Replies

1. 
   lwilliams | May 15, 2011 12:05am | #1

   These aren't "going extinct."

   These aren't "going extinct." Don and I went down to Dan's Whetstone Co last Tuesday. Dan's son, who works there with maybe ten to fifteen other employees, showed us a translucent he just finished that was about 9 1/2" X 13" X1. Dan's is far from a dying business, they're growing and shipping all over the World. If it wasn't a 500+ mile round trip I'd have gone a long time ago. I regret not going before and learned a lot while we were there.

1. 
   gdblake | May 15, 2011 03:30pm | #3

   Larry, I can't believe you left us that big of a tease!

   Larry,

   You have got to be kidding, "I regret not going before and learned a lot while we were there".  That's all you're going to tell us about your trip.  Roc, I'm happy you got yourself the stone of your dreams, but Larry really.  Unless you're planning a video about it, can't you share some of what you learned at Dan's Whetstone Co?

   gdblake

1. 
   lwilliams | May 15, 2011 08:20pm | #4

   gd,

   I'm still trying to get my head around some of what I learned. All novaculite has the same grit size. Washita, soft Arkansas, hard Arkansas, translucent and black all have the same grit size, 3 to 5 micron--about the same as a 6,000 grit water stone. The difference is in the density of the stone or how closely the abrasive is packed together. Most of what I learned could have been gotten directly from Dan's web site if I had ever read the whole thing.

   http://www.danswhetstone.com/

1. 
   gdblake | May 16, 2011 02:27pm | #6

   Thanks Larry

   Larry:

   Thanks for the information.  I'll be reading through Dan's Whetstone materials as soon as possible.  I went to college in Searcy, Arkansas back in the 70s.  Wish I had been smart enough then to pick up a few large Arkansas whetstones while I lived there and could go directly to the suppliers.  I started out sharpening on oil stones, but transitioned to water stones and a course diamond stone about fifteen years ago.  The only good Arkansas stone I had split in half about twenty years ago.  Use to take the pieces with me on scout trips to sharpen the boys knives on.  The pieces "vanished" on one of those extended campouts that drew scouts from all over the southeast. 

   gdblake

2. 
   roc | May 17, 2011 12:12am | #9

   I got all excited there for a minute . . . but

   When I heard the new baby might be 6,000  I got all excited there for a minute that I might have been wrong,  I love it when I am wrong; usually means things are better than I could have hoped. In the water stones I don't have a 6000 and that would have filled in nicely between the Norton 4000 and the Norton 8000 . . . but upon returning to "the facts"  . . . well . . .

   sugar plum

   http://www.evenfallstudios.com/metrology/grit_size_comparisons.html  

   OK this one is wide ranging and might make it a 6000.  Awful thing to read.

   http://www.uama.org/Abrasives101/101Standards.html

   or a 4000 or a 6000  or a 4000 or a 6000 or both or ?

   PS:  I imagine it will be a 6000 finish with a bunch of 4000 scratches all over it.  My little hand held microscope will tell the tail.  I am off tomorrow so . . . To the lab me hardies !

1. 
   joinerswork | May 17, 2011 08:07am | #10

   roc,

   "Give me six hours to

   roc,

   "Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." Abraham Lincoln

   "Give me four hours to sharpen an axe, and I'll spend the first six looking at the whet-rock thru a microscope."  rocmorton

1. 
   roc | May 17, 2011 11:18pm | #15

    > spend the first six looking at the whet-rock thru a microscope."  <

   Now that's funny !

   Ha, ha, ha, aaahhhh, Ha, ha, ha, ha

2. 
   roc | May 18, 2011 01:58am | #16

   PART II The actual sharpening . . .

   Ok I am going to attempt the impossible.  I am going to present the facts as I found them without sounding like a complete prejudiced A-hole.  Since I looked into all this with a couple of hours of testing and close observation perhaps I can at least claim to be not pre-judging.  The latter I leave to your kindness and tolerance.

    

   I used a Veritas Mark II sharpening jig with the cambered roller and the precise angle registration guide.

    

   http://www.veritastools.com/Products/Page.aspx?p=144

    

   So what did I find peering into that microscope and the #10 visor with loop used between forays on the stones.  The microscope, or as I call it " The BS Cutter" , took some set up and farting around so obviously I did not use it constantly as I did the visor.

