Thread: Japanese waterstones

Col

If you can pick up a few King stones cheaply (about $25 each or there abouts), then they are a good way of experimenting with waterstone sharpening. But I would try and get a 1200, 4000 and 6000 as a minimum (the 1200 will remove steel while the 4000 and 6000 will polish it). Consider that the 4000 is about the same as 1200 grit W&D, and you will understand that SS up to 1200 is unnecessary.

If I were buying waterstones from scratch, I would not buy King (which I have) but get the Shapton stones. I have King stones (800, 1200, 4000, 6000, then move to Veritas green rouge) because that was all that was available in WA when I was looking about 18 months ago. About 12 months ago I nagged Timbercon to buy in stones in 4000 grit, which they did, because the jump from 1200 to 6000 was too great. Now I'm thinking that a 3000 would be a better choice than a 4000, but I don't think that one is made.

Don't get me wrong - the King stones do a good job. But I have heard that there are much better to be bought overseas. Shops like Timbercon and Carba-tec tend to import the cheaper end of the ranges of tools and accessories.

I have not used Shaptons but hear great things about them: easier to use (used almost dry), more durable and faster cutting than King. But you would need to get them from the States and they would be more expensive. The recommended basic set comprises a 1000, 5000 and 8000.

The Here is a link:
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/M...Category_Code=

All waterstones need flattening, the Kings more frequently than the Shaptons. I have had good results flattening Kings on drywall/plasterboard sandpaper (the charcoal mesh), but Shaptons need a diamond stone (which is an additional expense).

The other waterstone to consider, somewhere inbetween the two above, is the Norton, which are sold by Lie Nielson, I believe.

You're welcome to come and try my stones out beforehand.

Regards

Derek

Driver,

I have the same stones as Derek and keep them in the same container as Derek. (I don't leave them in the laundry trough near the door to me shed though!!!!!)

I find them excellent however if there are better ones around at a reasonable price I would purchase them for at least a trial.

I use mine for chisels and plane blades.

I flatten mine with a diamond stone.

Go for it.

- Wood Borer

Derek and WB

Thanks for your - always welcome - advice.

Derek - I'll take you up on that offer to try out your stones before I jump in. I need some practical guidance on sharpening technique anyway. You won't be amazed to learn that I have to be away for a couple of days next week on a wine industry related trip to the Great Southern (tough job but someone's got to do it!) I'll send you a pm or give you a ring when I know more precisely what my movements are.

In any event, you've both made up my mind for me - I'm definitely going to move to waterstones.

Thanks again.

Col

Col,
Just another opinion to add to the mix. I have 1200 and 6000 grit King stones and am very happy with both. The 8000 stone was a little too pricy at the time of purchase but the edge obtained with the 6000 and the use of a nagura stone is very, very sharp.
David Finck in his exellent book "Making and mastering Wood Planes" recommends king stones as the best of the man-made bunch and recomends only 2 are needed! These are the 800 and 8000 with nagura.
He uses a hand-cranked grind stone to hollow grind the primary bevel, the 800 to remove manufacturing scatches, flatten the back and develop any slight bow to the blade's edge and the 8000 to polish everything.
David is a pro woodworker who studied under James Krenov (who also wrote the foreward to his book) at the college of the redwoods. His sharpening method is based on producing the sharpest possible edge in the shortest possible time.
Unlike Japanese blades, the plane blades David uses are O1 tool steel, perhpas this simpler (ie. non-laminated), homogenous steel doesn't require the range of grits the more complex and delicate Japanese blades do? He also uses the same method for chisels tho.
David also mentions the fact that at times he will go straight from the grinder to the 8000 grit!! His reasoning is that with a slow grinder there is minimal heat build up allowing one to grind right out to the edge of the tool. This then creates a minute area to be honed on the 8000 grit and as pressure is inversely proportional to surface area, the pressure generated is immense and enough to produce a very fine edge.
It also can't be overstated enough the no matter how good the stone, if the back of the blade is not polished to the same degree as the bevel then the tool will never be truly sharp.
I've also heard very good things about the Shapton stones but from memory the price of them was astronomical.
Good luck with your search.

