Printable View
I ordered a flatbed hone from Hand American, to make up for a delay in shipping they included their 1.8 and 6.0 compounds for free. :) Now I'm wondering what to do with it. :thinking: I have a textured leather hone so I figured I'd use that with the 6.0micron stuff but I'm wondering if I should.
What's the worst that could happen if I started on the leather hone then moved to the 8K side of the Norton?
I just looked in the Help file section on Honing and the Norton JIS/FEPA/Micron chart.
6 micron is approx 4000 JIS
1.8 "" 6000 JIS
1.0 " 8000 JIS
The progression would be logical but others who have used this on leather for honing would be the ones to ask.
I go from hard stones to soft pasted leather.
I have never used a pasted leather for all my honing.
There's quite a bit of confusion on these equivalents. If you look at the diamond paste data, a 6 is 3K, a 3 is 8K, a 1 is about 14K and a .5 is 50K.Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
There are a number of international "standards" and the numbers don't align (ie, 4000 in one isn't 4000 in another). And, you have the problem of what does 4000 mean? Is it the mean, average, or max size of the particles that make up the abrasive... different manufacturers use different methods to spec their products. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lerch
I like the chart I've included below (copied from a Norton brouchure), but there's disagreement as to it's accuracy because there are other charts with conflicting information. Geez... you'd think a micron is a micron in any situation, lol.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...-sizeChart.jpg
Joe, Randy,
Even more confusing between the two charts is that Norton and Amplex are the same people....all part of St. Gobain.
Somehow the abrasives being in suspension vs. boned into a stone must have some bearing on this. I know the Amplex compounds are actually a mixture of different sizes so the micron rating is really an average of the sizes.
On hard stones some feel more coarse than others despite the grit rating. Many like the Norton 4K are fast cutting which means the oarticles are spaced to allow for free cutting. The grit s fine, the spacing is far making it feel a little rougher than a Japanese stone which tends to be very slow cutting.
Tony
I agree with all of the above comments!:)
The best starting point is the micron size. After that you pay attention to the actual results on your blade.
I just acquired a 8000 Kitayama Japanese waterstone and tried it yesterday for the first time.
It was so slow!!!!!:rant:
I will try some more razors on it in the future to give it a fair test. Maybe its best use is as a touch up hone?:thinking:
I agree, Randy... there's really little else we can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
Regarding differing standards of measurement, here's a good overview from the Wood Artistry website... as you can see, there's little hope of using just "the numbers" to compare products from different manufacturers, different countries, and (as Tony pointed out) constructed using different process technologies.Quote:
Why are there such differences in the numbers and words used to identify abrasive grit sizes? The numbering systems used to identify abrasive grits are designed to meet standards of different countries or are measured with different methods.
- Mesh Grades : The most common methods used in the USA are mesh grades, which are screens of mesh that abrasives can fall through. The finer the mesh, the smaller the grit size, so a 120 mesh is coarser than a 180 mesh.
- Micron sizing : With this system, the grit is measured in microns (one millionth of a meter), and a 120μ (micron) grit is finer than an 180μ grit.
- CAMI: The USA measurements are defined by “ CAMI ” ( Coated Abrasives Manufacturers' Institute).
- FEPA: European abrasives are defined by “FEPA” (Federation of European Producers of Abrasives). With this system, a P with the grit size indicates a coated abrasive while an F indicates a bonded abrasive.
- JIS: The Japanese system for measuring abrasives is defined by a “JIS” (Japanese Industrial Standard) document.
Note: Cross references are made by several sources, but do not always agree, as there is not an exact equivalent of all abrasive grades. One listing of an 8000 grit water stone equates it to 3μ while another says it is 1.2μ. CAMI 360 mesh grit is listed as being 28.80μ, while a FEPA P360 and JIS 360 are listed at 40.50μ. The numbers do not always equate to other measurement systems
I understand what you mean about the different standards for grit. What I don't understand is if you pick a standard, pastes with the same micron size sometimes come out to be different grits under the same standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by azjoe
This stone is sometimes marketed as a 12k Randy. I have been told that the effective grit is somewhere in the 12-15k range once a slurry is raised. Could that be why it seems slow to you? Of course nothing that I have tried cuts faster than Shapton pro stones..Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
When you feel the dry surface does it feel coarser than a 12K?Quote:
Originally Posted by Korndog
Randy,Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
This is what stemmed my question a week or so ago about using the Norton 220. At the time I was using a Japanese King 800 and it was taking forever. When my Norton 1000 arrived, it was much faster and I understood your cautions on using anything more aggresive.
I spent a goodly amount of time yesterday trying to put some reason behind various manufacturer’s differences in diamond paste grit size ratings when they have the same micron rating.
