In a recent sharpening article in FWW magazine the author stated that he
regularly polishes down to 3 microns and at times down to 1 micron
[.000039"].
In response to the article a reader infers this level of sharpening is
ridiculous, I personally agree.
My logic is that a one micron edge will crumble in the case of highly
tempered steel and at least deform in lower tempered steel cutting edges .
the edges will continue to do so until they can sustain the localized
bearing pressure due to use . In turn the local bearing pressure will depend
on the force applied to the cutting edge, the hardness of the material being
cut and lastly the bevel angle of the edge.
The only way these tolerances would work is if the material was infinitely
strong we are nowhere near that level probably the closest thing we have to
that is diamond.
The other assertion was the finely polished edges hold their edge longer. I
am never quite sure about this .A finely ground edge will result in a even
cutting edge which in turn will result in the whole cutting edge taking the
load and thus reducing the overall edge stresses [and wear]. On the other
hand edge ridges on the cutting edge due to a lesser degree of honing will
break down due to higher local stresses until the stresses at the cutting
edge are even out.
Polishing the back of the bevel may reduce frictional resistance of the tool
when in use. If this is true microbevels make sense [a double bevel, the
small secondary bevel close to the cutting edge ]. So instead of spending
hours polishing the whole bevel, hone a fine microbevel and simply buff out
remaining bevel with jewelers rouge .
--
mike hide
Mike Hide wrote:
> First of all the up and down Quarks are absolutely marvelous for sharpening
> Quirk molding bits . Getting the quirks going up and down on the quarks ,
> excuse me ,getting the quarks going up and down on the quirks is quite
> quintessential to quickly get a quality edge.
>
> I have experienced problems taking measurements at the subatomic level with
> my dial caliper[and mind it is a Starret] only to find the problem was
> actually the grinding surface had developed yet another indentation .This is
> third granite lapping surface I have worn through in an effort to sharpen
> one single 1" chisel to the half micron level.
> admittedly it was a Craftsman item, even so it was supposed to last a
> lifetime. Currently I am investigating get a surfacing bed out of an igneous
> rock rather than fooling around with this bloody sedimentary stuff....mjh
> --
> mike hide
Picking a nit here.
Granite is an igneous rock, limestone is sedimentary, and marble
is metamorphic(more or less).
ARM ;-)
Alan McClure wrote:
> Picking a nit here.
> Granite is an igneous rock, limestone is sedimentary, and marble
> is metamorphic(more or less).
I once had a teacher inform me that granite was indeed Ignatious rock. I'd have
corrected her, but I was only nine, and she was a Texan.
Don't ask me how she butchered obsidian.
O'Deen
--
http://www.klownhammer.org/ - Home of the World-Famous Original Crowbar FAQ
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:05:52 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>when in use. If this is true microbevels make sense [a double bevel, the
>small secondary bevel close to the cutting edge ]. So instead of spending
>hours polishing the whole bevel, hone a fine microbevel and simply buff out
>remaining bevel with jewelers rouge .
To me microbevels only make sense in that they reduce honing time by a
smidge, not "hours". The hours pertain to having to reestablish the
primary bevel after the microbevel wears away after repeated honing.
Once, while reestablishing the primary bevel I decided *not* to create
a micro bevel again. I found my plane taking even thinner
shavings...shavings so thin they came out incredibly wavy rather than
curly. I was amazed as this was with a vintage 60s or 70s Stanley #6
with a stock iron. Now, no more microbevels for me.
Layne
On 10 Sep 2003 08:17:03 -0700, [email protected] (George
SA) wrote:
>What is the best bevel angle ? I recently rediscovered the pleasures of hand planes.
>
>Regards George
Experiment! :-) That's half the fun of WWing. I'd say though that 25
to 30 degrees would be a good place to start. Remember though that
WWing is not rocket science with regard to bevel angles. Plus or minus
a degree or two isn't a big deal. It's more important to have a
properly sharp edge. I'd recommend a set of waterstones up to 7000 or
8000 grit. A good set of waterstones are relatively inexpensive (about
$100), and will last a long long time. The only chore is keeping them
flat, but that's easy to do with sandpaper on plate glass or granite.
