Guys that isn't me. I was just sharing a video on how a guy sharpens his tools. Nothing more.
Member
Guys that isn't me. I was just sharing a video on how a guy sharpens his tools. Nothing more.
Contributor
Of course it wasn't you, Wendell. We knew that.
Actually, the video would have been fine if it had been edited down to the sharpening.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Contributor
Not everyone knew it. Some suspected a 'trolling' effort or other such nefarious intentions.Originally Posted by Derek Cohen
Of course it wasn't you, Wendell. We knew that.
Actually, the video would have been fine if it had been edited down to the sharpening.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Moderator
I checked it out when it was posted. Marginal relevance notwithstanding, it was not self promotion.
Contributor
Wendell, I apologise for my previous post.
I did not understand you were not the Samurai Carpenter.
My communication is often too direct at times, and even seems rude to myself.
Contributor
My apologies also as I was also one to jump on the bandwagon of criticism.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Contributor
I'm actually quite ashamed of myself.. I felt like I was part of a lynch mob.
Member
Or perhaps I was trolling when I said that...
For the record the closest I come to trolling on SMC is something like this (though to your credit you refused the bait).
[OP]
Contributor
Well, your comments have all been much appreciated. A belated thanks to Malcolm for his kind offer and I just might take him up on it. I now have 16 planes (most of them pretty old) and a few chisels with very sharp blades. I suppose I should start a new thread but I have a couple of observations/questions: 1) Rob Cosman in a youtube video only seems to use a 1k waterstone then a 16K and demonstrates the advantage for using the 16k (he of course is just working the microbevel); 2) to get a good primary bevel on a blade in bad shape I found the Norton 220 stone not very helpful and had better luck with first going to metal sandpaper placed on my jointer bed sometimes after I had re ground the blade on my grinder; 3) it seems a huge jump to go from the 220 Norton stone to the 1000 and wonder if you all find it helpful to have an intermediate stone between those 2 grits; 4)most satisfying was taking the original (and in very bad shape but very thick) iron from my old Spiers infill plane and getting it to perform like it was supposed to!
Contributor
The Norton 220 is not a very good stone in my opinion. I don't go below 1000 much, but have gone straight from a grinder to the 1000 stone on a couple of new-to-me blades that needed a lot of work, and did not have any problem at all.
Contributor
Hi David,
I haven't had much luck with stones below 1000 grit. For me a granite slab with some 320 grit paper seems to be good enough for most worn blades. If a blade is real badly chipped, rusted or otherwise in need of extra work an abrasive paper in the 220 or even 80 grit range may be more appropriate.
Since my blades do not use micro bevels my procedure on water stones is usually to go to the 1000 followed by a 4000 then the 8000 and finished on a strop.
The progression is similar on oilstones, only the names are changed to soft Arkansas or India stone to a hard Arkansas then translucent with the final burr breaking done on a piece of hard jasper followed by a strop.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
[OP]
Contributor
Thanks Jim, I was pleased with what I could achieve with the coarser grits of paper which is something I had never tried. I suppose the coarser DMT diamond plates I was looking at in Woodcraft would be an option to the paper as well. A more expensive option certainly.
Contributor
Eh...I have a large "extra-coarse" DMT (220 grit) dia-sharp, close to 10 years old now. Even when new, it did not impress me with its speed- serious back flattening or bevel work will still get done on 80 or 150 grit sandpaper. I'd hoped the DMT would replace sandpaper in that role, but it's just not fast enough, especially after being worn in for a while.
Don't get me wrong though, it is a good stone...nice and flat, and has hung on for years doing a bunch of stone flattening. I still use it as kind of a medium-coarse stone, transitioning from 80 grit sandpaper (which never seems leaves a perfectly flat surface) to a coarse india or 1000 grit waterstone.
So sandpaper is king for heavy work to me, but remains enough of a hassle that I am still on the lookout for a better coarse stone. I've tried a Norton 220- and I agree with Nicholas that it is not very good...wears out of flat too quickly without being aggressive enough to make up for it. I have a coarse india stone, which is just slightly slower than the DMT xc but leaves a much better finish, which is useful. But not fast enough for removing nicks, etc.
Currently I have a coarse (120 grit) Crystolon on the way. This is supposedly a somewhat friable oil stone, which should keep it cutting fast compared to other oil stones. We'll see if that's true, and if it stays flat enough for long enough to be useful.
Contributor
I have been thinking about those. From what I read, they are silicon carbide, which everyone seems to like in powder form. To be honest though, with a grinder and the 1000/8000 combination I have, I can't really justify it. I figure if I buy one of those, then I'll have to buy an Arkansas stone just out of curiosity, etc., etc. Maybe once I wear out my waterstones.
Member
If you look at the cost-benefit tradeoff between stones and paper, paper does relatively best at lower grit numbers.
One way to think of this is to imagine "layers" of abrasive in the stone, and assume that each layer has a fixed life before the binder must release it and expose the next one. Coarse stones have larger particles, which means that each such layer is proportionately thicker. This has two negative effects:
1. Coarse stones dish faster. The cutting points on the grits don't last much longer on coarse grits than on finer ones, but the layers are thicker, so the net result is that the stone dishes more quickly even if the binder releases the same # of layers per unit time.
2. Coarse stones don't last as long because each stone has fewer layers of abrasive in total.
In contrast sandpaper always has one layer of abrasive, and the cost is relatively constant across grits. It therefore compares most favorably at coarse grits.
I've found some relatively economical coarse stones that I personally like (Sigma Power 120 oversize, Suehiro Cerax 320, Sigma Power 3F 700 - all 50 mm thick and relatively inexpensive), but I usually advise friends new to sharpening to stick to sandpaper below #1000.
Posting Permissions
