I was reading this article on Facebook about the Colorado Crystal strata and it didn't quite make sense too me. Can anyone explain to me what he's talking about when he's talking about a 8k Grit and how he somehow gets a 20K finish off of it.
Printable View
I was reading this article on Facebook about the Colorado Crystal strata and it didn't quite make sense too me. Can anyone explain to me what he's talking about when he's talking about a 8k Grit and how he somehow gets a 20K finish off of it.
I think he's referring to the size of the garnets being 8-12k and the base stone being 20-30k. Because a garnet is round and not fully exposed it will not cut as deep as other abrasive particles of the same size.
Its a question of what's exposed. Binder doesn't tend to scratch steel, abrasive does. More exposed abrasive scratches deeper; less exposed scratches shallower. Slow wearing binder and slow wearing abrasive is consistent (DMT, etc), or may clog. Slow wearing binder and fast wearing abrasive gets smoother. Fast wearing binder exposes fresh abrasive and stays consistent (needs lapping).
It seems to me there was a legitimate question that was answered directly from the source. The promotion could have been toned down, but it looks like the post has "disappeared" altogether.
I apologize if my post seems as marketing I don't mean it to be. There was just a lot of information brought up in those posts that raised a lot of questions for me and I figured I would make shure that you can see what I was seeing and get an idea of where my questions are coming from. If you prefer I'll delete the post. Also my reason for bringing it here was is to hear a word from someone (not affiliated with selling these stones) on what they thought and to hopefully inform me on how a stone with 12K granules can leave a 20k finish.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
The situation is being discussed by several people, both authors of the posts have been notified & the posts may be returned, if that is the decision reached. No post is arbitrarily erased, they all can be recovered; something I have learned the past couple of days.
I don't agree with the first part of that. If a 12k abrasive is buried deep in binder, such that only so much of it is exposed, it could cut as shallow as a 20k abrasive. If the finish is based on depth of scratches, they could be the same. Might take more honing, as, in theory, 12k abrasive would be more spread out than the 20k abrasive, so it would take more time to eliminate the scratches from the previous hone. And you'd have to avoid burnishing on steel that is removed and is stuck in (what would have to be) slow wearing binder. Or the grit itself could break down, etc etc.
I do agree with the idea that assigning grit ratings only provides a rough guide, and the roughness gets more rough as the abrasive becomes finer. (ha, rough/fine)
Can anyone explain to me what he's talking about when he's talking about an 8k Grit and how he somehow gets a 20K finish off of it.
No, and it seems, neither could the seller. Pretty sure the same guy was here a while ago, selling the same story and stone.
Natural stones cannot be grit rated, they are Naturally made.
Buy a proven performer… There are no magic hones.
How can we even assign a natural stone a grit rating? What gauge or process would determine that grit rating? Unless we manufacture that stone/hone, which in this case the stone was pulled from the ground(a natural), we cannot be accurate. We can give our best guess based on experience with man-made stone, right,, so are our guesses accurate enough to tell the difference between a 12K or is it really a 15 or 16K.
How deep is the diamond abrasive on a plate(DMT) a 600 versus a 1200? Hard to tell by feel and hard to decipher by scope. Maybe it isn't depth , but quantity & size.
Different steels can produce different scratch patterns with the same stone.
There was an interesting study done on jnat slurry.
StewieS.
https://scienceofsharp.wordpress.com...ry-break-down/
https://scienceofsharp.wordpress.com...slurry-part-2/
Think of it like this....
Picture a pencil point neatly sharpened. That is a single point of contact, a single "grit" if you will. That point is sharp and spikey, and will cut deep.
Now think of that same point worn all the way down. Its now almost flat, perhaps even semi spherical. It will hardly cut at all. Still a single "grit" but now that one grit is not scratching as deep.
Assigning hard grit ratings to naturals is folly. They often change in character even as you periodically lap into them. They either progress your edge from whatever came before or knock it back...
I suspect it's the same or similar material as the brown apache black gilas. Never had that but I have a green gila. The problem I have with all of them is they are expensive and god forbid you need liquidity back for whatever reason, if a person sees that for 275 and a thuri with a label for 275usd they are buying the thuri every time...
Hopefully clearer than post # 13,,,,,, :roflmao
There are all kinds of natural stones. Some are made of homogeneous material making them easier to classify however the stone mined 50 feet away might have a slightly different composition. Stones that contain minerals that function as the "active ingredient" in honing are more difficult. You have to factor in the binding material or matrix and then if the active material is say garnet the type and size of the xtls and how they are released and the type of xtl has to be considered. Garnets are rarely just spherical blobs in the matrix. The are usually dodecahedrons though there can be others and depending on what part of the xtl get the stress the hardness can vary from facet to facet and the way they breakdown will vary too. Of course as with the other types of rock the material can vary from specimen to specimen.
I'm not sure why you quoted my post for your response; I didn't say anything about assigning grit ratings to naturals; I don't pretend to understand how grit ratings work at all. All I was saying is that a "low grit hone" could, in theory, leave a finish like a "higher grit hone." The numbers used are arbitrary.
