Thread: Coticule Slurry BS?

OK, with that title, I know I've already stepped in it, but I want your help answering something that has bugged me for a long time.

Do the garnets actually exist in coticule slurry???

This claim has been made for a long time. Ardennes describes it this way:

When using these whetstone the crystals are released from the stone itself and produce together with water a very “abrasive milk”. In crystal form the Garnet is round or slightly oval and resembles a football (5-20 micron), made up of tiny facets (Rhomboid). These facets create obtuse angles to each other, and it is these corners which are in contact with the metal to be sharpened. These attributes are why the stone sharpens so quickly and delicately.

I've never been able to see those intact crystals. All I have ever been able to find are crescent shaped shards along with fragments of various random shapes, but nothing resembling what has been attributed to coticule slurry.

So, does anyone know of a photograph of coticule slurry that shows intact garnets?

I've never looked at it that closely. OTOH, if it works, and IME it does, what difference does the shape/condition of the abrasive component make ? If the question arises because of the claims made by Ardennes it brings to mind that Rob admitted way back when that they really had little if any knowledge as to the razor honing properties of the stones they mine. It was for a Belgian enthusiast to develop a relationship with them that gave them what expertise they've acquired. IMHO. I know it doesn't answer any questions, just pointing out that any claims they make are second hand AFAIK.

I love the way coticules work and am in no way impugning Ardennes. This claim has been around longer than anyone who is currently at that mine. I'm just curious about the explanation and how it does not jibe with what I have seen under my microscope.

The garnets are probably broken down by the pressure and friction of creating a slurry. I have photos but they are "top secret".

I agree with Jimmy. I have a few coticules, I like them, they work. As a fellow lab rat that shouldn't be enough (I know), but whatever does the work in the slurry it does it well. I have yet to hear so much discussion over any other stone regarding why.
That said I have seen garnets cleaved and I have seen the crescent shapes that you are referencing and they look similar. I can't say that they look the same.

I have looked at the slurry with SEM and I too was not able to see shapes as described by Ardennes.
May be they have a better method of creating slurry to preserve the garnets intact?

Originally Posted by deighaingeal

...whatever does the work in the slurry it does it well. I have yet to hear so much discussion over any other stone regarding why.

My reason for my caring and wondering about this is that lots of stones release slurry, but the slurry of coticules has always been described as having this particular particulate distinction. No other stone, that I know of, is described as having a distinct shape of particle released into the slurry. The coticule is imparted with this mysterious unique characteristic and I'd just like to know if there is any truth to it. Many people claim the uniqueness of the edge produced off of a coticule and these floating garnets are often given as the explanation for it. If they don't exist, then there must be some other aspect of the slurry that is responsible for it.

Originally Posted by mainaman

I have looked at the slurry with SEM and I too was not able to see shapes as described by Ardennes.
May be they have a better method of creating slurry to preserve the garnets intact?

I suspected that slurry produced by a diamond plate could be responsible for the shearing of the garnets to produce the crescents, but the same structures are there (and not there) by producing slurry with a rubbing stone or just by honing.

[QUOTE=Utopian;792991

5-20 microns

These attributes are why the stone sharpens so quickly and delicately.
[/QUOTE]

This is the one that always gets me that is "about" 800 grit - 3500 grit obviously there is much that just isn't quite right there with the numbers...

Another oddity about this is that the BBW side also has garnets, but the distinction seems to be that they are more sparse. Well then, if that is the case you should be able to make more slurry and let some of the water dry and then why isn't is comparable to the coticule side? I know it isn't, I just don't understand how the garnets play so heavily into the explanation when they don't seem to exist in the slurry.