Not that I've tried it mind.............


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Apr 2011)

matthewwh":28vcyvvd said:


> The reason I like King stones is precisely because they are soft, or more accurately graduated from soft to hard - the clay used for the coarse ones being softer than the fine ones. The Charlesworth method exploits the way that the stones wear away in order to first promote minute concavity in the back of the blade, then use that concavity to ensure that the underside of the cutting edge can be reliably polished with minimal effort on a freshly flattened stone.
> 
> ...I did have a go with one of David C's Shapton (iirc) ceramic stones a while back and was left with more questions than answers. Yes it was flat and hard and cut quickly, but it glazed almost on the first stroke! I spent more time cleaning the surface than I did sharpening. If it's hard and stays flat you can't exploit the wear patterns as described above and if you want something hard and flat why not use something properly hard and flat like a diamond stone? I'm happy to retain an open mind about them and would welcome any edification / explanation anyone can offer.
> 
> .....



Hi Matthew

Clearly David finds an advantage in continuing to use King stones, as they are a technology that has been superceded for at least a decade. They were at the forefront of manufactured waterstones for decades, but now they cut more slowly, go out of flat more quickly, and are effective on fewer steel types than more modern waterstones. David is a thoughtful and analytical person, and he would use Kings for a good reason. However I wonder if this is because they are cheap and he believes more easily afforded by his students? David .... ?

I also experienced Pro Shaptons glazing over quickly, or creating stiction, when I first began using them. There is a simple solution - just add a little liquid soap to the water you spritz over them prior to use. Not only does this keep them clean, but it keeps your hands clean as well. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Muina (17 Apr 2011)

SeanG":2shk8ywi said:


> Rubbing two erodable surfaces together will only ensure they end up as mirrors of each others shapes, not flat. To make sure things are flat you need three of them - http://home.comcast.net/~jaswensen/mach ... _edge.html



Good point, I forgot about that, I asked about creating a straight edge a couple of months ago and didn't even spare a thought to the same physics used for flattening stones.



Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> There is a simple solution - just add a little liquid soap to the water you spritz over them prior to use. Not only does this keep them clean, but it keeps your hands clean as well.



Will this work on King stones too? My biggest problem is glazing at the moment, it glazes really badly after the first stroke (I don't know whether it's maybe to do with going straight from a medium oil stone to a super fine whetstone).

Anthony


----------



## Muina (17 Apr 2011)

Oh and by the way I tried the paving slab properly, I got a bit scared when there were huge gouges in the surface of the stone but then it started building up a slurry and it doesn't half work! Perfectly flat (when wet (I checked with a straight edge)), as smooth as the day I got it and no glazing at all (there was always a little bit left that I couldn't get with the scouring pad and it often tried folding up and tore itself). But the best thing on my parents' behalf as they don't know I tried it... absolutely no marks on the paving slab 

I'll just have to find a spare or do it when my parents are out.

Anthony


----------



## woodbloke (18 Apr 2011)

matthewwh":imgfywlj said:


> For the vast majority of my own sharpening I now use PSA backed lapping film on glass, working through a broad selection of grades is arguably a more significant factor than which type of abrasive is used. The film is cheap enough that you can have all of the grades for less than the price of one stone. I prefer this to loose grit because it stays put and doesn't abrade the substrate, but each to their own.


I used to use waterstones (King I think, from Axminster) and could never get on with them...far too messy :evil: Having been introduced to the 3M PSA fims by Matt at a 'doo' a couple of years ago, I also use these now exclusively. Working down through the grades (from around 40 to 1micron) is the range I normally use, with the 60 and 100micron sizes for primarily bevel touching up, where needed. It's true that they wear quite rapidly, but as Matt says, they're cheap enough to be replaced quite often. As with all thesed things though, each user needs to find a way that works for them - Rob


----------



## Muina (18 Apr 2011)

I don't really get too fussy about the mess, I use them on a portable fold-up workbench which can simply be wiped down with a towel when you're finished. Personally I haven't really found any big disadvantages with using the king stones, but then I haven't really used much else. I've used the ceramic stone at college but it hasn't been flattened in quite a while so I can't really use it for comparison.