   The microscope is mightier than the sword (and a whole lot less hazardous to wield ).

    

   First let me relieve any fears that water, alone, won't work to keep the pores clear.  It does work.  Just fine. Here are thoughts along those lines:

   No soap needed as a lube or to remove metal particles.

   There was no rusting or staining the stone red form rust (at least not yet ) the stone is barely "dry" damp but no pooled water so I am calling it dry.

    

   How about all that metal cut off the blade?  So it was washed out of the pores with just water ?   W e l l l l l  . . . 

   there wasn't any metal to speak of.  NO seriously.  I kept looking for it with the visor.  Maybe some slight gray dust in the water but . . .

    

   Well lets just say the water stones 4000 and 8000 kept getting all black and there was largish hunks from the wire edge coming off on them s o o o o o . . .

    

   I think I would have noticed if there was much coming off on the Translucent Hard Arkansas stone.  Wouldn't I ?  I mean could the stone have been emitting some radiation or other field that would have caused me to blank out and not see it before it was vaporized into another dimension ?

    

   Ok there I go . . . being an A-hole.  Sorry, sorry sorry.  Read too much Douglas Adams.  It just pores out of me.  The sarcasm I mean.  I must be nice , objective, understated . . . I got it back together now

    

   What I saw looking at the blades:

   Oh the blades . . . I almost forgot . . . here are the facts about the blades:

   Still sharp enough to do flattening type of planing.

   There were three of them.  Had secondary bevels three or four millimeters wide.

   Veritas block plane blades.

   Bevel up so they all had that big scary wear bevel.  Sorry, sorry sorry.  They showed some glint on the back side where a wear bevel usually forms.

   Steel was A-2 ; you know that scary hard stuff (that I never seem to have trouble with when using the water stones ).

    

   http://www.veritastools.com/Products/Page.aspx?p=109

    

   The Ark Stone cut differently/had a different feel to it for sure.

   I started out at 35° on the Ark.  The bevel would not abrade down to the edge. I could definitely see where it was working the blade.  The facet left from my last sharpening was a mirror finish.   Perhaps a difference in the convexity of the stone.  I ran the blade on the stone for a considerable period of time.  Rinsed off the stone a few times.  Pressed fairly hard.  Still not there.

    

   I grabbed the Norton 4000  and in a little while had no problem taking the bevel down and got a wire edge.

    

   Time to see if the Ark is finer than the 4000.  I went back at it on the ark and found it was not working the whole bevel but was on the part of the bevel away from the edge.  That's weird !  Maybe it is a different convexity (their's that word again ) than the 4000 stone.

    

   I put pencil marks on the Ark and flattened it on the DMT diamond plate.  I found the surface to be wavy and inconsistent not just convex.  Portions of pencil lines left hit and miss all over.  Lower corner still evident.  Never did flatten enough to remove it.

   Ark very resistant to flattening.  Now we have that fresh surface Larry mentioned.

    

   This did not make enough difference to get all across the secondary bevel.

    

   Went one degree steeper to speed up getting down to the edge.  This jig allows precise, repeatable one degree angle changes.

   OK now we are getting the edge sharpened.  I can see the area being worked by the Ark, the less polished area from the 4000 and the area that was worked before I steepened the angle.  It seems the Ark is "finer" than the 4000 in the surface it produces.

   Lots of rubbing, wouldn't call it abrading.

   Didn't really show a new facet as much as the area near the edge got shinier and left an area where the 4000 had abraded.

    

   From this I have concluded the Ark is more of a burnishing stone than an abrasive.  Along the lines of an agate burnisher used in jewelry work.

    

   I then went to the Norton 8000

   8000 immediately removed the burnished area from the Ark and abraded all the way  back over where the previous burnished area had been.

    

   Final results and observations:

   The Ark sharpened edge was easily able to shave. Shaving hair at skin I could feel pulling on hair at roots quite prominently.  With slicing motion able to cut hair lengthwise.

   Going straight into hair above skin they deflected and did not get cut.

