Thread: A theoretical discussion about honing particles

Originally Posted by Bruno

Hi guys, I deleted an insulting post, and asked the poster to simply not participate if he thinks a topic is boring, and not to belittle those who enjoy it.

I deleted the post because I don't want people (esp newbies) to feel discouraged from discussing every last minute detail of honing (or whatever else). If you wouldn't feel comfortable discussing those things here, then where else would you?


As you were. Have fun

Hey Guys, It was my post which was deleted, I would like to apologize for putting a negative spin, however unintentional, still not my place. My intent being irrelevant at this point, still I would like to extend my apologies, and grattitude to yall for being so helpfull regardless of one being a dumbass. Again I was wrong in the manner in which I posted, and for that I apologize.

Thanks,
Paul

You really can't compare a natural stone to a synthetic one. natural stones can have the cutting medium, say garnets of all different sizes and particle shapes. Hopefully what makes it a superior honing medium is that the particles are as uniform as your ever going to get them in a natural stone.Synthetic stones use manufactured particles so hopefully they are better sorted for uniformity. I know when you buy diamond compound what diferentiates the more expensive stuff from the cheaper stuff is the degree of sorting that goes on so the uniformity is higher in the better compound. Years ago I used to go mineral collecting at a garnet quarry in Connecticut and the rock had garnet xtls ranging from 1/16th of an inch up to a inch across and pieces of garnets in micron sizes. I don't think that rock would make a good honing stone.

Quick, the American Standard Grit is one of several standard grit systems. even the two examples that you cite:

Shapton (glass) 8000: 1.84u
Norton (water) 8000: 3u

fit within the AMG in that the mesh which is a measure of the range is 2 to 4 microns for 8000 grit and so the Norton for sure is in this range and the Shapton at 1.84 microns is close enough to 2 microns to qualify for an 8000 grit rating. I think that your comment about "loose comparison" is more properly stated that the mesh is a range, we can't guarantee that every particle is 3 microns for an 8000 grit stone but rather that the average size tends to be that size. So when comments on natural stones classify them by grit number, the comments more refer to that the natural stone cuts or polishes like a given grit size man-made stone. The bigspendur is right that natural stones can't tightly conform to to the grit standard like their man-made counterparts. To pin this down exactly, a good size piece of your natural stone would have to be sacrificed to ascertain the actual grit and then we would have to ponder how the pulverizing process affects the abrasive particle size. A man-made stone doesn't have this issue since we purposely take the proper cut mesh of the abrasive to create the stone at a given grit.

BTW, I was writing my latest post as Howard published his. It should be clear that he and I are saying the same thing in different ways. Great post Bart!!!