Anthony


----------



## woodbloke (18 Apr 2011)

It was really the mess that irritated me most of all. I used to keep them in one of those Veritas Stone Ponds (seen the cost :shock: ) and the brown gunge seemed to get everywhere. I think if the user has got access to running water and a sink then they become more 'user friendly' but I also kept on forgetting to get into the routine of flattening before each use and as a consequence I was using dished stones most of the time  With the 3M PSA films the flattening issue isn't important as the user can take it as read that the 10mm sheet glass substrate is a _'flat as a flat thing'_. I'd also say though, that the 3M films are probably best used on a permanently set up sharpening station...lugging around a heavy sheet of glass backwards and forwards to college (say) isn't the most practical solution and you'd more than likely end up with chipped edges or even a broken slab. If I were to cart mine around a lot, I'd probably make a dedicated foam lined box of some sort - Rob


----------



## David C (18 Apr 2011)

Hi Matthew

Clearly David finds an advantage in continuing to use King stones, as they are a technology that has been superceded for at least a decade. They were at the forefront of manufactured waterstones for decades, but now they cut more slowly, go out of flat more quickly, and are effective on fewer steel types than more modern waterstones. David is a thoughtful and analytical person, and he would use Kings for a good reason. However I wonder if this is because they are cheap and he believes more easily afforded by his students? David .... ?

I also experienced Pro Shaptons glazing over quickly, or creating stiction, when I first began using them. There is a simple solution - just add a little liquid soap to the water you spritz over them prior to use. Not only does this keep them clean, but it keeps your hands clean as well. 

Regards from Perth

Derek[/quote]

Derek,

Yes the cost issue for my students is a major concern. There may also be some emotional attachment to the process. I spent a great deal of time, energy and thought into devising methods which overcame the problems associated with soft stones dishing rapidly. I am very proud of these methods which work extremely well.

I have yet to be convinced that the modern stones yeild a worthwhile improvement which justifies the greater investment. The only stone I use regularly is a 15,000 Shapton pro which replaces the King 10,000.

Was that a few drops of Detergent in the spray or liquid Soap please?

best wishes,
David


----------



## Schtoo (18 Apr 2011)

David C":2cr70tki said:


> I have yet to be convinced that the modern stones yeild a worthwhile improvement which justifies the greater investment. The only stone I use regularly is a 15,000 Shapton pro which replaces the King 10,000.
> 
> Was that a few drops of Detergent in the spray or liquid Soap please?
> 
> ...



#1000 grit Waterstone testing. -> http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/wordpress/?p=672

Maybe not convincing, but it might help put things into perspective. 


I should be finishing that little chapter off rather than bashing stuff in here...

Stu.

(I like King stones, but I'll not use them unless I absolutely have to. And I don't _have to_ any more.)


----------



## matthewwh (18 Apr 2011)

Hi Stu,

A fascinating experiment and far more enlightening than the grit count on the side of the boxes. I wish they would come up with a better system - like microns perhaps???

Bear with me, I'm playing devil's advocate purely for the sake of academic rigour, not trying to diss your work or your kit. As your recent (also excellent) post about diamond stones concludes 'grits aint grits', so without referance to the finish provided by a given stone, the data on speed whilst interesting is insufficient to pick a 'winner'. Choosing the one with the fewest strokes could just as easily mean you have chosen the coarsest of the '1000 grit' stones. 

I assume you are working the primary bevel here given the extraordinarily high numbers of strokes involved, are you able to comment on why this is a good thing? Rob Stoakley swears by it, Mr Fujikawa recommends it but for the life of me I cannot understand how it works better than grinding the primary a degree or two shallower and using secondarys at the same angle. (Derek & David I would really appreciate your comments/advice on this point too). I would also suggest that whilst your results show accurately the relative merits of the stones, they may (inadvertantly) artificially exaggerate the wear resistance of solid HSS blades over laminated blue or white if you are removing material from the entire primary bevel. Also I believe the blue chip may be a bit of a red herring as they are impulse hardened and therefore inconsistent - some over hard, some under.

