flattening honing stones.

[Patrick Chase]

Stewie, I tried lapping stones on glass (with 280 grit valve grinding compound) and the glass rapidly wore out to the point of uselessness. I abandoned the glass and bought a granite inspection surface which is flatter than glass. Then I put sic lube (320) on the granite and flattened my stones. Way better process. I have isolated the abrasive from my flat reference surface so I have flat and abrasive but they don't degrade each other.

Far better process from the start to finish.

Two words: Laminating sheet. It's faster than using SiC directly on glass or granite, and it also avoids the wearout issue.

I agree about using inspection plates BTW. The only time I use glass is when I need light weight or compactness for some reason.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks for posting this Stewie. I have it saved for the time I may move into natural stones.

Good to hear Phil. Let us know how your move to nat stones works out.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

I use a DMT coarse/Extra Coarse diamond plate. I've had it for a bunch of years and it still works great.

And, yes, the stones come out flat.

Mike

Mike; enjoyed your link. I am still a little curious why you would stop at a Coarse/ Extra Coarse Diamond Plate to resurface your stones. I would have thought the surface on your stones would have ended up rather coarse from that type of treatment. Not what I would have expected as an ideal honing surface, even for ceramic stones.

regards Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

My experience has been similar - you can't always judge a stone by its surface roughness. For Japanese-style (read: relatively soft) waterstones there's no reason to flatten with fine-grit media, as it doesn't make any difference to the results you get when you sharpen with them. It matters for some harder stones though.

Patrick; refer to comments I posted to Mike.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Stewie, I tried lapping stones on glass (with 280 grit valve grinding compound) and the glass rapidly wore out to the point of uselessness. I abandoned the glass and bought a granite inspection surface which is flatter than glass. Then I put sic lube (320) on the granite and flattened my stones. Way better process. I have isolated the abrasive from my flat reference surface so I have flat and abrasive but they don't degrade each other.

Far better process from the start to finish.

Hi Chris; interesting experience with the float glass. Mine seen close to 3 months of use with the loose sic, and its seen constant use from flattening hard Norton Carborundum to hard nats, and I haven't noted an issue. If there was an issue, it would show up when I transfer to the smaller float glass with the 400 w & d adhered to its top surface. In effect the 2nd float glass is acting as a reference plate to the integrity of the larger float glass. I am just not seeing the disparity, judging by the pencil marks that are being worn evenly.





As mentioned in my intro in an earlier post, all that's being required is a light work out on the 400 grit. It maycome down to the difference in technique between how I work the stone across the full surface of the float glass. Bear in mind my piece of float glass is 4ft in length x 1 ft in width.

The use of the sic lube is a product I am not familiar with. It would be appreciated if you could post a couple of photo's so I could better understand your technique.

regards Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

I started out using a DMT 325?grit diamond plate to flatten when I switched to waterstones. . I also used it between 220grit wet/dry and 1000grit waterstone. It soon seemed to me the diamond plate was finer than the 1000grit. An expensive dead end. Now I use a granite cutting and 120grit wet/dry. If I remember, iffy at my age, I add grit when the paper loses it's bite. I'm sure Stewie's stones are much flatter than mine. Grit can be had at lapidary stores much cheaper than Lee Valley, they use it to tumble stones in their tumblers.

Thanks Ray; appreciate understanding your flattening technique. I am surprised the paper survives the loose sic. I tried it once with 280 sic, and it was damaging the paper surface inside a dozen strokes.

regards Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

I use the cheap SiC that Amazon sells, made by Panadyne I think. You don't need tightly graded grit for flattening, as occasional gaps/striations don't really impact stone performance (as evidenced by "interrupted surface" plates like the DMT DuoFlat). As you say there's no reason to buy from LV, as even telescope/optics houses like Willmann-Bell are cheaper.

As Stewie so nicely points out I do have a predilection to "exotic" sharpening solutions like tightly graded diamond pastes, but at least those offer some payoff in terms of speed/roughness tradeoff. I don't think that the same is true of getting fancy with flattening.

Patrick; your reference to my costs are significantly cheaper than your exotic tastes.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

Two words: Laminating sheet. It's faster than using SiC directly on glass or granite, and it also avoids the wearout issue.

I agree about using inspection plates BTW. The only time I use glass is when I need light weight or compactness for some reason.

Two words Patrick, Post Photo's.

Also, could you explain the parameters are around what some reason might entail.

The only time I use glass is when I need light weight or compactness for some reason.

regards Stewie;

[Mike Henderson]

Mike; enjoyed your link. I am still a little curious why you would stop at a Coarse/ Extra Coarse Diamond Plate to resurface your stones. I would have thought the surface on your stones would have ended up rather coarse from that type of treatment. Not what I would have expected as an ideal honing surface, even for ceramic stones.

regards Stewie;

When you sharpen a blade on a stone, your movements across the stone are random. And any irregularities (coarseness) in the stone caused by flattening with the diamond plate are essentially random. So the edge is worked evenly as you sharpen the blade.

