My crazy logic here, but I wonder if having two sets of micro-fines that are manipulated to replace/remove the 1200/1600 role in a progression is possible?

The first stone being "as it comes" on the coarse side and made coarser on the fine side. (not sure)

The second being "lapped finer" on the coarse side and standard on the fine. (possible)

Can we make the fine ceramic coarser with lapping?

Billabong wrote:


Good question. I'll do some testing.

Do you lap only the coarse side or both?

VladimirSoskov wrote:


People have done one (usually the coarse side) both, and neither.

I would try them stock for a bit. See your results. Then decide what, if anything you want to do

Ken

I only did the coarse side of the microfine set. Keep in mind these things are extremely hard. I marked them (bad idea) with a sharpie. After 45 minutes on a DMT coarse plate. I barely touched the marks. I think they, at least the ones that I got, are pretty darn flat out of the box. Mostly what you are trying to do is re-texture then a bit. Even that takes a bit of effort. I finished on the DMT fine stone. This seems to have slottted the coarse stone into the progression just as it is rated. I never had any reason to lap or retxture the fine side... so I haven't touched them.

I thought that lapping/texturing the coarse stones worked by removing or altering the top layer left in the manufacturing process (something like the Kiln layer that Clay mentioned in relation to the other ceramics??). Possibly to get to the "true grit" below that.

If the stones are homogenous, it is hard to imagine that you can make them more coarse than they are.

Phil

I held off lapping mine when I first got them... I thought they were fine. When I did lap the MicroFine-Coarse (I never did the fine), I found it did have some type of noticeable layer on it, that when removed, the stone performed better. (I still think it falls above the 1200/1600 stone though). I did rub the Fine side together, but didn't see much difference... they work well though.

cbwx34 wrote:


Hey Curtis,
What do you mean by "falls above" the 1200/1600? As in, maybe, you think it has a finer grit than the 1600 (which is what I think that you meant)?
Or perhaps the opposite, I couldn't exactly tell from your statement. Probably just me on a Monday morning
.

Just curious, as I find it a close call. On some knives it seems like the coarse may be adding scratches after the 1600. In any case, I usually use the microfine course right after the 1600 though. Is that what you do as well?

I need to take some photos...

Phil

It seems more coarse than the 1200, to me. If I use all four I go coarse micro->1200->1600->fine micro, but I rarely ever do that. If I'm going to use the ceramics, I just use the micro alone, skipping the 1200/1600 altogether.

Ken

Yea, what Ken said... MicroFine Coarse --> 1200 --> 1600 --> MicroFine Fine. Even after lapping it still seems this way, although I'll admit I haven't spent a lot of time looking at it... just seem to get better results with this progression.

I used my micros one time and I thought they needed lapping right away. When I started lapping I did it the way clay discribed with my 100 grit first but I hadent cleaned the diamond stone and I am glad I didn't because it showed the high and low spots on the ceramics.It took over an hour to flatten and I did most of the work with the 100 grit stones just to get the high spots out. Now my 100 grit stones are less agresive than my 200 grit stones. I would buy a cheap coars diamond stone to flatten them then work through the rest of your we stones. I would like to see if someone could mic there micro ceramics before they start so I know how much I sanded off.