Interestingly I have found (through observational rather than catalogued empirical analysis) that the King stones work perfectly acceptably on Hitachi XR7 (really spendy HSS without the lumps). Admittedly the HSS has noticably higher wear resistance at RC66 than Carbon at RC68, but I didn't feel it got quite as sharp either. More than a match for carbon at RC60 and streets ahead of A2 but at twice the price I'd like to hope it would. In all cases I am acutely aware of the fact that given any decent quality sharpening medium it is good technique that is the ultimate key to minimising the labour required. 

I did recently try some 'extremely affordable' waterstones that were simply called 'stone' in Japanese. I'm not sure what 'clay block with nowt else in it' is in Japanese but I think it would have been a more accurate description. So, yes there is some real dross out there, and some very expensive premium products but pound for pound I'm still very impressed with the value and performance of the King stones.

David, I'll pop some Honerite Gold in the post to you - if you would be kind enough to try it on the shaptons I have a feeling it may solve the glazing issue as well as making the water non-corrosive. Stu you really should be selling this stuff - you'll shift gallons of it in Japan if it catches on.


----------



## Schtoo (19 Apr 2011)

Hi Matthew,

The grit issue, it's complicated. The official government standard is JIS6001-1998, and that's what most stones made since that time are graded to. But King are old, and to maintain consistency over the years, they stuck with the older JIS6001-1987 which has been unchanged for decades previous to the official standard created in 1987. The difference ranges from 20-40% coarser over the range of grits found in sharpening stones for the older standard. Shapton use the old standard as a basic reference, but self impose a tighter tolerance in grit size and maintained it for the Glass Stones that are only a few years old now. Norton use the old standard, but lose their way towards the finer end of the scale. Most of the newer stones use the newer standard of course. Sigma Power uses the new standard across the boards, which leads me onto something else, speed.

You said "Choosing the one with the fewest strokes could just as easily mean you have chosen the coarsest of the '1000 grit' stones. ", and that's not even close to how it actually is. Take 3 stones, the Naniwa Superstone, The Sigma Power ceramic and the Sigma Power Select II. All of them are genuine JIS6001-1998 #1000 rated stones. The Naniwa is resin based, requires no soaking so it's "user friendly" but has little cutting power and is very slow, but gives an impeccable finish and stays admirably flat. The Sigma ceramic is fired like a bathroom tile, requires soaking and is composed of Aluminium oxide with a ceramic binder. It cuts quickly, stays very flat and is nearly silly person proof. You just use it, and it keeps working no matter what you do to it and how abusing you might be to it. It stays exceptionally flat and cuts much, much faster than the Naniwa. The Select II is composed silicon carbide compressed and fired into a semi-homogeneous brick. There is no binder, only abrasive. It needs a soak, and the surface breaks down faster than the Naniwa or Sigma ceramic, but because it uses harder SiC abrasive and replenishes the abrasive constantly, it's faster than anything else out there for the same grit size and finish on the tool.

So, the Select II is the fastest, case closed? Not quite. Because the SII was developed for HSS and similar tough alloys, the way it works allows those steels to be abraded very, very quickly. But it's dumb in that it can't tell the difference between tough Power metal HSS (HAP40, XR7, CPM-M4) or easily sharpened white steel/kamaji (wrought iron) so it 'goes out of flat' at the same rate, regardless of the steel. 

However, the slightly slower in speed but much harder Sigma ceramic wears very, very slowly so stays flatter in use, has good enough AlOx abrasive that it will still work with most any steel available at a good rate, but milks the abrasive in it for every bit of goodness. Because it's porous, any swarf can duck into the stone preventing clogging and any water will be pushed into the stone (reverse osmosis?) so tools won't skip and slide. Because it's a very hard stone, it has no feeling, but you can push it incredibly hard without harming it at all. Heck, they're functionally indestructible only worried by large hammers.

The Naniwa, the slowest of this three speed wise has trouble with tough steel, but can work if you're patient. Because the abrasive is milked for everything again, it wears very slowly, but because the abrasive is softer and more fragile than the AlOx in the Sigma ceramic, it breaks down and leaves a finish on the tool that cannot be rivalled. The stone is 'soft' in feeling making it easier to use but because the binder holds the abrasive like it's gold, you do get clogging and tools can skip on the stone as well. Nice stone, but only if you have simple steel.

