Thread: Cleaning Shapton Glasstones

This discussion could really use it's own thread, but it seems there are only three of us really interested in it ATM so...

The edge width figures from the Verhoeven document were measured as a maximum width from one peak to another, on what looks like a zig zagging line. The valleys of that zig zag are much closer together than the 3 um, or even the 1 um, measurement (and especially if diamond abrasives are used).

So there is still a sub micron edge at those lower grits, it's just out of alignment and mostly unusable in that condition.

(One could also make a case that sharpening stops where a usable edge is obtained for the intended cutting media i.e. a pocketknife does not need the edge that a razor has.)


As for cleaning stones, I rinse my stones off with water. Hones (artificial stones), on the otherhand, (ceramic but not Shapton) require periodic scrubbing with a stiff nylon bristled brush under running water, or a good lapping; mine are cheap so lapping is usually the preferred method.

Here are some of the things I do and I haven't had a problem with build up on the Shaptons or the Nortons...
I hone in 10 lap sets so every ten laps I dunk the stone swish it with my fingers and then reverse the direction of the stone (spin it) so that each 10 laps I am honing on the opposite side of the stone, I just don't let the swarf build up at all.....
Yes the Nagura stone will clean the Shaptons, the slurry is not needed though, so dunk it and rinse it (IMHO)
Using this system I hone 10 razors then lightly lap the stones, and I mean lightly it takes maybe 10-20 seconds per stone to clear the grid lines....

As to sharpening vs polishing it has always been my belief that stones break down this way
Under 1k = that's a problem razor
1k-2k = Bevel setting stones
3k-6k = Sharpening stones
7k-9k = Polishing stones
10k and up = Finishing stones

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

Originally Posted by kevint

I tried to account for a difference in terminology. To me polishing refers to an aesthetic value. True, polishing metal removes material as well but the intent is different. polishing is to create clarity/ sharpening is an attempt to create nothing. - the zero edge

The problem here is that useing your definitions, a stone can be both a sharpening stone and a polishing stone, because the difference lies in the the intent of their use not in any properties of the stones.

Originally Posted by PonderingTurtle

The problem here is that useing your definitions, a stone can be both a sharpening stone and a polishing stone, because the difference lies in the the intent of their use not in any properties of the stones.

Of course I am using my definitions, as those are the ones I perfer; others are welcome to their incorrect use of language as they see fit I understand semantics.

These terms are nearly interchangeable. But the way you suggest breaking it down by user intent is an entirely different subject matter, and perhaps least concise. As it may be your intent to sharpen a razor with the pummice and french polishing pad but it likely won't work too well... There are stones with inherent properties that make them far better at polishing than sharpening.

Further examples of the distinction of terms sharpen and polish:The name for Japanese sword sharpener is most often interpreted as "polisher" as his attempts are to produce clarity allowing one to see fine details of crystalline structure. A glass lens is polished, allowing one to see through it clearly. Sharpening is about creating crisp definition as in: The image detail has been sharpened. Similarly polishing urushi lacquer is often refered to as honing or sharpening as it should be flat, crisp - not washed over

Semantics. I can see your pov can you see mine

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Under 1k = that's a problem razor
1k-2k = Bevel setting stones
3k-6k = Sharpening stones
7k-9k = Polishing stones
10k and up = Finishing stones

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

I like Glen's terminology.

Chris L

We can break down the terminology into subsets with different labels (polishing, honing, refining, finishing, etc.), but the underlying goals are:

1) Form an edge
2) Make that edge usable for the context of the given tool

So, to me, sharpening ends at whatever grit you choose to use in forming the initial bevel and everything beyond that is polishing.

This kind of distinction is also important for using natural stones, as they don't have predetermined grit ranges that make them specific to any one purpose. The level of coarseness that is acceptable has to do with the intended purpose of the tool and nothing else.

Glen, I have experienced some minor loading after just 10 strokes on the Shapton
16k. After 10 strokes I go to the sink to rinse well, but just with my hand. Perhaps
a cloth or nylon brush would help keep the steel at bay. Just to clarify, what I see
after a few razors is very subtle -- I generally have to look closely and hold the
stone to the light to see the glint of the steel.

Regards,

- Scott

Originally Posted by kevint

Of course I am using my definitions, as those are the ones I perfer; others are welcome to their incorrect use of language as they see fit I understand semantics.

These terms are nearly interchangeable. But the way you suggest breaking it down by user intent is an entirely different subject matter, and perhaps least concise. As it may be your intent to sharpen a razor with the pummice and french polishing pad but it likely won't work too well... There are stones with inherent properties that make them far better at polishing than sharpening.

Further examples of the distinction of terms sharpen and polish:The name for Japanese sword sharpener is most often interpreted as "polisher" as his attempts are to produce clarity allowing one to see fine details of crystalline structure. A glass lens is polished, allowing one to see through it clearly. Sharpening is about creating crisp definition as in: The image detail has been sharpened. Similarly polishing urushi lacquer is often refered to as honing or sharpening as it should be flat, crisp - not washed over

Semantics. I can see your pov can you see mine

Not quite, I was pointing out that any stone could be used for pollishing as well as sharpening by the definitions you are using.

Think about lapping compounds, they are all essentialy pollishing if they are 220 grit or .25 micron. But classifying stones over that range as all being polishing stones is also wrong.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

We can break down the terminology into subsets with different labels (polishing, honing, refining, finishing, etc.), but the underlying goals are:

1) Form an edge
2) Make that edge usable for the context of the given tool

So, to me, sharpening ends at whatever grit you choose to use in forming the initial bevel and everything beyond that is polishing.

Nope not buying into that Russ. What I meant in response to Pondering Turtle regarding intent as a different subject is much what you are saying. Example: Depending on how you use a given stone you can produce a variety of finishes -that would be polishing.

It was said that beyond 2000 one is only polishing. As you pointed out, the dimension of the edge is continuously decreasing; you are trying to create a very thin, straight line of crystals- that is sharpening. I think if you looked up the definition what is referred to as "polishing" is perhaps the proper definition of honing

my list: 0-800+ ( erosion stone)
>1000-16000+ (cutting stone)
>20000-40000+(zen stone)

It's not even that big a deal, even to me. Even in the catalog fine stones are called "polishing" and "finish"

Ok now can we define: loading; glazing

Originally Posted by PonderingTurtle

Not quite, I was pointing out that any stone could be used for pollishing as well as sharpening by the definitions you are using.

Think about lapping compounds, they are all essentialy pollishing if they are 220 grit or .25 micron. But classifying stones over that range as all being polishing stones is also wrong.

Ahhh. We are in agreement afterall then oh wait maybe not...

yes, think about lapping compounds, what are they but prepared slurries? They can do both polish and sharpening. you can polish with compound on a soft yeilding cloth, but you cannot exactly sharpen.

You can't really say that calling a broad range of abrasives, sharpening or polishing wrong as both come in degrees, levels. which is really the whole point of my original comment. I'm sorry you cannot see the distinction.