But the best answer is to sharpen a blade as I describe and then examine the arris with a magnifying glass. Or better still, use the blade and see if you can discern any difference in how it functions compared to sharpening on a stone that has been smoothed to a greater degree.

My experience is that a stone flattened with a coarse/extra coarse diamond plate produces an excellent arris on the blade. Of course, my diamond plate is somewhat worn, so it not as coarse as it was new. And once you began using a stone to sharpen, the stone becomes smoother with every "swipe".

But results are what count, not theory. And my system works for me.

Mike

[Brian Holcombe]

And once you began using a stone to sharpen, the stone becomes smoother with every "swipe".

Mike

It becomes less flat with every swipe, more aggressively so with a coarse plate. I've seen an improvement in quality with a medium fine diamond plate as opposed to a very rough plate.

[Ray Selinger]

Stewie, I used with 120grit paper, Klingspor brand . With the heavier backing paper, I didn't have problem adding grit. Though it did migrate to the edge. I buy the paper by the 50 pack box and tend to use it as if I have a never ending supply.

Since I refurbish old chisels and planes, the cost of the waterstones is spread over a lot of $1 English and Swedish chisels. I don't find as many American or Canadian chisels.

[Stewie Simpson]

When you sharpen a blade on a stone, your movements across the stone are random. And any irregularities (coarseness) in the stone caused by flattening with the diamond plate are essentially random. So the edge is worked evenly as you sharpen the blade.

But the best answer is to sharpen a blade as I describe and then examine the arris with a magnifying glass. Or better still, use the blade and see if you can discern any difference in how it functions compared to sharpening on a stone that has been smoothed to a greater degree.

My experience is that a stone flattened with a coarse/extra coarse diamond plate produces an excellent arris on the blade. Of course, my diamond plate is somewhat worn, so it not as coarse as it was new. And once you began using a stone to sharpen, the stone becomes smoother with every "swipe".

But results are what count, not theory. And my system works for me.

Mike

Mike; if the process works for you that's all that really matters.

regards Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

Personally, my flattening is quick and simple. I use a diamond stone on all my water- and ceramic stones. Years ago I would first cross hatch them with a pencil. Now I do not since they are discoloured already from use, and it is easy to see where the surface is being removed. For Pro Shaptons 1000 - 12000 and Sigma 6000 and 13000, I use a Shapton diamond plate. This replaced a DMT Duo Ultra Coarse (both about 250 - 275 grit). The DMT is still going strong after 12 years. The Shapton is also still working well and about 7 years old.

What I want to ask is why the obsessive flattening routines? The only time I get this way with waterstones is when I need to lap the backs of blades, which is not the same as working the very back of the bevel. Since I freehand on a hollow grind, absolute flatness is not needed. It is more so for using a honing guide, but even there, absolute flatness is unnecessary on the bevel side. Generally, for myself, the flattening process is more about removing a glassy surface than flatness, per se. So why is it so important to you?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Two words Patrick, Post Photo's.

What is up with your obsession with photos?

Trust me, nobody learns anything from seeing a photo of a waterstone sitting in a puddle of swarf. It's a waste of time, space, and bandwidth. If gratifying your photographic compulsion makes you feel good then fine, but don't insist that others behave in the same manner.

I post photos when they are the most efficient way to convey a point, for example to dispell your nonsense about the superiority of Glardon needle files (compared to all of the other ones that are obviously the same design manufactured to the same tolerances) a while back.

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek; I assume I owe some responsibility to answering your question since I am the OP.

The use or non use a honing guide is not something I have a great concern with. What ever method best serves its purpose, I don't see why there should be a given demarcation on the merits of free hand v honing guide. You may want to revisit your own website on past practices with a honing guide. http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Woodwor...ues/index.html

On the question as to why I like to keep my honing stones flat; some of the reasons are tied in with keeping my stones in a condition that allows me the choice of using a honing guide or free hand to work the bevel side of my irons and chisels. But more importantly, I am not a fan of David Charlesworths Ruler Trick, much preferring the traditional approach of working the flat side of my irons and chisels on a flat surface of a stone. As you well know, its not an overly large area past the cutting edge that needs to be worked flat.

Again refer back to your previous practices before you adopted Charlesworths method. http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Woodwor...ues/index.html

Finally, as closing comment on the common reason given by those that abandon nat stones and turn to even harder ceramic's. "They are less prone to go out of flat compared to nat stones." That in itself tells you that users of all types of honing stones are sympathetic to the needs of keeping the top surface of their stones from going out of flat.

I hope I have been able to answer all of your concerns, but if I have missed some critical information, your just need to ask I will try and assist with that delivery.

regards Stewie;