For me, I prefer the Sigma ceramic and I can argue that it's the winner not because it's the fastest or easiest to use or flattest, but because it's the Keke Rosberg in the test. Does nothing really exceptional, but does nothing poorly either. In fact, I honestly believe it's the best #1000 grit stone commercially available today because it does everything well and has no real Achilles heel. Just an honest chunk of bathroom tile that won't quit or fail you. 

I could argue the Select II is the winner because it's blindingly fast, all the time. But it dishes, it's expensive and won't last so long, but it's fast, fast, fast! Is the Naniwa the winner, doing all the heavy lifting at the #1000 grit level and being nice and easy to use? Possibly, but not many would agree because it's a slow stone.

Speed isn't everything. 

(And if you want speed at this level, Sigma make a massive #700 stone in the same style as the Select II. Similar to Norton/Shapton/King #1000 in grit, but orders of magnitude faster. I pull that one out when I need to grind down mountains.)

I have plans to make up a proper grit chart soon, and will be updating things a little with regard to stones. I hate mystery and myth, preferring evidence and results. I know #1000 grit stones intimately, but can only offer opinion in other grit grades for now. Not saying I don't understand them too, but have no hard evidence to back it up. 

For a description of JIS6001-1998, check this. -> http://www.fujimfg.co.jp/benri/kenmazairyudo1.htm

It's all in Japanese, but if you can work it out, it gives the size of abrasive as well as the allowable tolerance according to the standard. It's the best example I know of, and matches my printed paper version which is the standard. No fudging.

I've been criticised for doing full bevels on all the tools, and I won't bite. My reasoning for working the full bevel was not because I prefer to sharpen that way (I do, I have my reasons) but to present the maximum amount of steel and push all the stones as hard as possible. I could have used microbevels, and you'd see graphs like a flat plateau which don't tell any story at all. It's also difficult to be consistent with a microbevel with regards to how much steel is on the stone. Using the full bevel face, the amount of steel is relatively consistent across all stones so they need to do the same amount of work as each other. 

I know you're not criticising at all, but it's been said many times that one could use a microbevel and be done quickly. If that were the case, then they'd all perform relatively quickly and we'd learn nothing useful. 

The really telling one is the laminated white steel chisel. Blunted in the same was as every other tool in the test, it was bought back to a usable edge so quickly that I'd have to count individual strokes, which makes differentiation between the stones nearly impossible. So it got blunted by a much larger amount. 

The blades I used were all 'off the shelf' and the same for each stone. There are always variances in blades, but by using only one blade in the test, and none of them 'new', the steel should be consistent for the entire range of testing. By testing each stone 3 times with the same tool, it further reduces the chance of their being some soft/hard steel and while someone else's blades might be harder or softer, the results of their own testing should be similar. 

(Note, Lee Valley have also done a similar test of #1000 grit stones, and had slightly different results. I had nothing to do with their testing, and can't agree 100% with their findings either.)

I use flat bevels on chisels because I like to be able to use that bevel face as a flat reference when paring. Because it's short, there's less effort required to keep it flat or to make it flat initially. Because there's a fulcrum not 1/2" back from the cutting edge, I can lever out of the cut easily if it bites in too hard. I refuse to spend too much effort flattening a back that I need to subsequently protect from harm for the life of the tool, much preferring to make sure close to edge only is smooth and relatively flat and finely finished. If I screw up the flat bevel, it's easy to make a new one. Screw up a flat back, and you're in for more time and effort than I have available to repair it. Yes, my chisel backs _are_ flat, but I'm not fanatical about it. That's just me though, and I don't expect anyone else to take on my own preferences blindly. 

It's also why when someone asks me "which stones should I get" I always ask what steels they have, how much steel they're putting on the stone and if they know, how they want the stone to perform. Without that knowledge, no stone or any stone could be argued to be 'perfect', I pocket their cash and leave them to work out why they can't get their tools sharp in a manner they'd hoped for. I can't do that and sleep well at night. It's also why I have so many options available in the way of stones, because not everyone wants what I want out of a stone and not every/any stone is ideal for every purpose.

