Thread: Toxic hones...

Originally Posted by KenWeir

I think a large part of it is new people being scared off by the word toxic. It's a shame we can't make the world simply start calling them inclusions.

No kidding!! When I first heard the word "toxic", I thought it meant poisonous or radioactive. Like it would make you sick and infect your home with God knows what.

Originally Posted by KenWeir

I think a large part of it is new people being scared off by the word toxic. It's a shame we can't make the world simply start calling them inclusions.

I think 'toxic' is a way to say that an inclusion can scratch steel versus an inclusion that doesn't.

Most glassy lines and goma are not toxic, these inclusions can add silica and cutting power to the slurry, so if the inclusion doesn't scratch steel, they can be an attribute and not a liability. But to the eye they look the same or a benign line can look worse than a toxic one. I have a kiita with two magnificent glassy wires down the middle, not in the slightest toxic, and that line in the corner of the karasu was very mild looking but half of it would stand up above the stone with wear. It's also a first-class razor hone.

Cheers, Steve

Originally Posted by Steve56

I think 'toxic' is a way to say that an inclusion can scratch steel versus an inclusion that doesn't.

Most glassy lines and goma are not toxic, these inclusions can add silica and cutting power to the slurry, so if the inclusion doesn't scratch steel, they can be an attribute and not a liability. But to the eye they look the same or a benign line can look worse than a toxic one. I have a kiita with two magnificent glassy wires down the middle, not in the slightest toxic, and that line in the corner of the karasu was very mild looking but half of it would stand up above the stone with wear. It's also a first-class razor hone.

Cheers, Steve

You're right but the word toxic is still sounds a lot worse than it should or could. It's all semantics, but still...

Agreed that the word toxic is perhaps a poor choice. But you've also got the mindset that, in order to be useful/good, a hone has to be homogeneous to contend with. And really that's what needs to change. Prior to this thread I had never heard of a "toxic" hone, so of course that piqued my curiosity. Inclusions I was familiar with, and those were safely categorized in the 'probably don't want' section. Now I'm intrigued by this new (to me) section of hones with character marks that still perform admirably. It's good to know that I ever DO happen across a hone with a bad inclusion it can simply be picked out, and perhaps filled over to keep a good rock serviceable.

I would never fill a hole with anything.

Pet peeve. It would bug the stuffing out of me until I found something 'soft' and not harmful to fill the void with. I know negative space shouldn't be detrimental, but still. Grr!

Originally Posted by Marshal

Pet peeve. It would bug the stuffing out of me until I found something 'soft' and not harmful to fill the void with. I know negative space shouldn't be detrimental, but still. Grr!

Marshal,

Good Jnats are like women, if you try to correct them too much they hurt you. Lol.

Cheers, Steve

Originally Posted by Steve56

Marshal,

Good Jnats are like women, if you try to correct them too much they hurt you. Lol.

Cheers, Steve

There's a reason I avoid the latter, but I've yet to meet a rock that can't be tamed.

Take good care of that rock...

And use it to tame a woman.

Originally Posted by KenWeir

Take good care of that rock...

And use it to tame a woman.

I feel as though society frowns upon the method that first comes to mind. I'm sure somewhere out there is a woman that would be impressed by next-level honing skills though.