Some hones definitely play to how they are prepped on the surface. Carborundums and arks are the most blatant examples
The reason I quoted your post was two fold;
1. I assumed by your post that you were going along with the theory that the "natural stone" in question fell into a grit range.
2. I don't believe that the depth in which the abrasive sits in the binder is relative to the scratch pattern. I believe the scratch pattern is relative to the abrasive & the steel of the razor.
It looks like an agate type of rock to me.
We already know jasper one of the agate family is good as a hone, so I would expect this to be in the same ball park if that is the case.
I'd have to be dubious about the garnets. They can form in agates, but so can a lot of other inclusions. Without an actual appraisal I'd be tempted just to have them referred to as micro crystal inclusions.
Also if it is agate you can get it for far far less, allbeit with a bit off risk of getting a dud.
Searching ebay for "large agate slice" will give you a whole heap of items.
770G Large Natural Agate Slice Geode Polished Crystal Quartz | eBay
5 mins with a tile saw and you have a hone.
What I really want to see is a video from someone I trust using it. Lynn or GSsixgun. If I see them use one and give a fair appraisal then I'd be a lot less sceptical.
If it is the gila material it's not quite like just taking a typical polished disc of jasper or agate. If you have the surface prepped matte it stays that way, it doesn't really glaze fully or worse still in a patchy way like you'd think/expect. Something else is in play. Downside with the green stuff anyway is you can have the odd dry rice grain sized inclusion that has crystalline sand to do damage. On the plus side they lap out quite predictably even if lapping is hell. My main knock on it as a finisher for the masses is it is so stupidly hard it is unforgiving of new guy mistakes. That and it is not a water stone imo
So, can I purchase this magic hone with the three magic beans I got from the sale of the family cow?
I'm not going to rip into either of the guys who have sold those, but I always thought the price was daft for an unknown. I got mine from a friend in trade who had extras , personally I would not buy one at the asking prices, I would buy a hybrid coticule or something... But those are just my tastes
For 1 - As I said in my post, I was only responding to one of Oz's points (could a low grit hone give a finish like a higher grit hone). That being said, it most certainly is the case that every stone falls into a "grit range." Whether that range can be defined or provides much meaningful information is another question. But no, I was not talking about the "natural stone" in question.
For 2 - I could be wrong, but I don't see how cutting deeply vs cutting shallowly could provide the same result on an edge, measured by scratch pattern or shave. Especially if the abrasive starts to wear down or wear away but the binder does not. For example DMT's "break in" and "wear," and the way they cut/lap changes. Once again, not in reference to the "natural stone" in question.
O.K. ,,,,,,,,:shrug:
You guys are KILLING me! :roflmao
I think how/if the abrasive fractures would have to be taken in to account ie if the tops of a stone or DMT chip off flat & cut like a wood plane rather than sandpaper . You still have to consider the gaps between the particles. Here pressure would still influence the finish . That said, a worn DMTC gives a nice polish to natural stones, at least to the naked eye.
It's mostly rubbish, this thread. Boring as the forum is! :rofl2:
I'm not dead yet!
Attachment 247486
A thread has run its course when the Monty Python Memes start.
Sort of reeling it all back in, if Lynn is at all interested, he should send him a sample..
Maybe i'm the only one who thinks this is an interesting discussion. Not relating to the OP, but interesting.
On a DMT (or any other hone), there is binder between the abrasive, right? So there is material in the gaps between the bits of abrasive. And, if the abrasive wears down but the binder doesn't, those gaps shrink in size. (Similar effect if swarf "clogs" the hone.) And, by the way, I think that the smoother finish on a natural stone that you get from a worn DMT as opposed to a brand new one tends to support what I'm saying.
I see what you are saying, but I think there is a big difference between Diamond plates, Soft naturals (slates, coticules & Jnats) and soft synthetics (Naniwa and Nortons), and hard Naturals, (hard Arks other noviculites, hard jasper like stones, and hard synthetics, (like SG20).
Soft naturals, (slates, coticules & Jnats) are more like regular synthetics in that the binder, releases fresh cutting grit and it is the binder that wears away along with the grit and reveals fresh grit of random size.
With Diamonds, I have always understood, that the diamonds pull out of the binder and not wear away, much like sand paper. Or can become clogged and cut shallower.
My diamonds that cut finer than new, have a visible loss of diamonds, bald spots. When using low grit sandpapers, this same phenomenon is readily visible. A Diamond plate is made up of, diamonds of X grit size, by putting them through a mesh screen. You end up with grit, up to the screen size and smaller grit.
As a Diamond plate wears, the first grit to pull out of the binder are the larger/taller diamonds. The shallower/ shorter diamonds remain and that is what is now cutting at a shallower grit size and depth.
So with Diamond plates, and hard natural / synthetic stones can produce higher finishes, (shallower stria patterns) but for different reasons.
Arks and SG20, can be loaded up or burnished to cut shallower. And Diamond plates, cut shallower because of fewer diamonds, not broken diamonds.
And then there is…Pressure…