I think that you've found that yes, the King stones will work with your Fujikawa XR7 chisels, up to a point. What's actually happening there is the soft backing steel (not wrought iron) is readily abraded by the stone with little resistance. The stone efforts are then focused on the hard steel, and I'll be blunt here (hah!), it's out of it's depth. The steel is almost as tough/hard as the abrasive in the King stone, and it's not so much abrading the hard steel as tearing it. Some abrasion will occur, but the very hard carbides and nitrides in the steel are harder than the stone's abrasive. The tool will become sharp all the same, but the difference between one of those chisels sharpened by a series of King stone and the same chisel sharpened with a similar series of Select II (made for the job) is like night and day. The 3M films work well on those chisels because the abrasive is up to the job. Diamonds work well because the diamonds are harder than the '*-ides' in the steel (but diamonds bring other problems to the table I won't get into here). AlOx and SiC work well because they are up to the job, but only just and on occasion, are not quite hard enough. 

The chisel I used was solid HSS, and I think it's fairly obvious what happened when the King stone was tested with it. The steel was as hard/harder than the abrasive so the stone couldn't work. It actually felt greasy on the King stone because the stone would not cut the steel at a rate that allowed the stone to work effectively. If I'd used a microbevel, then I know the King would have worked to a degree but then I'd still be in the dark as to how effective King stones are with hard HSS.

A similar effect occurs with the Sigma ceramic #120, compared to any other very coarse stone out there. Most of these stones use the 'King method' of shedding grit quickly, offering fresh abrasive all the time in order to cut quickly. It doesn't work that well though, especially on very tough steels because the stone dishes so rapidly, you end up doing more harm than good. The Sigma uses a much stronger binder that allows the grit to hang around for long enough to start shredding the metal, not really abrade it. The Shapton Glass Stone #120 also has a strong binder, but for whatever reason doesn't have the guts on hard, tough steel. As a result, the Sig #120 chews through steel, any steel, like it's cheese and yet stays relatively flat. A unique stone, horrible to use but about as effective as using a sledgehammer to crack eggs. 

Hone Rite Gold? I've already emailed Paul about it, and am trying to get a reply together for him. Unless the stuff contains something to significantly alter the surface tension of the water (like soap), then it won't make a lick of difference to the Shapton. The Shapton resin binder softens only when penetrated by water so soaking for 10 minutes or soap them up to speed up the time to soften them up a little and reduce the clogging. It won't stop it if the stones are pushed too hard. Fine grit ceramic stones do have a learning curve (compared to the dead easy to use King fine grit stones) but the small effort required to learn to use them is worth it. *

Hone Rite is interesting stuff, and I'm looking into it very much. Maybe not something I can sell because the store is "Tools from Japan" not "Tools in Japan" and I don't sell anything inside Japan at all, everything goes overseas. Any hint that something is not made in Japan, and I won't sell it. I'm trying to decide whether to relax that policy, or to try and find some other solution. I also need to find out what else is in there besides the anti corrosive stuff. Might be that something else needs adding to it, or it might already be in there.

This whole diatribe got a lot longer than I'd wished for, but I want to make sure that you guys out there are not looking at me as some blow in looking to shift some gear and make a bag of money selling some garbage, only to run away when you all wise up. I've used most stones out there, and have dozens of them of all kinds sitting here, most of them bought so they can be used just so I can be sure that when someone asks, I'm either already aware of how it works or it's a simple case of getting it out and using it. More than once before I've had to refresh my memory, and it's nice to be able to tell someone "Well, I just went and did what you have planned and..."

Stu. 

*No, I don't use Shapton stones, except for analysis and testing purposes. Every time I use them I also have the equivalent Sigma ceramics out, and I'd have to have rocks in my head to believe the Shapton are better than the Sigma in any way. (Sorry, that looks like a sales pitch and I don't want to do that, but it's my honest opinion and to try and say anything different would be dishonest.)


