Thread: Flattening stone:3 1000 stones vs diamond plate

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.

Originally Posted by BKratchmer

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.

Another strange post. It seems like I would be telling people to
stop using diamond plates to flatten and start using the three stones
method instead. I'm tyring to compare the two methods and am asking for information. Some things I know myself so I comment on that.

In fact I tell that using a diamond flattening plate is more convenient.
I also say that while the three stone method will give perfect flattness
on the 1000 grit stones, you will lose this flatness once you use
it to flatten other stones with.

Show me where I say that a razor would need a less flat honing
surface compared to plane blades. You can't because I did not
ever say so. The only thing I said in this regard was that the the honing surface of a razor probably needs less flattening meaning the frequencey of flattening is probably less.

When you sharpen plane blades, it is much more difficult to use the whole stone. So you quickly end up with a concave stone which needs flattening often. Because many people sharpening plane blades use a jig, this concavity should be corrected as soon as possible.

I am guessing that with a razor this is not the case becaues you
can use the whole stone.

My topic is about flattening with diamond stones vs the three stone
method. Pro's and cons. It's about nothing else.

Sharpman

Okay. I don't think that a surface flat enough for straight razor use, wouldn't be enough for anything else. You are saying that your 3 stone method will give you "perfect" flatness, but it won't. Maybe it will be flatter than with a DMT or DGLP for the firt 2 strokes, but after that, it won't make a difference. We talk about waterstones, that dish after all. It won't even make a difference on ceramic stones either, but on waterstones, that level of flatness you are talking about, it totally overshoot. Because the flatter it is, it will loose its perfect flatness faster.

So in my opinion your 3 stone method has no advantages. You would never feel the difference between the two lapping methods, besides that yours is more expensive, and slower.

Originally Posted by jeness

Okay. I don't think that a surface flat enough for straight razor use, wouldn't be enough for anything else. You are saying that your 3 stone method will give you "perfect" flatness, but it won't. Maybe it will be flatter than with a DMT or DGLP for the firt 2 strokes, but after that, it won't make a difference. We talk about waterstones, that dish after all. It won't even make a difference on ceramic stones either, but on waterstones, that level of flatness you are talking about, it totally overshoot. Because the flatter it is, it will loose its perfect flatness faster.

So in my opinion your 3 stone method has no advantages. You would never feel the difference between the two lapping methods, besides that yours is more expensive, and slower.

Just to make sure I am not misunderstood. I am not saying sharpening
razors requires a less flat honing surface. I am guessing that since the
whole stone can be used whilst flattening razors, the honing surface
would require less flattening because(again guessing) it is inclinded to
stay flatter.

When you sharpen plane blades , usually the middle of the stone is
used more and therefore it becomes concave quickly requiring
the stone to be dressed more frequently compared to when sharpening
razors.

Ok, your point on the waterstone of 1000 grit being flatter initially but losing
this very fast(after a few strokes)is very good one that I brought up
earlier too.

This is what I was thinking. A finishing stone will require very little flattening
because it only polishes, so it dishes very little. So maybe the very flat 1000 grit stone would make a polishing stone flat before this same stone would lose its own flatness.

I am thinking this because I have used(as experiment) my 1000 grit naniwa
SS to flatten my 8000 grit SS. I noticed a lot of mud of the 8000, but almost
nothing of the 1000 grit. This made me think that a 1000 grit stone dishes
very little when flattening a polishing stone. Also the 1000 grit SS stone is
a very soft, muddy stone.

I have been told and have read that the shapton pro 1000 is a much harder
and significantly less dishing stone compared to the naniwa 1000 SS. So now I am thinking if my naniwa stone is dishing very little whilst flattening my naniwa polishing stone, then very probably the shapton pro will dish even
less whilst doing this same thing. Make sense?

I could just go and buy three shapton pros 1000 grit and test this method,
but because I am not rich, I thought why not ask the sharpening guru's
here(whom I respect very much!). Maybe they tried what I am thinking
and can tell me their experiences.

Sharpman

Additional info: I don't think it is important to mention that I
don't sharpen razors, but only plane blades. Flattening is
flattening as far as I know. The discussion is about the
pros and cons of using a diamond plate to flatten waterstones
vs the three stone method to do this same thing.

Whether a stone has dished because a razor or a plane blade
has been sharpened on it does not matter as far as I know.

So again, please lets keep the thread on the pros an cons
of flattening waterstones with diamond plates vs the three
stone method.

Thank you.

Sharpman