Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions

Re: Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions 1 year, 2 months ago #1979

I'll answer soon guys - I promise

Josh - I think I found the answer to your problem... I'm doing the paste progression now, and it's confirming what I thought. Short answer, you'll need pressure when transferring from the 1K WEPS diamond to the 14micron paste.... Pictures to follow soon... I'm in the middle of sharpening now!
Tom Blodgett
Jende Industries, LLC

My Blog: jendeindustries.wordpress.com

Re: Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions 1 year, 2 months ago #1999

  • mark76
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 720
  • Karma: 63
wickededge wrote:
mark76 wrote:
Now we are on the topic, did anyone take a close look at the pictures in the grit comparison chart of an edge after the 1200 grit ceramic stones and after the 1600 grit ceramic stones? Is that an optical illusion or is it a lot of microchipping that does not show up in pictures of the edge after Shapton and Chosera stones of similar grit sizes?


Nice observation. I hadn't seen the difference before, but it does look that way. I guess it shouldn't be surprising given the quality of the Shaptons and Choseras. Another thought is that the presence of moisture with the waterstones. I'd like to retry the ceramics lubricated with a little soapy water to see if there is a change.


Is there a reason you think it might not have happened if the ceramics were lubricated, Clay? (I've wondered before what the main difference is between synthetic wet stones and the WEPS ceramics, why do wet stones need to be kept wet and the WEPS ceramics not.)

For what it's worth, I have never observed this amount of microchipping after using the 1200/1600 stones. (One stone progression I did can be seen here.) I have seen only a tiny amount, and Toms explanation of this (scratches from lower grit stones becoming apparent when polishing with higher grits) is quite convincing.

I thought this microchipping had also happened to the knife on the photographs in the grit chart and that it was pure coincidence that they showed up in the WEPS ceramics pictures and not in the Chosera/Shapton pictures.
Last Edit: 1 year, 2 months ago by mark76.

Re: Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions 1 year, 2 months ago #2001

  • wickededge
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 1411
  • Karma: 75
mark76 wrote:
wickededge wrote:
mark76 wrote:
Now we are on the topic, did anyone take a close look at the pictures in the grit comparison chart of an edge after the 1200 grit ceramic stones and after the 1600 grit ceramic stones? Is that an optical illusion or is it a lot of microchipping that does not show up in pictures of the edge after Shapton and Chosera stones of similar grit sizes?


Nice observation. I hadn't seen the difference before, but it does look that way. I guess it shouldn't be surprising given the quality of the Shaptons and Choseras. Another thought is that the presence of moisture with the waterstones. I'd like to retry the ceramics lubricated with a little soapy water to see if there is a change.


Is there a reason you think it might not have happened if the ceramics were lubricated, Clay? (I've wondered before what the main difference is between synthetic wet stones and the WEPS ceramics, why do wet stones need to be kept wet and the WEPS ceramics not.)

For what it's worth, I have never observed this amount of microchipping after using the 1200/1600 stones. (One stone progression I did can be seen here.) I have seen only a tiny amount, and Toms explanation of this (scratches from lower grit stones becoming apparent when polishing with higher grits) is quite convincing.

I thought this microchipping had also happened to the knife on the photographs in the grit chart and that it was pure coincidence that they showed up in the WEPS ceramics pictures and not in the Chosera/Shapton pictures.

Good points. My initial thought was that there might be metal particles on the stones that were causing the chipping so I want to try with soapy water to see if that makes a big enough difference to account for the chips in the image. I also want to explore any other differences between the stones and techniques for each one, moisture being an obvious one, hardness and friability being a couple others with the stones themselves. If the results aren't an effect of the stones themselves, then I guess it has to be technique, in this case, not enough time spent removing deeper scratches. I'm going to browse my images and see if there are other progressions I've done that include the ceramics.
--Clay Allison
The following user(s) said Thank You: mark76

Re: Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions 1 year, 2 months ago #2002

  • wickededge
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 1411
  • Karma: 75
In looking at these images further and going back through the whole progression, it looks as though I wasn't hitting the edge with the ceramics. I'm going to have to go back and do it again. I have a brand new Farid mule in CPM-REX 121 just asking for me to sharpen it and document the process.
--Clay Allison

Re: Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions 1 year, 1 month ago #2636

  • PhilipPasteur
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Phil
  • Posts: 670
  • Karma: 57
Simply a bump for a great thread.
I wanted to find the Chosera progression again and I had to dig. This had almost fallen off of the recent topics list.

Phil
Phil

Re: Shapton and Chosera Stone Microscopic Prgressions 1 year, 1 month ago #2666

  • mark76
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 720
  • Karma: 63
Yes, those Chosera and Shapton progressions are great!

If you just want to find back a threat, the search function on this forum works great . (It's the tab "Search" above, not the search box in the top right. The latter one is for the entire site.)

I am still interested whether Clay found any more results regarding the ceramic stones.
Time to create page: 1.45 seconds