Just wanted to say thanks to Kyle for a quick solution to my issue with the vise jaws. Looking forward to receiving my shipment!

And holding a ruler to both of the vises it seems that both of them are bent. It's difficult to photograph that without 3 hands but if you want to see it I'll give it a try...

I've have actually been having the same problem also!

I didn't recognize it until I saw your images cause I thought it was suppose to be that way since it came like that out of the box.

But it could explain some problems I've had with clamping thin blades maybe?

Razoredge wrote:


PhilipPasteur wrote:


Razoredge wrote:


Yes, I was actually asking for opinions since my idea from the start was that very few people would have the necessary equipment in their basement or garage or were ever they keep their WEPS to actually be able to accurately measure any quantifiable difference between sprays of these particle sizes. But with that said, if someone actually have the hard facts or the proof of one material over the other, please do share! That would make it much easier to decide if it is worth the extra bucks for PCD spray.

PhilipPasteur wrote:


Razoredge wrote:


KenBuzbee wrote:


So basically it seems we have to agree to actually feel to have an opinion on this topic.

I found Mr. Schwartz blog a few days ago with some interesting posts on PCD sprays (and CBN) from different vendors, but the really interesting parts was the SEM images of the sprays!
Precise Sharpening

I found this YouTube video a while back, but judging from the comments some people (as always) have another idea of how it's supposed to be done. And I'm sure you will get a lot of other great suggestions here.

Hi there

Just wanted to get opinions if anyone notices any real difference between a CBN (Cubic Boron Nitride) spray and a PCD (Polycrystalline Diamond) spray of the same brand and particle size?

I'm guessing there should be some difference (except for cost and particle material)?

//Johannes

PhilipPasteur wrote:


Yes, absolutely, and thanks for the info!

Native5 in s110v sounds great if you can wait for it. There is also a Manix2 XL in s90v coming out which seems very nice as well, I think it's a knifeworks exclusive.

Thanks, I've actually been in contact with Mark Richmond about the Richmond Ultimatum but it is out of stock and he wasn't sure there would be any more.

The next step would be the 21cm Artifex, but I also prefer a 24cm chef's knife (and I'd like it to be a wa-gyuto as well), so I haven't decided what to do there yet.

In zdp-189 you also have the Spyderco Endura 4 which I think is really nice. And in another "super steel" you have the Benchmade Barrage 581 in m390 which I think beats anything I have for the moment, the knife is maybe on the heavy side for some, but I just think it feels real solid. When the hunting season starts here (mid august) I'll put the Barrage 581 through some real world tasks instead of just cardboard cutting.

The m390 is really a solid performer so I'm actually trying to find a chef's knife in m390, but that is proving to be difficult.

R.JeffreyCoates wrote:


Absolutely, just as I wrote in my post just before yours I have verified my setup in two different ways to make sure that my table and WEPS are horizontal.

KenBuzbee wrote:

I’ve seen this from many different people in different posts, which make me really think twice about buying them since between coarse MicroFine and fine MicroFine I have no problem removing scratches. It’s between 1000 diamond and MicroFine that I think the step is too large (for me at least), I would love to have 1200-1600 and maybe 2000-2500 diamond plates Clay!

KenBuzbee wrote:

Number of strokes varies a lot, somewhere between 30-150 strokes per grit I’d say. Mostly I listen, look and feel. I’m using both a loupe (40x) and an USB microscope (400x) and from what I can see I get a nice uniform scratch pattern with no real visible or deeper scratches between diamond stones. But I also think it can be hard sometimes to really see if all scratches from before is actually gone since they are all in the same direction (and that is probably what I notice later when using the MicroFines).

For sure I’m using more pressure than that to begin with, I probably end every stone with the pressure you start with (the weight of the stone). So this is something I will have to try…

Then again, the whole scratch removal is just cosmetics since I have no problem getting hair whittling or tree topping sharp edges which is the real objective. And I can actually get enough of a mirror finish as well (reading back fine print text and so on) but it just takes a lot of scrubbing with the MicroFine ceramics.

KenBuzbee wrote:

Yes it definitely helps with any and all input from more experienced WEPSers, I’m still new to the tool.

KenBuzbee wrote:


Yeah I thought about this and put the angle cube on both my floor, my table and my WEPS base and there were no major differences there.