For those unfamiliar with abrasives (ie, sandpaper, stones, pastes, etc.) they’re typically spec’ed using a “grit” rating. Historically, grit size is equivalent to the “size” of the wire mesh screen used to sieve the abrasive particles, size being the number of wires in a linear inch of the screen. (E.g., 60 mesh has 60 wires each direction in a square inch and is the size commonly used in kitchen faucets, an 80 mesh has an opening which will barely pass a human hair.) All abrasives are made up of varying sized particles that fall within a size range… for example, a 100 grit stone might be made up of abrasive particles that pass through a size 100 mesh but do not pass through a 120 mesh (remember, the smaller the number the larger the hole in the mesh). For large grit sizes (e.g., for mesh numbers <240), the sieving process actually uses a wire mesh screen-like process. But for the grit sizes we’re interested in (>1000), the sieving process is much more exotic since we’re dealing with micron-sized particles.We’ve already established that different parts of the world use different standards, but a micron is a micron, right? So why the conflict? Well, I found lots of information that pointed to nothing specific that we could hang our hat on. I found the usual references to JIS, CAMI (which is now apparently part of UAMA, so don’t be surprised if you start seeing references to that), etc.
On this document I found the statement “DIAMOND MESH EQUIVALENT - refers to micron size grading as performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)”, and a chart which included columns for both “mesh size” and “diamond mesh equivalent”. Here’s data for two entries in their table:
Code:micron size mesh mesh equiv micron range
.5 25000 60000 0-1
5 2500 3000 4-8
I spent some time on the NIST website but gave up… their site is so large that you seemingly have to what/where you want to go to be successful. So I don’t know what context to apply to the NIST statement. I do know that NIST both 1)defines measurement/testing methodologies and 2)produces measurement standards which you can use to calibrate the measuring tools/devices.
For course stones it’s economical to sieve to reasonably close tolerances… for example:
100-grit = 149 - 125 micronsAs the particle size gets smaller, it’s not only increasingly expensive, but becomes technically challenging to maintain such close tolerances… for example, here’s some data I found for a US made diamond abrasive:
Code:mesh micron range average(*)
8000 4 – 2 2
15000 2 – 0 1
60000 1 - .25 .625
(*)calculated by me
Now, my hypothesis as to why manufacturers grit specs differ for the same micron-size…
According to here US manufacturers (including Norton, although they are now owned by a European company) spec according to the larger of the size-range of particles. Hence, using the table above as the example data, a 2 micron rated abrasive using the US method (micron range of 2 - 0) would equate to something around 15000-grit. The European convention is to spec to the average particle size… thus a 2 micron rated product (4 – 2 micron range) would equate to approximately 8000-grit. So, the bottom line is that the micron rating from some companies is the largest particle size in the abrasive and for others it's the average particle size.
Now, before we get too cocky about all this, most manufacturing processes create a non-linear distribution of particle sizes within the range… e.g., there might be more larger particles than smaller, so the average is not necessarily the midpoint of the range that I’ve used as examples above. Hence, it’s very difficult to compare product from different vendors even when you know the particle size range.
My standard stone that I use following the 8000 Norton is the 12000 Chinese natural waterstone. I generally use 50-100 laps on that stone.
I did not try that many laps on the Kitayama but will try it with high reps next time as a substitute for the Norton 8000 and also as a substitute for the 12000 Chinese hone. It does feel very fine, similar to the Chinese 12000
Thanks for the input:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korndog
Hey Azjoe! Good post!:)
Why do you need so many laps after coming off a stone that so close in grit? Is the Chinese stone that slow?Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
Awesome post Joe. Can you put the charts in the files section? Thanks alot. Lynn
Done! I revised the document slightly and added the charts inline instead of referencing their URLs. It's in "Help Files/Permanent Archive/Honing & Stropping Information/why diamond pastes have conflicting grit sizes" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by adjustme69
...joe
Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
I have a Shampton 15K. I am working on a razor that is almost there. It does not pull too much when I use it, but neither does it take off much. Would you suggest using 50 to 100 reps to get it closer to super sharp? Then what, go to the .5K leather strop or to the plain strop before shaving?
jmsbcknr:thinking:
From microscope photos, I can see that leather stropping makes a big difference after the 12K stone. The fin looks taller, which suggests that some kind of fin alignment is taking place. Maybe a stone causes the individual microserrations to spread out and the strop makes them stand up again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsbcknr
In any case, I think a pasted strop should have that same effect. So, the benefit of using leather must be that it polishes down the scratch lines. You can see that. Those scratch lines contact the skin when you shave, so it seems that smoothing them would improve the smoothness of the shave. Of course, there has to be a point where it doesn't make a difference. A .25 strop is like a 100K abrasive, so it might already be at that point.
Being able to tell whether leather stropping makes a difference after a .25 strop will require some experimentation. I just do it out of habit.