----------



## János (19 Apr 2011)

Hello,

The JIS 6001 is unchanged, as far as I know. They amended it with the ISO standard for grit size determination and designation. So the ISO F scale is standard in Japan now. And the ISO F scale is based on the FEPA F scale for bonded abrasive grains. Perhaps in the future the abrasive producers of the world will shift to an unified designation system, just like American automotive manufacturers shifted to metric.

The No.1000 stones are equivalent to an F360, a 40 micrometres nominal grain size.


> The Naniwa is resin based, requires no soaking so it's "user friendly" but has little cutting power and is very slow, but gives an impeccable finish and stays admirably flat.





> The Sigma ceramic is fired like a bathroom tile, requires soaking and is composed of Aluminium oxide with a ceramic binder.



I do not fully understand what Stu meant by these sentences... Ceramic abrasives are a kind of fused or gelled artificial abrasive grain. NorZon, Cubitron etc. are commercially available examples of this... Any vitrified abrasive is a ceramic in the proper sense of the word, as they are made by firing a siliceous material in a kiln. The composition and amount of binder, and the temperature of firing determines the properties of the stone.
Resin bonded stones are the standard grits, bonded with phenolic resin (sometimes other plastics are used).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Schtoo (19 Apr 2011)

János":m43novzv said:


> Hello,
> 
> The JIS 6001 is unchanged, as far as I know. They amended it with the ISO standard for grit size determination and designation. So the ISO F scale is standard in Japan now. And the ISO F scale is based on the FEPA F scale for bonded abrasive grains. Perhaps in the future the abrasive producers of the world will shift to an unified designation system, just like American automotive manufacturers shifted to metric.
> 
> The No.1000 stones are equivalent to an F360, a 40 micrometres nominal grain size.



Janos,

JIS6001-1998 designates #1000 grit as 11.5±1.0 micron. JIS6001-1987 designates #1000 grit as 15.5±1.0 micron. The maximum particle size for the 1987 standard _is_ 42 micron, but that's a tolerance measure not the specified grit size of which 97% of the particles in the designated grit size must be. 

The difference between JIS6001-1987 and JIS6001-1998 is that the older measure uses a sedimentation tube method of measuring the abrasive grains, the 1998 standard uses an electrical resistance measure and is considered more accurate and reliable. 

I don't know where you're getting your information from on that point, but it's wrong. Sorry.



János":m43novzv said:


> I do not fully understand what Stu meant by these sentences... Ceramic abrasives are a kind of fused or gelled artificial abrasive grain. NorZon, Cubitron etc. are commercially available examples of this... Any vitrified abrasive is a ceramic in the proper sense of the word, as they are made by firing a siliceous material in a kiln. The composition and amount of binder, and the temperature of firing determines the properties of the stone.
> Resin bonded stones are the standard grits, bonded with phenolic resin (sometimes other plastics are used).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide
> ...




I don't know what you mean here either. 

The Sigma Power ceramic stones have a ceramic abrasive (Silicon Carbide, Aluminium Oxide, etc.) and a ceramic based binder, the mixed material being molded into shape and fired in a kiln to create the stones. No plastics or resins involved at all. The binder offers minimal abrasive action, but it is a ceramic material. The abrasive itself does the work, also being a ceramic material.

I'm not going to speculate on what other manufacturers use other than the broad descriptions of resins, plastics, clays or mineral binders (calcium, magnesia). The use of the word 'ceramic' is generally accepted to be in reference to the abrasive in Japanese sharpening stones, but in very few cases does the word also refer to the binder. Sigma Power ceramic and Bester being two that use ceramic abrasive and a ceramic binder and are known to be fairly similar in the way they work (but not so much in how they perform in use. Very different stones.)

I hope that helps.

Stu.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 Apr 2011)

> Derek ..... Was that a few drops of Detergent in the spray or liquid Soap please?



Hi David

I use a few squirts of liquid soap in my water bottle - not detergent soap as I am not sure whether there are additives that may be harmful to the stone - just enough to obtain a fine soapy mix in the water. 