Layne
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:02:10 -0700, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Realize that an 8000 grit waterstone is NOT the same as 8000 grit SiC
>paper. IIRC 8000 grit waterstone is about 1200 grit paper.
Well, I haven't done any scientific experiments but, the last time I
ran my fingertips over 1200 grit sandpaper it felt a lot rougher than
my 8000 grit waterstone. Even 2000 grit sandpaper felt rougher. But I
don't know it could be just me. :-)
Layne
On 11 Sep 2003 07:46:05 -0700, [email protected] (George
SA) wrote:
>I have been using a 45 degree (scary sharp method) which has given me
>quite good results on softwoods like pine (paper thin shavings)On
>hardwoods (Teak & Spruce) results were not so good. I will try an 25
As Steve and Eric said 45 degrees is a bit steep for your plane iron,
If you lower the bevel angle you'll see it cutting much better.
>Degree angle + - on the hard woods. At this stage I will have to keep
>to the scary sharp method as I am still saving for a Steve Knight
>plane. Unfortunately items purchased in US $ is quite expensive in
The Scary Sharp method is inexpensive when starting up, but it is more
expensive in the long run when compared to waterstones. A set of
waterstones will last a long time. I have 220, 1000, 4000, and 8000
grit stones. If you stick with SS go up to at least 2000 grit
sandpaper and then strop with honing compound, or use the ultra fine
(and ultra expensive) 3M abrasive papers. If you only go up to 600 or
2000 grit like so many people do because that's the highest grade
sandpaper they can find you're not getting your irons and chisels as
sharp as they can be.
>50 years plus and a Stanley no 9.) I am also busy restoring a Stanley
>no 2 which I recieved as a gift from a friend.
That #2 is a keeper! My plane collection is small (for now) and
include a late model Stanley #4 smoother, a 60s vintage #6 fore, and
an old Lakeside 9 1/2 block. I too am saving up for a Knight infill
plane, probably the Japanese infill...when he finds a new machinist.
*sigh* :-/
>I like the part about WW not being rocket science. I expect that is
>why using handplanes gives one so much satisfaction in this highly
>technical world we are living in.
They're also much quieter than a stationary planer and jointer. You
won't get a better finish than with a properly tuned and sharpened
hand plane.
Happy planing,
Layne
Also, the particles on (in?) waterstones abrade exposing fresh (sharp)
abrasives, where as the sandpaper just gets duller. I think this
dulling of the abrasive combined with the swarf of metal particles
begin to polish the edge long before it is really sharp. This gives
the false impression to those new to sharpening hand tools and who've
never used other types of sharpening methods that the edge is sharp
enough. Yes, it is sharp, very sharp but, to get that final smooth
finish on the faces and edges of boards you need to take the thinnest
shavings possible and only the sharpest edge can do that. That's why
whenever this subject comes up regarding Scary Sharp I always advise
people to go up to the highest grit sandpaper possible 1200 or 2000
and then strop with a fine honing compound (chromium oxide); go up to
a hard Arkansas and strop; go up to at least a 6000 or 7000 grit
waterstone.
These guys probably make the best honing compound.
http://www.handamerican.com/chrom.html
And these guys probably have the best honing leather.
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=toolshop&Product_Code=MS-HORSEST&Category_Code=TH
Usual disclaimers apply.
I finally found the table comparing grit sizes of different mediums.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/knives/grits.htm
Layne
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 16:23:35 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The abrasive particles in an 8000 Japanese waterstone are typically 1.2
>microns, about the same as those in a 2000 grit silicon carbide
>sandpaper, but particle size doesn't tell the whole story.
>
>The particles on the paper sit proud of their backing. Sandpaper is
>called a "coated abrasive" not because the abrasive is coated, but
>because the substrate is coated with the abrasive. Imagine a bunch of
>rocks stuck to a piece of flypaper. Virtually the whole of each particle
>is exposed.