    

   8000 more easily cut hair off, super easy to shave curls off a hair.  Just shaving hair at skin, there was no pull detectable just hair popping off.  Going straight into hair above skin hair is cut or curls come off hairs, few are deflected.

    

   Marks from diamond flattening stone very evident on Ark.  No metal imbedded in them.

    

   One advantage of the Ark is I am able to go forward against the edge as if shaving stone to help remove the wire without damaging the stone.  When doing this on the water stones I am afraid I will shave off some of the stone or dig in and tip the blade up destroying the sharp edge.

    

   OK if feel like I put in a days work.  Wish there was a pay check for it.  I like looking at my nice hard Ark stone.  Not sure it is going to be much use other than maybe for removing wire edges.  But as Olive Oil said of Bluto " He's large ".

    

   Whew

   roc

    

   PS: Oh that's what that is !  I kept wondering as I photographed the BS Cutter what those layout like lines are on the corner of the Ark.  Look at the bottom left corner.  that is the low corner of the stone that never got flattened down to.  Dah . . . I thought it was some line in the stone from when they cut it or no that doesn't even make sense now that I have eaten dinner.  I been working too hard ( on my day off ).

   
3. 
   roc | May 18, 2011 03:48am | #17

   PS:

   Since the link to Veritas isn't working all that great, posted fine to the burl, here is a pic of the blades and feeler gauges

   but

   more importantly . . . I was messing around looking at the Ark, you know seeing if I could make something out of it, maybe a trophy base or a nice paper weight

   :    )

   and I noticed something.  The whole area I had been working the blade over had gotten smoothed and burnished to the point it is shinier than the rest of the stone.  In the photos it just looks like small areas but if I could make the camera and lighting do what I want you would see that it is the entire length of the stone and stops about a half inch from the edge on either side where it is matt finish from the diamond stone flattening it.

   Conclusion:

   Ark stones are too soft to use with A-2 blades, at least, and so hard they are difficult to flatten.  (water stones are super easy to flatten and cut A-2 blades.  Reality is a silly place to hang out isn't it ?).

   This was after only three blades that were almost sharp when I started to sharpen them ( just touching them up really  )and I didn't work the backs much at all.

   If these were seriously dull blades I bet the Ark would be so shinny it would look like fired pottery when I was done.

   
2. 
   joinerswork | May 16, 2011 01:21pm | #5

   Hi Larry,

   Used to be Smith's was the Arkansas stone company.  Is Dan related, taken over, or completely different from the old Smith's?

   Ray

1. 
   lwilliams | May 16, 2011 06:25pm | #7

   Ray,

   I believe only Dan's and Hall's still produce stones. We visited both. I'd rather write about Dan's because I think their products are better suited to woodworkers but Richard Hall was incredibly generous to us.

   I don't think Smith's was related to either. There are a few other small companies that also offer stones. My impression is that they buy from either Dan's or Hall's.

1. 
   SteveSchoene | May 16, 2011 10:38pm | #8

   Where does Norton fit in all this?  Don't they still mine and process stone? 

2. 
   roc | May 15, 2011 12:38am | #2

   Always the upbeat bringer of light

    Sounds like a fascinating tour !  I said "extinct" ( though in error ) for two reasons :

   1.  for a while there every where I looked it said "out of stock" or a wait of many weeks before they could ship one to me.

   2.  stones seemed to be getting thinner and thinner. The sources were only listing half inch as compared with a few months before they had thicker stones on offer  Except the source you mentioned which had one inch stones but were well over two hundred dollars.  Some over three  hundred dollars.

   bwagabwaga !  Still trying to feel OK about my little purchase.

   As you can see Larry, I am preparing the way properly for the Williams coffin smoother.

3. 
   Metod | May 17, 2011 09:33am | #11

   Translucent

   roc,

   I have (a recent purchase) a Norton translucent Arkansas stone, as well as a black one, both size 8x3.

   They definitely does not give the same level of sharpness as 8000 water stone. It is somewhat comparable with a black Arkansas. I wonder what passes as 'surgical sharpness' in Arkansas <g>.

   I consider my purchases of Arkanas stones a waste of money.  

