Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
This is the optional forum header for the Suggestion Box.

TOPIC: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled?

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4222

  • PhilipPasteur
  • PhilipPasteur's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Phil
  • Posts: 944
  • Thank you received: 233
  • Karma: 66
Ditto this. I have maybe 30 edges done on my set of 800/1000 stones now. The 1000 grit stones still subjectively feel coarser then the 800s. Magnification shows that this is not the case.
I am not sure why they feel the way they do, but I am pretty certain that at least mine, are labled correctly.

Phil

mark76 wrote:
This is funny. History might be repeating itself. When I first got my 800/1000 stones, about half a year ago, I also thought they might have been swapped. This was mainly on the basis of the sound they made, but also because I thought the 800 stones felt a bit smoother.

But when I took some microscope photographs, it appeared I was wrong. And after the stones were broken in, the 1000 grit stones felt and sounded smoother than the 800 grit ones.

You can find the original topic here .
Phil

MAX 2001-2013
Hoping there is that bridge!
I miss you Buddy!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4223

  • jendeindustries
  • jendeindustries's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 326
  • Thank you received: 113
  • Karma: 34
FWIW, my progression of the WEPS diamonds, including the 800 and 1K can be found here.

IIRC, my plates were still pretty new when this was done - less than 10 knives, and you can see the plane of the edge becoming smoother compared to the 800.
Tom Blodgett
Jende Industries, LLC

My Blog: jendeindustries.wordpress.com
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4224

  • joema4
  • joema4's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 1
jendeindustries wrote:
Joema - can you get a microscope picture of your edge from the 800 and 1K diamonds? That would be more tangible proof to see if the numbers on the stone are consistent with the results.
That's a great idea; unfortunately it will be a day or so before I can do that.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4321

  • joema4
  • joema4's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 1
OK I did photomicrographs of an S30V Ritter Mini-Griptilian after 100 strokes of new 800 grit and 1000 grit diamond stones; see below. It apparently confirms the previous photos, also the tactile feeling of the stones. 1000 grit is significantly more coarse than the 800 grit. There are several possible explanations, but the most obvious is the stones are mislabeled.

The stones are relatively new but not pristine -- I've previously done about 10 knives on them. I don't think continued break-in will alter the current behavior.

Progression (all mostly-new diamond stones): 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000. After that I went back to 800. Whether stepping up from 800->1000 (as labeled) or down from 1000->800, the behavior is the same: 1000 is more coarse and produces a less finished bevel.

For now I'll just use the 800/1000 diamond stones in reverse sequence.

1000 grit diamond:


800 grit diamond:
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4327

  • jendeindustries
  • jendeindustries's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 326
  • Thank you received: 113
  • Karma: 34
Perfect pictures, Joe!

Believe it or not, your paddles are correctly labeled.

What you are seeing is the 1K diamond beginning to reveal the deeper scratches left over from previous diamond plates - probably the 200 or 400. The 600 and 800 plates actually do a very good job in masking them.

You can go back to the 600 and 800 and do about 50 or so ultra light passes, then hit the 1K again and see if things are improved. ;)
Tom Blodgett
Jende Industries, LLC

My Blog: jendeindustries.wordpress.com
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4328

  • PhilipPasteur
  • PhilipPasteur's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Phil
  • Posts: 944
  • Thank you received: 233
  • Karma: 66
Yes,
Great photos..
Of topic, but maybe you could PM me with what you used to take them and especially what you did for lighting.

Phil
Phil

MAX 2001-2013
Hoping there is that bridge!
I miss you Buddy!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4330

  • mark76
  • mark76's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 1253
  • Thank you received: 399
  • Karma: 87
PhilipPasteur wrote:
Yes,
Great photos..
Of topic, but maybe you could PM me with what you used to take them and especially what you did for lighting.

Or post it. I'm interested too.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4338

  • joema4
  • joema4's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 1
PhilipPasteur wrote:
Yes,
Great photos..
...what you used to take them and especially what you did for lighting.
Phil
They were taken with a Dino-Lite AM411T USB microscope. It just plugs into a PC USB port and has its own software for image and video capture. There are many different models, some not very expensive. www.dino-lite.com/products_list_minute.p...1T%20Dino-Lite%20Pro

It has a ring of LEDs that surround the lens which provide primary illumination. Background illumination is just room lighting. The depth of field is very shallow, so anything in the background will be out of focus.
Last Edit: 2 years 1 month ago by joema4.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4339

  • PhilipPasteur
  • PhilipPasteur's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Phil
  • Posts: 944
  • Thank you received: 233
  • Karma: 66
How did you hold it steady.
We have talked a bit about this, but it is interesting to see what others are doing that works.
I have the Veho 400X unit and it frustrates the hell out of me when trying to hold it in focus and steady while telling the PC to take a picture. I have tried a couple different kinds of stand, but no joy.

Phil
Phil

MAX 2001-2013
Hoping there is that bridge!
I miss you Buddy!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled? 2 years 1 month ago #4341

  • joema4
  • joema4's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 1
PhilipPasteur wrote:
How did you hold it steady...it frustrates the hell out of me when trying to hold it in focus and steady while telling the PC to take a picture. I have tried a couple different kinds of stand, but no joy...
With the knife in the WE vise, I hold the microscope by hand and rest the transparent collar on the knife edge. The edge slightly bites into the collar, stabilizing it in two dimensions. Thus the only adjustments are tilt left/right and focus. As you tilt the microscope left and right, the lighting angle changes. At some point you observe the angle is optimum. This also reduces shaking and makes getting an in-focus shot easier.

My Dino-Lite microscope has a soft-touch "shutter" button on the microscope wand itself. I barely touch it to take a photo. If yours has a physical switch or requires pressing a keyboard button or on-screen button, that will be harder.

Of course you must be careful when doing this; you are looking at the screen while holding the microscope wand on the knife edge. However I think most WE users realize there are many ways to cut themselves. You naturally learn to stay alert and focused. E.g, you don't rest a lot of pressure on the microscope, in case it slips off the edge.
Last Edit: 2 years 1 month ago by joema4.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.160 seconds