>
>OTOH, the abrasive particles in a fine waterstone are embedded within a
>soft binder, which limits the height that the abrasive edges project
>above the mean surface. This case is more like a miniature version of the
>sharp rocks (I.e., the aggregate, not the sand) in concrete. Less of each
>abrasive particle is exposed.
>
>The shapes of the abrasive grains are different, too.
>
>Jim
>
Ernie Jurick wrote:
> Microscope so I can arrange a line of diamond atoms across the final edge.
> That way I'll be able to let gravity do all the work, and I can sit back
> with a beer and watch.
Careful you don't drop that on your foot. You might get yourself pinned to
the floor, no matter what the floor is made from.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
Confirmed post number: 17624 Approximate word count: 528720
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Have you seen the statistics on what the sedimentary lifestyle is doing to
> our citizens?
> -- Ernie
>
>
Yes, it causes a condition called "ferroplumbic rectitus", the iron in your
blood turns to lead and settles in your ass.
--
"Shut up and keep diggen"
Jerry
I think I read that article, too, and I thought he was talking about the
type of polishing compound or sandpaper he used when stating the 3 micron or
1 micron, not the thickness of the polished edge. I agree with you that
polishing to a 1 micron edge thickness is silly. But, using a very fine
grit to polish with makes a lot of sense and I'm almost 100% sure this is
what the author was saying.
Mike
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kV07b.288150$cF.89043@rwcrnsc53...
> In a recent sharpening article in FWW magazine the author stated that he
> regularly polishes down to 3 microns and at times down to 1 micron
> [.000039"].
>
> In response to the article a reader infers this level of sharpening is
> ridiculous, I personally agree.
>
> My logic is that a one micron edge will crumble in the case of highly
> tempered steel and at least deform in lower tempered steel cutting edges .
> the edges will continue to do so until they can sustain the localized
> bearing pressure due to use . In turn the local bearing pressure will
depend
> on the force applied to the cutting edge, the hardness of the material
being
> cut and lastly the bevel angle of the edge.
>
> The only way these tolerances would work is if the material was infinitely
> strong we are nowhere near that level probably the closest thing we have
to
> that is diamond.
>
> The other assertion was the finely polished edges hold their edge longer.
I
> am never quite sure about this .A finely ground edge will result in a even
> cutting edge which in turn will result in the whole cutting edge taking
the
> load and thus reducing the overall edge stresses [and wear]. On the other
> hand edge ridges on the cutting edge due to a lesser degree of honing will
> break down due to higher local stresses until the stresses at the cutting
> edge are even out.
>
> Polishing the back of the bevel may reduce frictional resistance of the
tool
> when in use. If this is true microbevels make sense [a double bevel, the
> small secondary bevel close to the cutting edge ]. So instead of spending
> hours polishing the whole bevel, hone a fine microbevel and simply buff
out
> remaining bevel with jewelers rouge .
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> mike hide
>
>
>
>
Alan you might just hit the nail on the head, thats probably been the
problem all along....mjh
--
mike hide
"Alan McClure" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Mike Hide wrote:
>
> > First of all the up and down Quarks are absolutely marvelous for
sharpening
> > Quirk molding bits . Getting the quirks going up and down on the quarks
,
> > excuse me ,getting the quarks going up and down on the quirks is quite
> > quintessential to quickly get a quality edge.
> >
> > I have experienced problems taking measurements at the subatomic level
with
> > my dial caliper[and mind it is a Starret] only to find the problem was
> > actually the grinding surface had developed yet another indentation
.This is
> > third granite lapping surface I have worn through in an effort to
sharpen
> > one single 1" chisel to the half micron level.
> > admittedly it was a Craftsman item, even so it was supposed to last a
> > lifetime. Currently I am investigating get a surfacing bed out of an
igneous
> > rock rather than fooling around with this bloody sedimentary
stuff....mjh
> > --
> > mike hide
>
> Picking a nit here.
> Granite is an igneous rock, limestone is sedimentary, and marble
> is metamorphic(more or less).
> ARM ;-)
>
I like your thinking Tom.