   Best wishes,

   Metod

1. 
   RalphBarker | May 17, 2011 10:55am | #12

   "I wonder what passes as 'surgical sharpness' in Arkansas <g>"

   Remember, things being cut during surgery are usually fairly soft, and (hopefully) the person best able to determine the more-pain/less-pain aspect of the sharpness question is unconscious.

1. 
   Metod | May 18, 2011 10:13am | #19

   Ralph,

   "the person best able to determine the more-pain/less-pain aspect of the sharpness question is unconscious."

   A good one <g>.

   Seriously though, I would think that soft material/tissue would require a higher level of sharpness than a harder one. Maybe that's why some test on pine endgrain.

   Maybe 'over there' they use Ginsu stuff for surgeries.

   Best wishes,

   Metod

1. 
   RalphBarker | May 18, 2011 10:50am | #21

   relative sharpness

   " . . . I would think that soft material/tissue would require a higher level of sharpness"

   I believe you are correct. I;m guessing that soft material/tissue will tend to deform under the pressure of a less-sharp blade before being cut.

   Some years back, I had a small cyst removed from the facial tissue above my cheek bone. Although under local anesthetic, I could only feel the slight pressure, But, I could hear the doctor cutting the tissue quite clearly. The standard scalpel sounded more like a saw. I could actually discern the variation in sound from the microscopic grind marks on the blade, as he sliced through the flesh. Surreal.

2. 
   lwilliams | May 17, 2011 05:04pm | #13

   Metod,

   The abrasive in all novaculite stones is 3 to 5 micron, the same or finer than that of a 6000 grit Japanese stone. If the cutting surface is kept dressed and fresh, a translucent or hard black stone will cut faster than a 6000 grit water stone. This is fine enough that just a quick strop will exceed an 8000 grit water stone. Why a "waste of money?"

1. 
   Metod | May 18, 2011 10:38am | #20

   Comparison

   Larry,

   "Why a "waste of money?"" - because I already had (for many years) an 8000 well serving water stone. And yes, a quick strop after 8000 makes for a tangible difference - about as noticeable as the difference between translucent and 8000.

   I am not saying that the translucent or black stones are useless. For me, it comes to 'why did I bother when I was (still am) happy with 8000?'

   Best wishes,

   Metod

4. 
   roc | May 17, 2011 11:12pm | #14

   Checked flatness of new Arkansas stone:

    

   with Mitutoyo straight edge and on Starrett Crystal pink marble surface plate.  Used two feeler gauges on surface plate:

        .05mm (~.002 inch) 

   and

        .10mm (~.0039 inch )

   Compared it to my two other high end stones.

   All stones were convex.  With magnification could visually see slight gap at corner/corners between stone and surface plate and could pivot stone on surface plate on convexity. (is that a word ?).

   Arkansas:

   one corner lower (viewed as if in use.  Higher when upside down on surface plate as I measured it. )

   .05mm (~.002 inch) feeler would easily fit under for more than an inch along that area of the stone's corner.  Would not go under at other corners.

   .10mm (~.0039 inch ) feeler would not fit in the gap.

   This means the gap is about about 2 thou or a little more

    

   I then tested my two best stones for flat (not the Norton 4000 because it is always in water and I didn't want to put water on my surface plate )

    

   Norton 8000:

   convex about the same amount as brand new Ark

   8000 not recently flattened I just took it out of the cabinet, made sure the surface was clean and put it on the surface plate.  I keep one side just for plane backs and finish blades and this was the side I tested.

    

   Shapton 15000:

   Convex but significantly less that Ark

   could not fit .05mm (~.002 inch) feeler under any corner

   since this stone gets very light use this is about how my stones come off the DMT coarse/extra coarse diamond stone after flattening them.

    

   I measured both sides of the Ark and they were nearly identical in flat and in error.  That is GREAT because it means I can use both sides of the stone.

    

   I was very happy to find the stone was not glued into the box it came with  ! ! !

   I was afraid the first thing I was going to have to do was dissolve the glue and clean it off so I could use both sides.

    

   Where the hell did I get this crazy idea you may be asking ?  Well some of the Japanese stones are glue to the wood base they come with. My second rate 10,000 stone is glued to the base.  I say second rate because it has some grit in it that is coarser than 8000.  When I use it I get a 10,000 polish with 6000 or 7000 scratches in it.  I might as well just use my 8000.

