Quote Originally Posted by Lesslemming View Post
There seems to be a misunderstanding:

Naniwa, Shapton, Norton... they all use the same abrasive!

White Al2O3.
Al2O3 IS a ceramic material. It is THE ceramic material when we speak of hones.
There are others like SiC, but those are uncommon amongst the big brands.

So I never really understood why some of these stones are called
"ceramic hones". Of course they are ceramic. The abrasive is ceramic.
Itīs always... (except some naturals and exotics)



Al2O3 always comes in splinters, whereas Chromium Oxide, iron oxide and some garnets can appear in round shape.
Diamonds are splinters as well.

There are two things that seperate the shaptons from the naniwas

Its the binder (thatīs what is referred to when it is spoken of "mixtures")
and the purity of particle sizes.

The latter is quite obvious.
There is no way a shapton 16k can consist of 100% particles with 0.92ĩm in diameter.
You will always have like 10% above 1ĩ, 10% below 0.92ĩm and so on
The grade of purity will have impact on the quality of the surface and sharpening results

The binder is what we will actually feel.
If a stone is "hard" itīs not the Al2O3 we are talking about,
itīs the binder.
White Al2O3 will nearly always have the same hardness.
But if these hard particles are bond very very loosely
the sharpening experience as well as the results will be very different
from a stone with a harder binder.

I belive the binder will most certainly have impact on the size, depth and occurance of scratches a stone produces
even with the exact same type of abrasive in it
(wich is the case in naniwa, shapton and norton)


Kingfish I totally understand what your doctor meant,
studying chemistry myself
But, it is the nature of the sedimentary selecting process
that prohibits influence on shape, so either the particles will naturally form
round crystalls, or they will be splinter-shaped, I believe
No offense taken. I don't hink people working in the Ceramic industries today would look at the simplistic notion that all Al2O3s are the same. I am not in that industry and don't claim to be an expert in it but can understand it if explained. Ceramics from each company are not all the same. The diffences could be in the starting point of the ore to the addition of lighter metals during processing. Are we not talking about the modern ceramic industry? Is it that simple?
As far as x-tal shape not to get into a pis*&^ng contest are there not eight major x-tal systems and many many variations of each? The slightest introduction of any adulterant in processing is going to change the crystal lattice.
Mike