Patrick, all I need to do to figure out what metals are in my pocket knife or drill bit is buy a XRF (X-Ray fluorescence) machine? I'm not sure an X-Ray would provide the complete story anyway.
Makers & manufacturers will most likely continue to claim there is something unique or special about how they make their metals even if there isn't. Most of us will be stuck trying to figure out what is valid and what isn't, at least until truth in advertising becomes a reality. Or, until we are willing to learn from each other, particularly those speaking from the ultimate teacher, experience.
Last edited by Mike Holbrook; 09-04-2016 at 5:08 PM.
Mike,don't you have a spare $150,000.00 kicking around?
Yeah, just like you need to buy a $50 million jet to get from point A to point B once.
As with airlines, there are plenty of XRF service providers out there. You give them a sample and $50 (probably less by now), and they tell you what you have and return the sample intact.
It does exactly what I said: It gives you a precise measurement of the alloyants, which is almost always sufficient to ID the alloy. The one thing it can't measure is Carbon.
Going sideways for a minute, rather than starting ANOTHER sharpening thread...... I'm trying to follow along but keep thinking about my three Shaptons and trying to relate my experience with them to what you're all saying - should I consider my shapton glass stones to be "water stones" or "ceramic stones"?
(I have had a 6000 for several years, and recently bought a 1000 grit. Even allowing for its newness, it cut faster than my diamond stone. I liked it so much I bought a 500 grit. Yeah, like I needed 2 MORE stones. )
Thanks folks.
Fred
Shaptons are resinoid water stones, meaning that they use a plastic resin of some sort to hold the grit together. They're therefore neither "old-style" clay-based waterstones like George's King 6K, nor ceramic waterstones like Sigma.
In terms of performance (speed, dishing, steel compatibility etc) resinoid stones are comparable to ceramics IMO.
George, now that I don't have to buy that $50 million jet to get from point A to point B, I guess I can spring for the $150,000 to buy the X-ray machine. Nice, because I really did not want to cut pieces off my pocket knife blades to get them analyzed. Actually, all I care about is how well/long my tools cut and how hard/easy they are to sharpen, which I tend to judge by personal experience cutting the things I cut regularly.
It is quite sufficient,Mike!! We are not building space ships here,or $200,000.00 dies. You have neatly summarized our needs as woodworkers. All the rest of this talk is just blather that everyone forget as soon as they pass to the next post!
If you want to remember different steels,at least for me,I have to buy it,make things from it,figure out how to correct mistakes I might make in hardening and tempering it,alter the designs of the objects I make from it so that they will be successful and then I can remember what those steels were and how to handle them.
I regularly use about 5 or 6 steels,and they are quite enough for my needs,and the needs of my customers. The rest can be Googled if needed.
I use W1,01,A2,D2,ATS34,52100(a ball bearing steel) and wrought iron,a few kinds of mild steel,and they are sufficient. The A2 and D2 are mostly for punch and die sets since they,being air hardening steels,do not warp or change dimension enough to be a bother,and lave long wearing qualities and abrasion resistance. A2 can make quite a decent knife or plane iron( LN now uses it),less so can D2 (it simply does not stay QUITE razor sharp,but does hold a serviceable edge for a long time if you are out in the woods camping.)
Here are some carving tools and riffler files I made from W1:
For tools for delicate carvings,W1 is my favorite.About 1% carbon,1095 or 1085 being the carbon contents I prefer. They will take the sharpest edge. I have my stones at hand to touch them up in the shop.
Those chisel handles are not the greatest,but at the time I had bought 75 antique carving tools with horrible handles that HAD to be changed,and I just made these simple type of handles. I made over a hundred of these handles, and did not want to spend a huge amount of time on them.They were enough trouble as was! These handles can be found on some 18th. C. carving tools,though usually not so tapered.
These carving tools are for pushing only as they have no bolsters. I really like the fishtail ones. Great for getting into tight corners. Yes,I know one skew has a chipped off corner! The smallest gouge cuts a 1/32" wide groove.
The straight across knurling on the rifflers,about 1 1/2" from their tips are not file teeth. They are just to enhance the grip while using them for extended periods.
There are about 5 "racks"of these rifflers which I made and have used on several projects. They are for filing metal. I had a bad camera when I took these pictures.Self focusing,but focused on whatever it chose!) :
Last edited by george wilson; 09-05-2016 at 9:45 AM.
Very nice tools, George! I can see how making small carving tools like those might give one an education with the steel used.
I hope to get to make some bowls and eating/serving utensils soon, but nothing as intricate as I imagine your tools are designed for. Thanks for posting the pictures.
Let me help you rationalize your pointless acquisition: As noted in a previous post, modern 1K waterstones like the Shapton last ~1000 strokes per mil of thickness, assuming good stroke distribution and that you don't overdo it with flattening. Assuming your 1K is a "Pro" it's 15 mm ~= 600 mils thick, so you'll get half a million strokes out of it if you're careful. At 2 strokes/sec (which is fairly fast) that would be 70 hours of nonstop honing time, so figure that stone wear amortizes out to about a dollar an hour.
Even if you only value your time at $7.25/hr Federal minimum wage, the Shapton would only need to be ~15% faster than whatever you've got now to be a net benefit (probably a bit more than that to allow for waterstone-related "overheads", but you get the idea).
I'm not a fan of the Shapton 500 though. It's only available in 5 mm and 10 mm thick Glass versions which means that it's expensive per mm thickness, and it dishes fairly quickly. I'd take the Sigma 400 or even the Beston 500 over that as a medium-coarse grinding stone due to economics alone. Even $1/ft PSA sandpaper is probably competitive with the Shapton 500, as you could afford ~125 changes of sandpaper for the price of the 10 mm stone.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 09-06-2016 at 12:28 PM. Reason: spelling
Chromium oxide bars, or not?
Dated:11-15-2008
http://straightrazorplace.com/honing...-bars-not.html
Last edited by Stewie Simpson; 09-06-2016 at 9:55 AM.