And to extend it a bit (pun intended) up and down quarks
would be perfect for spiral router bits.
Art
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:36:37 GMT, "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
[snip]
> After careful consideration of the above I've decided to go subatomic
> with my sharpening regimen.
>
> I'm thinking that quark size is good and would go for the charmed
> quarks but they sound too much like a breakfast cereal.
(Layne) wrote...
> Well, I haven't done any scientific experiments but, the last time I
> ran my fingertips over 1200 grit sandpaper it felt a lot rougher than
> my 8000 grit waterstone. Even 2000 grit sandpaper felt rougher. But I
> don't know it could be just me. :-)
The abrasive particles in an 8000 Japanese waterstone are typically 1.2
microns, about the same as those in a 2000 grit silicon carbide
sandpaper, but particle size doesn't tell the whole story.
The particles on the paper sit proud of their backing. Sandpaper is
called a "coated abrasive" not because the abrasive is coated, but
because the substrate is coated with the abrasive. Imagine a bunch of
rocks stuck to a piece of flypaper. Virtually the whole of each particle
is exposed.
OTOH, the abrasive particles in a fine waterstone are embedded within a
soft binder, which limits the height that the abrasive edges project
above the mean surface. This case is more like a miniature version of the
sharp rocks (I.e., the aggregate, not the sand) in concrete. Less of each
abrasive particle is exposed.
The shapes of the abrasive grains are different, too.
Jim
What is the best bevel angle ? I recently rediscovered the pleasures of hand planes.
Regards George
(Layne) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:05:52 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >when in use. If this is true microbevels make sense [a double bevel, the
> >small secondary bevel close to the cutting edge ]. So instead of spending
> >hours polishing the whole bevel, hone a fine microbevel and simply buff out
> >remaining bevel with jewelers rouge .
>
> To me microbevels only make sense in that they reduce honing time by a
> smidge, not "hours". The hours pertain to having to reestablish the
> primary bevel after the microbevel wears away after repeated honing.
>
> Once, while reestablishing the primary bevel I decided *not* to create
> a micro bevel again. I found my plane taking even thinner
> shavings...shavings so thin they came out incredibly wavy rather than
> curly. I was amazed as this was with a vintage 60s or 70s Stanley #6
> with a stock iron. Now, no more microbevels for me.
>
> Layne
Layne
Thanks for the reply
I have been using a 45 degree (scary sharp method) which has given me
quite good results on softwoods like pine (paper thin shavings)On
hardwoods (Teak & Spruce) results were not so good. I will try an 25
Degree angle + - on the hard woods. At this stage I will have to keep
to the scary sharp method as I am still saving for a Steve Knight
plane. Unfortunately items purchased in US $ is quite expensive in
South Africa due the exchange rate of the SA Rand vs the US $
I have two handplanes inherited from my father (Stanley no 4 1/2 age
50 years plus and a Stanley no 9.) I am also busy restoring a Stanley
no 2 which I recieved as a gift from a friend.
I like the part about WW not being rocket science. I expect that is
why using handplanes gives one so much satisfaction in this highly
technical world we are living in.
Regards George SA
(Layne) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 10 Sep 2003 08:17:03 -0700, [email protected] (George
> SA) wrote:
>
> >What is the best bevel angle ? I recently rediscovered the pleasures of hand planes.
> >
> >Regards George
>
> Experiment! :-) That's half the fun of WWing. I'd say though that 25
> to 30 degrees would be a good place to start. Remember though that
> WWing is not rocket science with regard to bevel angles. Plus or minus
> a degree or two isn't a big deal. It's more important to have a
> properly sharp edge. I'd recommend a set of waterstones up to 7000 or
> 8000 grit. A good set of waterstones are relatively inexpensive (about
> $100), and will last a long long time. The only chore is keeping them
> flat, but that's easy to do with sandpaper on plate glass or granite.
>
> Layne
>In a recent sharpening article in FWW magazine the author stated that he
>regularly polishes down to 3 microns and at times down to 1 micron
>[.000039"].
