Thread: Which edge lasts longer - 600# or 6000#?

Research is what you do when you realize that you cannot go on doing things tomorrow the way that you are doing them today.
I was trained to not fall in love with my current results.
Good, bad or indifferent. You have to bounce off the walls to get there.
Learn from it.
Move on.

Update:
30+ spoon handles in birch (not a difficult hard wood). Approx 21mm square blanks, each about 30cm long. Use one Samona (at 1500) for the lot. What a nice curly mess. When compared with the unused Samona spokeshave, it it time for a little tuneup on 1500. I don't see any edge damage so this should be routine.
I will stick a 1/4 sheet of 1500 W&D on the bandsaw deck with masking tape for a flat surface.

Originally Posted by pmcgee

I think I saw a grid comparison spreadsheet that put hard black around about at 6000 (japanese equivalent).
(I think it put a belgian coticule, etc at 8000. (which I originally had remembered as 12000))

Correction: Hard Black = Norton #4000 = japanese #2000

Cheers,
Paul

Paul, I would really like to see that chart. One of the hardest things to find, for me, is someone committing to a HBA grit.

Originally Posted by Ball Peen

Paul, I would really like to see that chart. One of the hardest things to find, for me, is someone committing to a HBA grit.

Found it in #21 ... interesting to look through ... can't guarantee it as gospel ...

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f127/e...ml#post1612231

You could, I suppose, use the handle of a shovel sharpened to 600 grit, to remove timber if you were prepared to put enough force behind it. I have found that the finer and keener the edge the better cuts I get with all edge tools. I want to be able to see my ugly head in a chisel blade before I am happy and from my experience the higher the polish the easier the tool is to use (and the safer). Once you get an edge right it only takes a few seconds now and then to keep it so.

Of course it is a vast over simplification to assume that the only or even most important factor in how a chisel works is the the grit of the stone used to attain an edge. The geometry of the bevel is certainly a very important factor also. And before you can compare one edge with another the physical characteristics of the steel used must be taken into account. You cannot compare the edge holding capacities the cheap cheese used on some chisels with the alternatives available from some of the high end steels made by Veritas.

It is not that 600 grit stones are no use. If you drop a chisel onto concrete then such a stone may be useful. If my dog comes into the shed to keep me company such a stone may be useful for giving her a scratch on the belly.

It would appear useful, in my case at least, to have two nearly identical tools.
Sharpen one to 600, one to 1500. Same wood from the same board.
That gave me the luxury of a valid(?) comparison of edges and I am dang good at that part of it.
You're right = the better edge lasts longer. I can say that the reason is that in each pass, there's less pressure, less force, on a more refined edge.

I see that in the sustain of the edges in my wood carving tools. They are far different from woodworking sharp. But at the end of the day, the bettter edges give me better service.

What is this thread about? It strikes me as someone had much difficulty in accepting that blades need to be sharp to work as woodworking tools, and what sharp represents.

The different between 600 and 6000 is really easy to understand. What one then needs to understand is that 6000 is not as sharp as 12000, and that 12000 is worthwhile.

The short cut to using handtools is not in limiting the level of sharpness, but in the way you get to sharp. Sharp is sharp, but some methods and/or mediums are more efficient than others.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Without experience, the difference is not easily understood.

Yes, a refined edge looks nicer than a coarse edge. Big hairy deal.
Just how does that translate into performance differences?
Using a pair of practically identical spokeshaves, I have learned.
My interpretation, which satisfies me, is endurance =
the refined edge last longer as there would appear to be less stress
on it in repeated cuts.

Given the task, making spokes and spoke-like objects from square stock, I am not willing to spend the time refining the edge far, far beyond what is needed for these tools. Hindsight tells me that I have had a really pleasurable time, simply making round out of square.

In response to what the thread is about, I have heard people say that a coarser edge requires less maintenance than a finer edge. That is, you'll be going back to the sharpening station more often to maintain a 12k edge than to maintain a 6k edge.

It appears from this thread that a finer edge will last longer than a coarser one.

I had only seen this matter hinted at before on other threads. If the consensus/fact of the matter is that the 12k edge will not only give a smoother cut but will also last longer, that's important information when deciding whether to get a 12k stone or not

Thanks for the help again everyone, and I am just ignorant and curious, not intentinonally annoying

I have heard people say that a coarser edge requires less maintenance than a finer edge.

Well of course Russell ... no one uses it, so it requires no upkeep!

It was an interesting question.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

It was an interesting question.

And an informative thread...

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Well of course Russell ... no one uses it, so it requires no upkeep!

Ha ha!

Please! I appeal to your fecal senses. The edge is such a key piece in the tool design. That, of course is predicated upon purpose. 600 grit? I would not dare to go to such a fine edge for some of my tools. Those of the more bash-worthy quality require nothing less than 0.5mm edge.

I cannot hit them, with a 2kg mallet, hard enough to harm the tool (and I do try). But, the mallets have caved-in faces. Oh, woh is me, how pittiful is this = I wanted to use my tools without a sign of usage. I read that I'm supposed to use them without a finger-print of damage. Ever. Huh? The singular part is the output. What I do (with my tools) is the really fun, bash 'em and smash 'em part.

Please lean over so that this drivel doesn't splash on your shirt.

Having read through the thread again, there's one more point I think it'd be good to hear some opinion on.

To my understanding, a blade needs to go back to the sharpening station for two reasons:

1) A nick in the edge
2) A rounded edge

Now, Derek mentioned that a jagged, coarse edge is more vulnerable to a nick than a finer one. How about which is more vulnerable to rounding?

In my very limited experience, the rounding of the edge is the main reason I have had to go back to sharpen a blade.