Thread: Convex black translucent ark razor hone

Ok let's assume it is worth having. How would you maintain this? It has to wear like anything else.

Having read all the replies here, and after reading quite a bit at TSS and on other fora, my current thinking is that a long, thin hone employed as a finisher would take care of any warped and/or smiling edges without too much worry of inducing a frown-I know a number of our members here do exactly that. In fact, I've been sort of on a low-key lookout for a reasonably-priced thuringian (yeah, I know, that's an oxymoron) in the ubiquitous 1.5ishx7" size for just that purpose. I'm thinking about putting in a query to our WTB classified section for something like that.

Having said that, I still wouldn't mind at least trying that convex ark just so I could make up my own mind on the matter. After all, it seems to me that if any hone would be the least likely to alter the edge profile it would be a hard ark burnished to finishing surface trim to more polishing status.

Originally Posted by Bill31521

Ok let's assume it is worth having. How would you maintain this? It has to wear like anything else.

And that exactly is the reason why I would never convex my stones. Flat is easy thanks to diamond plates but chasing angles seems too complicated.

I am a week into honing on my Black Translucent convex stone and have some observations. First, the stone does better with mineral oil than the Ballistol-water mix. Second, and I can only relate this to what Jarrod said, I need less laps, around 20 depending on the blade instead of the 60-100 I've used on my Dan's Surgical black or my Zulu to really polish and bring up the blade. Last, I am using a light pressure rolling X stroke because for some reason and it's probably more me than the stone, I find it easier to keep the blade flatter on the stone and achieve a better results. I've honed, Damascus, Wootz, Carbon and Stainless steel blades on this stone and find they all get excellent results. Some take more laps some less but the convex stone seems to bring up the edge better than my other finishing stones. It's a work in progress and I keep experimenting to see if I can find the perfect edge.

Originally Posted by jkatzman

I am a week into honing on my Black Translucent convex stone and have some observations. First, the stone does better with mineral oil then the Ballistol-water mix. Second, and I can only relate this to what Jarrod said, I need less laps, around 20 depending on the blade instead of the 60-100 I've used on my Dan's Surgical black or my Zulu to really polish and bring up the blade. Last, I am using a light pressure rolling X stroke because for some reason and it's probably more me then the stone, I find it easier to keep the blade flatter on the stone and achieve a better results. I've honed, Damascus, Wootz, Carbon and Stainless steel blades on this stone and find they all get excellent results. Some take more laps some less but the convex stone seems to bring up the edge better then my other finishing stones. It's a work in progress and I keep experimenting to see if I can find the perfect edge.

In each usage of then you are intending to mean than. A common enough grammatical error, but still distracting.

Isn’t having to use a rolling-x stroke exactly what the convex hone is trying to eliminate?

Well. That was distracting in itself. ....
Even I knew what he meant. It's all about context....

I may have mislead in the statement rolling X stroke. It's more a X stroke with a slight turn of the toe at the end of the stroke. Just a slight turn of the wrist at the end. I also corrected my grammatical error. Typing faster than my brain can keep up with.

Interesting results. Especially about having to do less laps. Please keep us (or at least me) updated periodically as you go. There may just be something to all this.

Originally Posted by jkatzman

I am a week into honing on my Black Translucent convex stone and have some observations. First, the stone does better with mineral oil than the Ballistol-water mix. Second, and I can only relate this to what Jarrod said, I need less laps, around 20 depending on the blade instead of the 60-100 I've used on my Dan's Surgical black or my Zulu to really polish and bring up the blade. Last, I am using a light pressure rolling X stroke because for some reason and it's probably more me than the stone, I find it easier to keep the blade flatter on the stone and achieve a better results. I've honed, Damascus, Wootz, Carbon and Stainless steel blades on this stone and find they all get excellent results. Some take more laps some less but the convex stone seems to bring up the edge better than my other finishing stones. It's a work in progress and I keep experimenting to see if I can find the perfect edge.

I understand that this discussion is about the usefulness of a convex stone, and
I see the point. No offense to the OP intended, but after reading this last
paragraph, I'm not clear about what there is to be learned from this experiment.
It seems to me that there are too many variables in the equation and I'm a bit
confused about the results.

1) Was the water vs Ballistol-water mix comparison used on all of the stones,
or just on the convex stone?

2) All of the stones may have different abrasive qualities, because of their
different compositions (material and density), as well as differences in their
surface dressing; ie, are they all lapped and burnished to the same degree?
That could explain the different lap counts.

3) How can you keep a blade "flat" on a convex surface? Or are you only
referring to just the other Arkie and the Zulu stones?

4) Finally, it seems to me that the issue is really about the amount of applied
pressure, rather than the shape of the stone. If a certain amount of torque
is applied evenly across the entire width of the blade, there should be less
edge pressure (per square inch, so to speak) against the stone surface than
if the same torque is applied only to a narrow portion of the blade. That
increased pressure presumably results in some "bending" of the edge, as
well as greater abrasion. Therefore, fewer laps are required for the same
result.

I understand how a convex stone might be useful if the blade is warped, but
I still don't understand why such a stone should have universal application.

I may be all wrong about this, so somebody please set me straight.