Cheers
Tim

I have my doubts whether a very fine stone is worth having at all. I do my honing on a scrap of MDF charged with Veritas green honing compound ($19.50 from Carbatec, but only US$6.50 direct from Lee Valley). I find I can rapidly get a beautiful mirror finish on chisels and plane irons using the MDF.

Rocker

Tim and Rocker

There is a good reason why you need several sharpening stones, from 800 - 6000 (at least) and not just two (say 800 and 8000). The reason is the same for using sandpaper.

A question for you: in sanding a piece of timber, would you sand with 80 grit then go directly to 600 grit W&D?

I'm sure that you would say, "Of course not. You would not remove the scratches from the 80 grit". And you'd be right.

Sharpening blades is no different. By definition a sharp edge is created when two angles come together (for the purposes of this argument we will ignore the angles degrees). This also means that the sides (that come together) are FLAT. This is the reason we BEGIN the sharpening process by flattening the back of a chisel. No back bevels please Rocker (we had this conversation before).

This means that edges must be without ridges or scratches. Have a look at the blade under a decent magnifying glass (do you sharpen without one?). It is possible to get a bright and chrome-like shine on steel and still have a poorly sharpened EDGE because of the multitude of scratched that still remain.

This is the achilles heal of the Tormek. It goes from 225 to 1000 grit. Not sharp enough and toom many scratches. If you think it is sharp, then you don't know sharp.

I asked a question some time ago (yes, I know I am repeating myself) why a truly sharp blade (6000) feels less sharp to the finger tip than a semi-sharp blade (1000). The answer is at 6000 and plus you don't feel the ridges.

You do not sharpen kitchen knives on smooth stones since you want a slightly rough feel as these knives are designed to tear. But surgical and woodworking blades are different.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Surely an edge polished at 8000 grit would look the same under a suitable factor of magnification as an edge polished at 1000? I'd have thought that the nature of the cutting edge would be the same - that the actual business end is jagged and it is this quality that makes it cut. In that respect, does it work any differently to a knife?

If you could zoom in on what appears under a magnifying glass to be a smoothly polished surface, it would quickly take on a very rough and random appearance. There are still scratches, they are just too small to see. Even if you religiously follow a process, the scratches must still be there, spaced at intervals of roughly the square root of 8000 per inch.

The grits that people use are surely arbitrary and subject to the available technology. If you could sharpen to 50000, would it be noticeably sharper than 8000? There must be a point at which the edge becomes as efficient for cutting wood as it is ever going to be.

I just wonder at what point the edge becomes 'sharp enough'?People talk about tearing vs. slicing but at a microscopic level, is there any difference between the two terms? Perhaps it is the point at which the width of the crevices in the cutting edge are some factor of the diameter of the wood fibres that are being cut.

This is just me playing devil's advocate because I certainly don't know enough about the physics of sharpening to have an answer.

SC

Here is a little experiment for you!

Begin by sharpening your favourite chisel to 1000 grit (waterstone), or equivalent SS (around 360 W & D?). Then try and take a shaving, by paring, a piece of END GRAIN pine.

Now sharpen the chisel to 6000 (throught the grits - around 2000 W&D ?), and pare the pine end grain again.

Let us know what you find.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Sure, I take your point there - 6000 is probably going to be noticeably sharper than 1000 - but can you say the same for 6000 done 'properly' vs. 8000 done the easy way? At least, would the difference be on the same order of magnitude?

I guess the only way to prove it is to try it as you suggest but I can't afford to invest in a heap of stones to find which way is best.

BTW I used a (Stanley!!) chisel sharpened on an oilstone to pare 45 deg. mitres on a piece of blackbutt using a guide and was able to take transparent shavings, so I guess it was sharp enough. The main problem I noticed was that the edge dulled fairly quickly - perhaps this is the real advantage of what you call 'truly sharp'?

SC

Re:

the edge dulled fairly quickly

I do think that this is one of the consequences of a poorly sharpened blade (which is made more difficult when the steel is soft as well and does not have the ability to retain the edge it has been given).