>
>In response to the article a reader infers this level of sharpening is
>ridiculous, I personally agree.
in that tools will only get so sharp. How sharp they get depends on the nature
of the steel it is made of. if you want really sharp japanese tools will get you
there. Just because a tool is really shiny does not mean it is any sharper.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:00:07 -0700, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:
>His sharpening surface is probably limestone - he just took it for
>granite.
Tim
You made me laugh out loud.
Thanks.
Regards, Tom.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 03:53:47 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:59:45 GMT, "Micro*" <[email protected]>
>pixelated:
>
>>Yes, it causes a condition called "ferroplumbic rectitus", the iron in your
>>blood turns to lead and settles in your ass.
>
>You know when you've reached the Metal Years: You have gold
>in your teeth, silver in your hair, lead in your ass, and
>iron in your Geritol.
Alimentary, my dear Homey.
Regards, Tom.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 02:59:45 GMT, "Micro*" <[email protected]>
pixelated:
>Yes, it causes a condition called "ferroplumbic rectitus", the iron in your
>blood turns to lead and settles in your ass.
You know when you've reached the Metal Years: You have gold
in your teeth, silver in your hair, lead in your ass, and
iron in your Geritol.
---
Where ARE those Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mr. President?
----
http://diversify.com - Guaranteed Weaponless Website Design
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:40:10 -0700, "Patrick Olguin (O'Deen)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I once had a teacher inform me that granite was indeed Ignatious rock. I'd have
>corrected her, but I was only nine, and she was a Texan.
>
>Don't ask me how she butchered obsidian.
>
>O'Deen
Durned O'Deen.
Don't see so much as a periscope cutting through the water...
He lets go a couple of feesh...
...and sinks back into the murky depths...
(watson goes back to the crows nest and scans the bleak horizon...)
Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
"George SA" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Layne
> Thanks for the reply
> I have been using a 45 degree (scary sharp method) which has given me
> quite good results on softwoods like pine (paper thin shavings)On
> hardwoods (Teak & Spruce) results were not so good. I will try an 25
> Degree angle + - on the hard woods. At this stage I will have to keep
> to the scary sharp method as I am still saving for a Steve Knight
> plane. Unfortunately items purchased in US $ is quite expensive in
> South Africa due the exchange rate of the SA Rand vs the US $
>
>
If you mean included angle (bevel angle + blade angle), then you got it
about right and ignore all below.
When you say 45 degrees, do you mean just the blade? That's a bit strong
for a plane blade. You can certainly get it sharp, but you may not be
strong enough to push that wedge through the wood. On the #9, that's going
to give a total angle of 65 degrees, and is going to make it a cast iron
beech to use. On a 4 1/2, well that just boggles my mind. The bevel would
be parallel with the sole of the plane! I don't even think it would work.
Sharp is just two sides meeting at a point, so you can have sharp at even
obtuse angles (eg 135 degrees), but that would not be very useful in a wood
plane. Most manufacturer's grind their blades to 25 degrees. That's a good
starting point. You might use a little more or less, but for plane blades,
I can't imagine getting more than 10 degrees difference in either direction,
and you would probably be trying something very specific to even get nearly
that far, at which point you are probably the expert and don't need our
advice.
Cheers,
Eric
"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kV07b.288150$cF.89043@rwcrnsc53...
> In a recent sharpening article in FWW magazine the author stated that he
> regularly polishes down to 3 microns and at times down to 1 micron
> [.000039"].
>
> In response to the article a reader infers this level of sharpening is
> ridiculous, I personally agree.
Personally, I always sharpen my tools to one atomic diameter, as verified by
my electron microscope. I'm saving up for a Grizzly Atomic Force Microscope
so I can arrange a line of diamond atoms across the final edge. That way
I'll be able to let gravity do all the work, and I can sit back with a beer
and watch.
-- Ernie
"Alan McClure" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Mike Hide wrote:
>
> > First of all the up and down Quarks are absolutely marvelous for
sharpening
> > Quirk molding bits . Getting the quirks going up and down on the quarks
,
> > excuse me ,getting the quarks going up and down on the quirks is quite
> > quintessential to quickly get a quality edge.
