Thread: Flattening stone:3 1000 stones vs diamond plate

To address your original question, I doubt that you will find anyone using your "three stone" process who could advise you as to its effectiveness. To be honest, this technique sounds like the answer to a question that no one is asking. Of course this is just my opinion.

If you have a low grit stone that is flat enough to lap another low grit stone why do you need three of them? Just use it to lap the higher grit stones....of course, then it would be a lapping stone which brings you back to the beginning.

Maybe I'm missing the point here???

WOW... out of words... uhhhhhh I would listen to Gsix. He kinda knows what hes talking about.

I have also used a diamond nagura and DMT plate at the XXC size and I can recall 1 time when a diamond might have embedded on a Jnat. The convenience, quickness and degree of precision of a DMT or Atoma is just head and shoulders above any other method I have tried. Though I am curious about the huge ceramic flattening plates.

3 stones to flatten each other out. I though my HAD was bad.

[QUOTE=adrspach;752698]

Originally Posted by SharpMan

Yes, three stones of the same grit and type. You can use these to
precisely flatten each stone.

Rub:
1 A on B, A on C, B on C
2 B on A, B on C, A on C
3 C on B, C on A, A on B

Every time you do this, your stones get flatter. Just make
sure that your stones are not convex because that would make
things worse as the stones while rubbing them would rock.

Sharpman

You are a lucky man. Is it more economical and effective for you to purchase 3 same hones instead of one and DMT plate. I am just imagining 220, 1000, 3000, 5000, 8000, 12000, 16000, 30000 and all of them 3 times. Can you succesfuly explain this to my wife? I promiss you a decent pint if you succeed.

LOL

No, I meant only three 1000 grit stones. Use these to get
all three flat.

Once they are flat, you can use one of them to sharpen your razor on
and you can use the other two to flatten other stones. So you could
use the other two like diamond stones.

Of course diamond stones remain flat and the 1000 grit stones lose
their flatness whilst flattening the intermediate and finishing stone, but
from experience I know this does not really happen fast. Especially when
the 1000 grit stone is hard, like a shapton pro.

Sharpman

Originally Posted by Bill S

To address your original question, I doubt that you will find anyone using your "three stone" process who could advise you as to its effectiveness. To be honest, this technique sounds like the answer to a question that no one is asking. Of course this is just my opinion.

If you have a low grit stone that is flat enough to lap another low grit stone why do you need three of them? Just use it to lap the higher grit stones....of course, then it would be a lapping stone which brings you back to the beginning.

Maybe I'm missing the point here???

Well the thing is that the low grit stone does not remain flat, as you
know. So how do you keep it flat.

Which brings up my question. Does using 3 stones of the same grit(to flatten each other) have a real advantage compared to a diamond flattening plate?

In my question there is no 1 low grit stone that is flat and which is
used to flatten other low grit stones. You need at least 3 same grit stones
to get true flat surfaces on the stones.

So you have 3(minimum) unflat stones, by rubbing them in a particular order you create 3 perfectly flat surfaces. One stone can be used to sharpen, the other two to flatten the intermediate stone and the finishing stone.

Let's try this 32 stone method:

-For example let me pick the shapton pro 1000. If you are going
to buy three of them, you are spending about 3 times 50 dollars=150
dollars. That is a 100 dollars more on the 1000 grit stone than you would have spent if you bought a diamond flattening plate because then you
would not need the additional two stones. But the diamond plate
itself costs somewhere between 80-120 dollars(as far as I know). Not
to mention the expensive shapton diamond plate.
Anyway, so costwise(initial expenses), they are the same.

-Convenience wise, the diamond plate wins.

-Flattness wise the 3 stone method wins. Remember the three object
method is used to create surface plates and straight edges. But as you
use the 1000 grit stone to flatten other stones, the 1000 grit loses its
flatness whilst the diamond plate remains the same. So I am not sure
which method produces flatter waterstones.

-grit contamination. I would have thought the diamond stone would have
been worse in this aspect, but I am told by some members here, they don't have any ill effects. The 1000 grit stone could actually be worse.

-How long would the 3 1000 grit stones last this way compared to the diamond plate? I have read quite on some forums on this subject. I read
that on average the diamond plates(only used on waterstones) last about
2-4 years. They continue cutting, but very slowly and flattness becomes
an issue. Some say the diamonds just disappear on the plate, very little diamond particles remain.

I think the 3 1000 grit stones would definitely outlast the diamond stones
in this regard.

Just some thoughts.

Sharpman

Originally Posted by Memorael

WOW... out of words... uhhhhhh I would listen to Gsix. He kinda knows what hes talking about.

I have also used a diamond nagura and DMT plate at the XXC size and I can recall 1 time when a diamond might have embedded on a Jnat. The convenience, quickness and degree of precision of a DMT or Atoma is just head and shoulders above any other method I have tried. Though I am curious about the huge ceramic flattening plates.