    

   Any way the wood base protects the stones some if one were to drop it.  The wood base is pretty thick.

    

   Welp that's all for now.  I sharpened today but have not finished organizing the results of that experiment.  More later.

    

   Thanks for reading.

   roc

    

    Edited 5/17/2011 11:06 pm ET by rocmortan  

5. 
   roc | May 18, 2011 05:07am | #18

   As Hemingway said " but isn't it pretty to think so"

   Metod,

   Now you tell me.

   Oy veh

1. 
   Metod | May 19, 2011 08:10am | #22

   No name

   Roc,

   I am a 'no  name'.  But a canned fart from a 'big name' still does not an air freshener make.

   I knew that I took a definite risk wit the black and translucent stones. Payoff: a visitor to my home home can try both types (meaning waterstones being the other) and make own decision.

   I have an opinion about how I spent my money - but not on what should others like/use.

   Best wishes,

   Metod

6. 
   hammer1 | May 19, 2011 08:47am | #23

   I have a bunch of stones I've collected over the years, among them both black and white Arkansas as well as a Washita. Natural stones glaze without proper lubrication, which is light oil. Water won't keep the swarf from sticking in the surface. The stones cut differently than water stones and it's hard to make a direct comparisson regardless of the grit measurement. Like wood, they are a natural material and vary throughout the stone. The Arkansas stones dish rather quickly and are difficult to reflatten. Back in the day when I bought these we didn't have diamond or Japanese stones. Once I got diamond and water, the natural stones went into storage, they simply don't compare. They were the best you could get at one time but there are many drawbacks and they don't do the same job I can get with other options.

7. 
   hammer1 | May 20, 2011 09:19am | #24

   Ray, you said that? I mised it, touche. We better tell Roc not to drop his new fancy pants stone on the concrete.

8. 
   KeithNewton | May 20, 2011 09:49am | #25

   Shaving arm for test........

   <I stopped shaving as a test for sharpness years ago, when the wife complained about the bald spot on the back of my forearm. >

   If you have a razor sharp edge, you don't actually have to cut any hairs on the back of your arm to test. All that is necessary, it to just touch them as if you were. You can feel the grab of the edge into the hair, well above the surface of the skin, if it is sharp enough. If it isn't, the blade will just push them over and slip. 

    

1. 
   joinerswork | May 20, 2011 10:53pm | #26

   Keith,

   Or, if your ears are good enough, you can listen for the microbes in the air screaming in pain as they are sliced in two when you lift the tool off the stone.

   Ray

1. 
   swenson | May 21, 2011 01:57am | #27

   Or the hummmmm of the vibrating string loops that make the quarks that make the protons and neutrons, you can hear the hum change frequency as the string is cut in two but the iron has to be very, very ten to the -56 sharp to be able to do that, but a Plank length will do.

1. 
   joinerswork | May 22, 2011 11:52am | #28

   Swen,

   "but a Plank length

   Swen,

   "but a Plank length will do"

   Just how tall was ol' Max?

   Ray

1. 
   roc | May 22, 2011 03:17pm | #29

    >Plank length<

   That's excellent !

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

2. 
   swenson | May 23, 2011 12:39am | #30

   In the quantum world it's Planck.  On Knots of course you drop the c.  He growed up real quick but as he aged he started to shrink a little like the rest of us ol' timers.  If you want to know how tall he was before he started to shorten up a mite I guess you cud say that "He Maxed out at five nine and a half."

   Brian G. said that if you blow the earth up to be the size of the known universe, a Planck Length would be the size of a tree, about forty feet.  Now if you had sharpened an edge to one Planck length, that would be  s h a r p .  But roc would try to make it better.  He would not be able to do that with strings but he might with 'branes, edge on 'branes don't you know.

3. 
   joinerswork | May 23, 2011 09:27am | #31

   swen,

   "On Knots of course

   swen,

   "On Knots of course you drop the c"

   Vell, ve are all friends- you, me, roc, und Max- hier on zee Knots, nicht war?  Und so, ve droppen zee "sie", und go mit der "du".

   And speaking of doo, it's getting pretty deep in here.

   Ray