> >
> > I have experienced problems taking measurements at the subatomic level
with
> > my dial caliper[and mind it is a Starret] only to find the problem was
> > actually the grinding surface had developed yet another indentation
.This is
> > third granite lapping surface I have worn through in an effort to
sharpen
> > one single 1" chisel to the half micron level.
> > admittedly it was a Craftsman item, even so it was supposed to last a
> > lifetime. Currently I am investigating get a surfacing bed out of an
igneous
> > rock rather than fooling around with this bloody sedimentary
stuff....mjh
> > --
> > mike hide
>
> Picking a nit here.
> Granite is an igneous rock, limestone is sedimentary, and marble
> is metamorphic(more or less).
Have you seen the statistics on what the sedimentary lifestyle is doing to
our citizens?
-- Ernie
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:36:37 GMT, "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:kV07b.288150$cF.89043@rwcrnsc53...
>> In a recent sharpening article in FWW magazine the author stated that he
>> regularly polishes down to 3 microns and at times down to 1 micron
>> [.000039"].
>>
>> In response to the article a reader infers this level of sharpening is
>> ridiculous, I personally agree.
>
>Personally, I always sharpen my tools to one atomic diameter, as verified by
>my electron microscope. I'm saving up for a Grizzly Atomic Force Microscope
>so I can arrange a line of diamond atoms across the final edge. That way
>I'll be able to let gravity do all the work, and I can sit back with a beer
>and watch.
>-- Ernie
>
After careful consideration of the above I've decided to go subatomic
with my sharpening regimen.
I'm thinking that quark size is good and would go for the charmed
quarks but they sound too much like a breakfast cereal.
Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
Tom Watson notes:
>After careful consideration of the above I've decided to go subatomic
>with my sharpening regimen.
>
>I'm thinking that quark size is good and would go for the charmed
>quarks but they sound too much like a breakfast cereal.
You mean they're not! Damn. No wonder my stomach is upset.
Charlie Self
"Men willingly believe what they wish."
Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico
On 08 Sep 2003 16:45:15 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Tom Watson notes:
>
>>After careful consideration of the above I've decided to go subatomic
>>with my sharpening regimen.
>>
>>I'm thinking that quark size is good and would go for the charmed
>>quarks but they sound too much like a breakfast cereal.
>
>You mean they're not! Damn. No wonder my stomach is upset.
>
This is probably a gluon density problem, Charlie.
Has something to do with gas, well - plasma really but how good does
that sound?
I'd try a switch to the low-gluon-high-fiber quarks and your gaseous
diffusion problem should go away, with the added benefit of more
predictable (and more socially acceptable) energy releases.
Bon Appetit.
Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:29:23 GMT, Steve Knight
<[email protected]> wrote:
>6000 it a bit low for a really sharp edge. best to skip the 600 and use 8000.
>you will notice a difference. well unless you have really cheep steel (G)
I agree with Steve. 6000 is pretty sharp, but you WILL be amazed when
you take it up to 8000. I go from 1000, to 4000 and then 8000. I hope
you're using a nagura stone to prep stones 4000 and up before honing.
Layne
6000 grit water stone is as far as I go.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Watson notes:
>
> >After careful consideration of the above I've decided to go subatomic
> >with my sharpening regimen.
> >
> >I'm thinking that quark size is good and would go for the charmed
> >quarks but they sound too much like a breakfast cereal.
>
> You mean they're not! Damn. No wonder my stomach is upset.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Men willingly believe what they wish."
> Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> writes:
> My experience with quantum-level sharpening has been
> disappointing. Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you can
> never be quite sure which chisel or blade is being sharpened.
Worse, if you do know which one you sharpened, you can't know where
you put it.
There's a section of one of the Discworld novels where Death is
sharpening his sythe - starting with stones, and working his way down
to through steel, linen, satin, silk, the dawn breeze, and finally the
dawn light itself. The blade was sharp enough to cut photons.