Chaaaz was the first person to experiment with that many laps on the 12000 stone and had success. So, I tried it and also had a noticeale improvement in the blade edge. From that I guess you can conclude that the Chinese 12000 stone is very slow cutting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lerch
Since I have no experience with the Shapton 15000 I will only suggest caution.
You did not give me enough info on your razor or the hones you are using to make any recommendations.
New razor, previously shaving razor, ebay special etc...?
Hones - which are you using?
Let us know,:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsbcknr
So before, you were going from the Norton to the paste, and since adding 50-100 strokes on a 12k stone between the two, you have achieved better edges? Is that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by randydance062449
X
I don't know. To me it seems like an awful lot of work, so it can't be very efficient. Usually it's more efficient to work you way up. For example, you might be able to get a fine barbers' hone that will bring you to a 12K finish more quicly and then finishing with a lot fewer strokes on the Chinese stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Yes I have
Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
That makes sense too, Joe but my success with the barber hones seems still to be eluding me so I'm not enthusiastic about trying that. I've got a Honemaster and a Pike Black Beauty by Norton by the way which I believe are both very fine hones. Both just seem to polish the fins away on me.:rant:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lerch
I've been able to get the hanging hair reluctantly popping, more like breaking off over the blade, but not quite as sweetly snapping away as when it first arrived from David. I had a faintly difficult shave the other day (which might have been the stropping) so I took it back to the paste for 50-60 passes and although it didn't attack the hanging hair any better, it shaved much better. Further evidence of inferior stropping? :hmmm:
I've been thinking about adding another stage in my honing since I notice more difficulty as the keenness goes away. I was considering the .25 micron paste, but now I may seriously consider the 12k as well or instead.
Anybody with thoughts on that?
X
There's a lot here that doesn't make sense. But it's not rocket science so we should be able to figure it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
First of all, barber hones have been around a long time and many more people have used them successfully than anything else. The most effective use of a barber hone is the one you tried. You have a keen razor that's starting to pull and you want to refresh it. What you're supposed to do is a few swipes on a fine hone (prferably a Swaty type), strop and you're done. And a few means 5-10 light strokes. Doing that you can maintain your razor indefinitely without serious honing. You did a lot more and you're unhappy with yur results. Could it be you overhoned?
There's no magic here. It works, but the barber hones are fast. Using a .5 pasted strop you can do a lot more strokes, but the principle is the same. But 50-60 strokes again seems like too muuch. I would think no more than half that number.
That 12K stone is not intended for that purpose, it's more like a fine finishing barber hone (the honemaster), which is slow. It's what you use at the end of a razor restoration to complete the edge, not for a quick refresh.
I don't now what the Black beauty is, but you need a Swaty type hone (fast, but fine). Unless you want to do a lot of work with the finishing hone. A barber hone should work, but you need to keep at it. Jumping around to different products without taking the time to learn one is not going to be helpful for you.
I used the 6µ compound with a textured strop. The razor wouldn't shave arm hairs, but under a cheapo scope it didn't look totally dead either. It took a long time, probably 250-300 laps, I lost count, but it did make a comeback. After the 6µ I move to the 1.8µ on smooth unfinished leather for another 100 or so laps, I lost count again, could have been closer to 200. I finished up with the Hand American .5µ paste and then a plain strop.
The razor still will not pass the hanging hair test but it shaves my arm, and more importantly my face just fine.
It might make sense to eliminate the possibility of over-honing. Try the method suggested by David Uthe and also shown on the Greg Ives-John West video. Perform 3-5 back-honing strokes (edge trailing) then follow that up with 5 normal honing strokes, then test the edge to see if there has been a change.
If there is no change then going back to a hone not quite as fine as the two that you have would make sense. You may have rounded the edge a bit and a slightly coarser hone would help re-establish the bevel.
Hope this helps,
I am glad to hear that the razor is shaving just fine!:)
Just one question please. Are you using a pasted hanging strop or a pasted paddle strop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Danger
I used a Hand American flatbed hone.
I use one too for finish very good.
You need to think in terms of grit. 6 micron is like 3K. I don't think you would want to do 250-300 on a 3K unless you had a sizeable chip. My gues is you went way past overhoning and came back to a formed edge. Then you went to the 1.8 Handamerican says their 1.8 is a 14K. That's like a very fine finishing hone. You did a lot of laps, so maybe you brought it to shaving condition and maybe the .5 did somethig, but it doesn't sound like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Danger
Next time you use the 6, work on the razor until the edge is formed and move on. For comfort, you need something coarser than a 1.8. A 3 would be like an 8K grit and would be good. When you stop getting improvement with an abrasive move on to the next finer one. By the time you finish the .5 your edge should shave well.