The difference this makes to a Shapton is remarkable. I have not used it on my Kings - which have not been used in a few years - but do not see why they also should not be enhanced.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## János (19 Apr 2011)

Dear Stu,

I acquired my info from my education, and from books, and internet sources:
http://www.fepa-abrasives.org/DesktopDe ... =0&tabid=0
http://www.uama.org/Abrasives101/101Standards.html

and the ISO standard 8486.

Here in Europe a stone is called _vitrified_ if it was made with siliceous binders and fired. A stone is called _resin bonded_ if it was formed with a synthetic resin as an adhesive/binder (the resin is phenolic in the majority of cases/uses). The term _ceramic_ is used when the abrasive grain used is a man-made, modified specialty material other than standard aluminium-oxide or silicium-carbide. These ceramic grains are made/modified by the addition of yttrium, cobalt, hafnium-oxide etc., and outperform standard SiC and auminium-oxide grains in many respects. In the common parlance a stone is called _ceramic_ if it contains these ceramic grains, just to differentiate them from SiC and aluminium-oxide stones.

Perhaps the main problem has been your not so strict use of terminology. Not too easy to decipher the meaning of your words...

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Schtoo (19 Apr 2011)

Janos, 

2nd link is 24 years out of date.

1st link, I can't find anything tangible in it. Just a lot of linking off to more information about what's available, but no hard data without paying quite a lot of money for something that may or may not be useful. And no mention that I could find of the Japanese standards. Sorry to burst your bubble here, but regardless of what the rest of the world uses, when it comes to waterstones and sharpening stones intended to be used with water, the JIS standard has become the De facto international standard. Other abrasive things like paper and polishing compounds, who knows. Nobody can agree on anything anyway so you end up with several 'standards', none of which agree with each other. Lets just stick to the JIS standard, unless you are keen to continue the confusion. 


Here's the problem with ceramic sharpening stones.

What it says on the box is 'ceramic'. What is inside the box has ceramic stuff in it. These stones are intended for folks who couldn't care less about semantics, just that what's inside the box does what it says on the outside.

The original nomenclature of these sharpening stones is something I had nothing to do with can cannot change for fear of diluting the information into a million little fragments and making things more confusing than they really are or should be.

If you wish to argue semantics and bring up all manner of obscure references, be my guest. I really couldn't care less what you do. I've got enough of a mess to sort out as it is without wasting my time trying to 'tidy things up' to your satisfaction, when we both know it won't make any difference to you. 

Good luck, and when you can come up with something that's not 2 1/2 decades out of date, let me know.


Stu.


----------



## Jacob (19 Apr 2011)

Schtoo":3i1kr35k said:


> ...not looking at me as some blow in looking to shift some gear and make a bag of money selling some garbage, ........, that looks like a sales pitch.....


No worries Stu. If anything you are having the opposite effect - water-stones clearly far too complicated for a simple fu&&er like me. :shock: 
I'm sticking with my 2 old oil stones. They'll probably see me out.


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2011)

Jacob":zlhs7hlp said:


> Schtoo":zlhs7hlp said:
> 
> 
> > ...not looking at me as some blow in looking to shift some gear and make a bag of money selling some garbage, ........, that looks like a sales pitch.....
> ...



How many sharpening stones do you have, Jacob?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (19 Apr 2011)

48÷2(9+3)


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2011)

Jacob":1i6vgus9 said:


> 48÷2(9+3)



288 ? Too many stones.

BugBear


----------



## János (19 Apr 2011)

Dear Stu,

That link is not out of date, as there was no relevant change in the JIS standard. You get what you paid for, and useful/reliable information/knowledge was/is never cheap. 

I am not Japanese, I was raised and educated in the European attitude of "it is always good to know, how things work". This is the "scientific approach", so to speak.

In the beginning, I have found your account of the three sharpening stones interesting, but it turned out to be meaningless, as it lacks any scientific/factual background information about the stones.

The key to meaningful discourse is the correct use of terminology/words, wether that bothers you or not. But your use of a confused/debased terminology does not help to clean up things, it makes the situation even worse in fact...