I have had the experience on many occasions when busy planing wood with a handplane that I can still keep going with a slightly blunt blade (perhaps "bluntness" is a point of relativity?). It is harder going but it works. I just have to push more firmly. By contrast, I have also managed to cut well with a plane and blade that is brand new and only factory sharpened (no flattening of the blade, no 6000 grit, no honing). For example, the Mujingfang planes I bought not so long ago. They sliced the timber very easily straight out of the box. BUT the cut surface was quite rough to the touch (by comparison to a prepared smoother). Once the blade was sharpened and honed, etc, it left a glass-like surface behind.

Clearly a smooth surface is going to encounter less resistance/friction than a rough surface, and this will equate to longer life. Yes, heat build up also shortens blade sharpness.

Is there a cut off point when sharpening? I guess the law of diminishing returns applies. Look, at my level of woodwork (the typical weekend warrior) I would not notice many of the flaws so obvious to someone more experienced. I stop at 6000 and hone with Veritas green crayon. But there are some that sharpen to 12000 and more! Yes, really.

Can you get away with a less sharp chisel? Sure. Would you notice it? Probably not if you weren't exposed to a higher level of sharpness. And if you did relatively little hand work (we should hear from the Carvers and Turners in our midst).

Is there really such a difference between 1000 and 6000 (do my experiment and find out!)? I do listen to guys who I believe know what's what. My limited experience tends to back them up.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I recently purchased The Technique of Furniture Making by Ernest Joyce, which is apparently considered something of a "bible".

Just thought I'd throw into the debate what he has to say about water stones.

"Over the past few years a growing number of craftsmen in Britain and the USA have swung over to using inexpensive Japanese water stones. These are only available from specialist tool suppliers and due to their extreme softness are unsuitable for the novice or school use. However, used with care, they cut fast, produce a near perfect edge, and avoid the use of messy oil.

Even their softenss in the hands of a craftsman is an advantage as they can so easily be trued up by surfacing with a new coarse, but cheap, carborundum stone, thereby ensuring that one is constantly using a perfectly flat stone.

They are available in several grits; the writer manages perfectly with two only: 1200 and 1600"


Craig

Craig

Just to correct what is probably a typo. It is possible to use just two waterstones, certainly a 1200 (mildly coarse stone) but not a 1600 as well. I have never heard of a 1600, and a grit at this level would not polish a stone. You need at least 3-4000 to do that. I assume that you meant to type 6000.

I used to go from 1200 to 6000 but added a 4000 as it required too much effort to remove the scratches after a 1200.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

My point was that I sharpen with diamond stones to 1200, and then polish with honing compound on MDF. I am not sure what grit the honing compond is, but it seems to produce a mirror finish quite quickly, so I suppose it must be grinding the steel away fairly aggressively, and presumably eliminating most of the scratches as it does so. This results in an edge that is plenty sharp enough for my purposes.

I never work with pine, so it is of no consequence whether I can pare pine end-grain. I can plane curly jarrah with minimal tear-out. No doubt I could get a marginal improvement by going through the grits to 6000, but I am doubtful whether it would really be worthwhile to take the time, trouble, and expense to achieve optimal sharpness. I suppose it all depends on your philosophy of woodworking.

Rocker

Rocker

You are probably sharpening your chisels very well. A couple of points.

The thing about diamond stones is that they cut aggressively when new, during which time their peaks are worn off, and after that they actually cut finer. I have a "fine" diamond stone (equivalent to 600 grit W&D) that will also put a shine on metal. I suspect that your 1200 diamond stone (probably equivalent to a 6000 waterstone) may be polishing a little better than this. Add the green Veritas rouge (I assume this is what you refer to as honing compound, but the other brands are much the same) and the grit factor is in the order of 9000 waterstone! That is sharp!!

The rouge (and the higher grits) do not, however, "(grind) the steel away fairly aggressively". All they do is polish what is already flat.

The business with the pine end grain is something I explained at another time but not here, so it appears to be misunderstood. The test is to slice pine end grain. And this is very difficult unless the blade is very sharp since the softwood strands will just bend and be crushed by the average blade. Try it and see for yourself. Paring hardwood end grain is, by comparison, relatively easy since the strands remain stiff and upright.

Regards from Perth

Derek