It's also quite easy to verify this by clamping a ruler by it self and putting an angle cube on that and then hanging the fish line over the ruler, then you can see if they match up well.

Yesterday I was at it again and I think I found a (for me) good enough solution. I’m not interested in how much it tilts (or not) just that it is straight enough.

I started with the metal ruler and the angle cube but that gives me very (relatively) large differences from side to side and time to time just depending on how I hold the ruler against the blade and if it is leaning and so on, not very repeatable.

So what I did was take a fish line and tied sinks (weights) in both ends and then hung it over the blade. If the fish line on one side hangs out from the blade that means the blade is not straight in the clamp. Quite simple (and cheap) and works every time; when both sides of the fish line hangs straight down along the blade I know that I have very little tilt angle on the blade in the clamp.

To explain better what I did I've attached the following two images of a blade that is not straight in the clamp (I've exaggerated the tilt just so it's easy to see what I mean).





BR,
Johannes

KenBuzbee wrote:


I've read the same statement from you in some other thread as well, and I just have to ask how you manage that? I currently have the PP2 so my biggest "jump" is from 1000 grid diamonds to the micro fine 1.4 um stone, and that is actually giving me quite a bit of trouble, I have to scrub away a LOT to get rid of the 1000 grid diamond scratch marks with the 1.4 um ceramic stone.

The diamond progression from 100 to 1000 is great and almost effortless but then going to the ceramics is difficult, so I'm thinking of getting the 1200/1600 as an intermediate step, but it seems that might not really do it?

Cool! Does it require longer arms as well?

KenBuzbee wrote:


I'm guessing it can get good enough by just eye sight, but I'm reluctant to accept that (at least) I would be able to see a 1 degree variation with just the naked eye. (And the 1 degree variation would be the largest source of error in the WEPS, on a 15 degree edge it gives almost 7% error.)

Geocyclist wrote:


I've tried this and it works somewhat good on most blades, but on smaller blades like the Spyderco dragonfly or ladybug there is almost no part of the blade sticking out from the clamp to "attach" the ruler/angle cube to.

Geocyclist wrote:


The two ways you mention here you'll have to describe a bit better for me...

KenBuzbee wrote:


But if you're re-profiling or if the edge is already off that wont tell you very much I guess?

Hi there

Have anyone figured out a good way to verify that you have managed to clamp a blade perfectly straight / perpendicular in the vise?

I'm definitely having problems with seeing or verifying this on full flat ground blades. I mean I can look at it and say if it is way off, but if it is tilting with say 1 degree I think it is close to impossible to see this by just looking at the setup.

Since the rest of the WE system (with using the angle cube) is exact down to 0.1 degrees I'm hoping there is someone with a good idea on how to really make sure to clamp the blade straight otherwise that will always be the biggest source of error (at least for me).

I'm using the foam tape trick to help with clamping ffg blades, but even so it is easy to clamp the blade in a way that it leans significantly (which will affect sharpening angle).

//Johannes

cbwx34 wrote:


You're probably right there, and in the end I'll probably end up getting the 1200/1600 stones as well (but I hope they fall in between 1000 grid and micro fine ceramics, because that the step that I'm having most problems with now).

Here is the web shop (in German) that mentions the super fine ceramic stones:
fehlschaerfe.de

My German is not what it used to be but one of the bullet points (Neue Version, veränderte Keramikmatrix) basically says: "New version, modified ceramic formula" or "New version, modified ceramic matrix" according to Google translate.

Thanks for the info Jose.

I've been looking at completing my PP2 with the super fine (1200/1600) ceramics since I've felt that the jump from 1000 grit diamonds to the micro fine (1.4/0.6um) ceramics is to large, it takes a lot of work for me to get rid of the scratch marks of the 1000 grit diamonds with the micro fine stones (maybe also since my micro fine seems to not touch the whole edge as well, but that’s a different story).

But from reading a lot of different posts here before and now yours it seems that I would not really gain anything from getting the super fine ceramics since they are somewhere around the same as the micro fine coarse stone anyway. If the super fine ceramics really are in the perfect succession 100-200-400-600-800-1000-1200-1600 I would not hesitate for a second to get them cause I love the way you can progress through the diamond grits almost without effort.

I read in some 3rd party re-seller's webshop that they were selling a "new formula" super fine ceramic stone, but I don't know what that means or if it would put them more correctly in between the 1000 grit and the micro fine (or if it was just marketing).

//Johannes