Perhaps JIS is the "de facto" standard in the part of the world where you reside, but here in Europe we (and the manufacturers) stick to FEPA ISO norms, just to avoid confusion, and to have a common denominator.

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## János (19 Apr 2011)

Dear Stu,

I have done you a favor, and looked up the different issues of JIS R6001. 









The grain size is determined with the electrical resistance test method. Sedimentation test method yields a little larger sizes.

I am unable to find the changes you have mentioned earlier.

"Flesh for fantasy", so to speak... :wink: 

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Jacob (19 Apr 2011)

bugbear":2p1quu0i said:


> Jacob":2p1quu0i said:
> 
> 
> > 48÷2(9+3)
> ...


Many of them are paving slabs. How does everybody flatten their paving slabs BTW? It seems a bit crazy to just keep piling them up when one perfectly flat one is all that is required. If I spread them out I suppose it'd save on grass cutting.


----------



## xy mosian (19 Apr 2011)

Jacob":lggwj0jr said:


> 48÷2(9+3)



Somebody must be winding me up. I made that 2.

xy


----------



## studders (19 Apr 2011)

Apparently 'tis another can of worms as hotly debated as Sharpening Techniques and, can be either depending on your chosen medium (method).

HTH - TIPD


----------



## Schtoo (20 Apr 2011)

János":1pxlje9o said:


> Dear Stu,
> 
> I have done you a favor, and looked up the different issues of JIS R6001.
> 
> ...



Well, that IS interesting. That's the very first listing I've seen with those figures, anywhere.

Where did you find it? 

And why should I believe that this single example is correct, when every other example I've ever seen says differently? 

I really, REALLY hope you understand this. I cannot in good conscience believe a single source that you have supplied without ANY suggestion as to where it's come from to be the truth. 

Help me here, please.

In fact, don't. I really don't have the energy to debate with you any more. Sorry. 

Stu.


----------



## Muina (20 Apr 2011)

Lovely day today isn't it...


----------



## János (20 Apr 2011)

Dear Anthony,

Yes it is a perfect day, spring in full bloom, and the sun shines...  Come on April, lay beside me. :wink: 

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## János (20 Apr 2011)

Hello,

Just for your entertainment:

Stu wrote:


> For a description of JIS6001-1998, check this. -> http://www.fujimfg.co.jp/benri/kenmazairyudo1.htm
> 
> It's all in Japanese, but if you can work it out, it gives the size of abrasive as well as the allowable tolerance according to the standard. It's the best example I know of, and matches my printed paper version which is the standard. No fudging.


And this is from him. too:


> Well, that IS interesting. That's the very first listing I've seen with those figures, anywhere.



It is worth looking at the links below:
http://www.fujimfg.co.jp/benri/kenmazairyudo1.htm
http://www.fujimfg.co.jp/benri/kenmazairyudo.htm

Perhaps Stu will believe it for himself, albeit he never ever seen that before, you know. :wink: 

Have a nice day,

János


----------



## Benchwayze (21 Apr 2011)

I used the garden path, paving stones until I found it a struggle working on my knees. Now I use Bosch sander belts, stuck down to a piece of melamine faced MDF. Simples and quite flat enough for water-stones.

HTH 

Regards John


----------



## Benchwayze (21 Apr 2011)

Yes April's here and she's lovely. So is my pet Acer Palmatum, which my father gave me 25 years ago.

As it is every Spring; a perfect specimen.

John


----------



## matthewwh (21 Apr 2011)

How do you know you are a proper woodie?

When you put '1 pedigree sycamore' as your response to the question 'do you have any pets?' 

Marvellous!!!!


----------



## Alf (21 Apr 2011)

Surely you're only a proper woodie if you describe said pet in terms of expected cubic footage...


----------



## Benchwayze (21 Apr 2011)

I'll take a pic later when I get back from 'church'! 

John


----------



## Muina (21 Apr 2011)

I've got a tray full of Sequioa babies, it makes me so proud how they've grown up  

Anthony


----------



## Benchwayze (22 Apr 2011)

I mustn't hijack this thread. :mrgreen: 

So I'll post the pics over in the 'Off-Topic' section! 

John


----------