3 stones to flatten each other out. I though my HAD was bad.

That is interesting. I wonder could it be that the diamond particles
when they break of the plate, are so small that we do not really
notice them embedding in our waterstones.

Sharpman

Sharpman,

I think you might have to be careful.

(From my experience of making telescope mirrors) - you start out with two (2) plane discs of glass. By use of abrasive and rubbing motions against each other, one disc evenutally becomes convex, the other concave.

Could this happen in the case of hones rubbed against each other, particularly if the hardness of the two hones were similar ?

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

Originally Posted by PhatMan

Sharpman,

I think you might have to be careful.

(From my experience of making telescope mirrors) - you start out with two (2) plane discs of glass. By use of abrasive and rubbing motions against each other, one disc evenutally becomes convex, the other concave.

Could this happen in the case of hones rubbed against each other, particularly if the hardness of the two hones were similar ?

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

Russ, very good point.

That is why I said you need at least 3 stones. Using two stones
causes one being convex and one being concave. This way, they
fit in each other.

The only way 3 stones fit in each other is only possible if they
are flat. That is why rubbing 3 stones in a particular order
does not cause concavitity/convexity, but perfect flattness.

You do need to make sure the stones are not convex, because
this causes rocking.

Check this link for more info:

Making Accurate Straight-Edges from Scratch

Sharpman

Sharpman, I see you can't be convinced. The diamond stones blow EVERYTHING away in any aspect. Do not believe us, go and buy your stones. Reading what you are writing, you never wanted to hear any opinions about diamond stones, you want to hear that your process is the best, and it owns diamond.

You say that diamond will get embedded, you say it won't be flat, you say it will wear out, but you don't have a clue about it, because you never tried it. Otherwise you wouldn't say such silly things. The diamond plates have been tested by thousands, and no one had a problem with them.

Its not a coincidence that everyone is using them, even those who are sharpening dozens of razors a day.

BTW, a 325 DMT costs about 50$ shipped, much cheaper than what you are saying.

Originally Posted by jeness

Sharpman, I see you can't be convinced. The diamond stones blow EVERYTHING away in any aspect. Do not believe us, go and buy your stones. Reading what you are writing, you never wanted to hear any opinions about diamond stones, you want to hear that your process is the best, and it owns diamond.

You say that diamond will get embedded, you say it won't be flat, you say it will wear out, but you don't have a clue about it, because you never tried it. Otherwise you wouldn't say such silly things. The diamond plates have been tested by thousands, and no one had a problem with them.

Its not a coincidence that everyone is using them, even those who are sharpening dozens of razors a day.

BTW, a 325 DMT costs about 50$ shipped, much cheaper than what you are saying.

Did you read this, quoting myself:

Let's try this 32 stone method:

-For example let me pick the shapton pro 1000. If you are going
to buy three of them, you are spending about 3 times 50 dollars=150
dollars. That is a 100 dollars more on the 1000 grit stone than you would have spent if you bought a diamond flattening plate because then you
would not need the additional two stones. But the diamond plate
itself costs somewhere between 80-120 dollars(as far as I know). Not
to mention the expensive shapton diamond plate.
Anyway, so costwise(initial expenses), they are the same.

-Convenience wise, the diamond plate wins.

-Flattness wise the 3 stone method wins. Remember the three object
method is used to create surface plates and straight edges. But as you
use the 1000 grit stone to flatten other stones, the 1000 grit loses its
flatness whilst the diamond plate remains the same. So I am not sure
which method produces flatter waterstones.

-grit contamination. I would have thought the diamond stone would have
been worse in this aspect, but I am told by some members here, they don't have any ill effects. The 1000 grit stone could actually be worse.

-How long would the 3 1000 grit stones last this way compared to the diamond plate? I have read quite on some forums on this subject. I read
that on average the diamond plates(only used on waterstones) last about
2-4 years. They continue cutting, but very slowly and flattness becomes
an issue. Some say the diamonds just disappear on the plate, very little diamond particles remain.

I think the 3 1000 grit stones would definitely outlast the diamond stones
in this regard.

Just some thoughts.

Sharpman

I have used a diamond plate. Not DMT or Atoma.

The tone of your post is strange.

Sharpman

Originally Posted by SharpMan

The tone of your post is strange.

Sharpman

No, what is strange is you preaching this bizarre method of lapping while pretending you're asking a question. You also make a lot of incredible assumptions in order to make your point-- one of which is that razors require a honing surface that is less-flat than a plane blade. Perhaps, Sharpman, you would consider learning to hone a razor before acting as though you are familiar and competent with our methodology-- something which I would consider a common courtesy. I certainly would not have the audacity to come to site dedicated to straight razors to seek information about plane blades without showing at least some cursory interest in razors.