New 800/1000 diamond stones mislabeled?

This topic has 36 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 09/27/2012 at 2:42 pm by Chris.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)

1 2 3 →

Author

Posts
07/28/2012 at 1:42 am #4328
Joseph
Participant
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 11
As mentioned by ThomasMeeks in this post: http://www.wickededgeusa.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=advsearch&q=microfine&exactname=1&childforums=1&Itemid=63

It appears the recent 800/1000 grit diamond stones might be mislabeled. The 1000 grit feels significantly rougher than the 800 grit, both by touch and when sharpening. See below 200x photomicrographs.

Can anyone confirm this?

Label=800, color=light blue:

Lable=1000, color=violet:
07/28/2012 at 2:04 am #4329
Joseph
Participant
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 11
Added oblique angle shots:

Label=800, color=light blue:

Label=1000, color=violet:
07/28/2012 at 3:58 am #4334
wickededge
Keymaster
- Topics: 123
- Replies: 2939
Joe,

I’ve looked at an awful lot of those stones under the scope and they appear to be labeled correctly. You’re welcome to send them back for me to verify – if they’re wrong, I’ll definitely send you some correct ones. If you have a measurement feature on your scope and you’ve calibrated it, you should be able to measure the tiny little circles of light. The 800# stones should be in the 12um-16um range and the 1000# stones should be in the 7um to 10um range.

If they’re fairly new, they’ll be cutting much more aggressively than they will once they’re broken in. Also, what scope do you have, what magnification?

As mentioned by ThomasMeeks in this post: http://www.wickededgeusa.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=advsearch&q=microfine&exactname=1&childforums=1&Itemid=63

It appears the recent 800/1000 grit diamond stones might be mislabeled. The 1000 grit feels significantly rougher than the 800 grit, both by touch and when sharpening. See below 200x photomicrographs.

Can anyone confirm this?

Label=800, color=light blue:

Lable=1000, color=violet:

-Clay
07/28/2012 at 4:13 am #4335
wickededge
Keymaster
- Topics: 123
- Replies: 2939
I just checked a bunch of stones and they’re all pretty consistent, so if you’re able to accurately measure the stones, you should find that the 1000# stones average 7um but you may find a few that are a micron or two bigger. For the 800#, they should be around 12um but may vary a little bit.

-Clay
07/28/2012 at 4:53 am #4337
Joseph
Participant
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 11
Clay, I have a Dino-Lite AM-411T, unfortunately it doesn’t have a measurement feature.

The magnification of the first two photos is about 200x at the plane of the transparent nozzle, according to the mfg. The second two were slightly inside the microscope nozzle, so it’s probably a little higher, say 250x.

The new stones cut more aggressively, but I wasn’t comparing new vs old, but new 800 grit vs new 1000 grit.

If you look at my second two photos (the oblique angle shots) the 800 side looks smoother than the 1000 side. This corresponds with the tactile feel — the 800 side feels smoother than the 1000 side of the same brand new stone.

I realize this isn’t definitive, just wanted to see if anyone besides me and ThomasMeeks had observed it. I’ll try to get some better photos.
07/28/2012 at 5:28 am #4338
Joseph
Participant
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 11
New 800 grit diamond stone, about 200x:

New 1000 grit diamond stone, about 200x:

New 800 grit diamond stone, about 200x, corner:

New 1000 grit diamond stone, about 200x, corner:
07/28/2012 at 5:57 am #4339
Joseph
Participant
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 11
Assuming this is a real problem and not a wild goose chase, I can just flip the stones over and use 1000 for 800 and vice versa. I have no problem with that. However this raises two scenarios about how it happened:

(1) It’s just a labeling problem and 800 and 1000 are actually at the expected grit but mislabeled.

(2) It’s labeled correctly but due to a QC problem what should be 800 and 1000 are not. IOW the unit-to-unit variation exceeds the labeled spec to such a degree it appears they are mislabeled.

Either way customers who have these might not know it, thus end up sharpening with the wrong grit.

Again, this assumes it’s a real problem, which is not yet determined.
07/28/2012 at 7:36 am #4341
wickededge
Keymaster
- Topics: 123
- Replies: 2939
The timing is interesting – yesterday the assembly team asked me to measure the 800# and 1000# stones because they felt that the 800# stones were more coarse. I used two different scopes, one at 510x and the other at 800# to verify them. All the stones were correct as labeled though the 800# stones did in fact feel more coarse. Still, that was only a small sample and it’s entirely possible that yours got mixed. If you have any lingering doubts, I’d love to have a look at them. In the short term, I’d recommend using them as labeled for a while until they’re well broken in and then see if you’re still having the same issue. You can also accelerate the break in process by lightly rubbing like stones together for 5 passes. After doing so, you might see a significant difference. Either way, we’re here and will support the product 100%.

Assuming this is a real problem and not a wild goose chase, I can just flip the stones over and use 1000 for 800 and vice versa. I have no problem with that. However this raises two scenarios about how it happened:

(1) It’s just a labeling problem and 800 and 1000 are actually at the expected grit but mislabeled.

(2) It’s labeled correctly but due to a QC problem what should be 800 and 1000 are not. IOW the unit-to-unit variation exceeds the labeled spec to such a degree it appears they are mislabeled.

Either way customers who have these might not know it, thus end up sharpening with the wrong grit.

Again, this assumes it’s a real problem, which is not yet determined.

-Clay
07/28/2012 at 8:18 am #4345
Mark76
Participant
- Topics: 179
- Replies: 2760
This is funny. History might be repeating itself. When I first got my 800/1000 stones, about half a year ago, I also thought they might have been swapped. This was mainly on the basis of the sound they made, but also because I thought the 800 stones felt a bit smoother.

But when I took some microscope photographs, it appeared I was wrong. And after the stones were broken in, the 1000 grit stones felt and sounded smoother than the 800 grit ones.

You can find the original topic here .

Molecule Polishing: my blog about sharpening with the Wicked Edge
07/28/2012 at 10:31 am #4349
Jende Industries
Participant
- Topics: 14
- Replies: 342
Joema – can you get a microscope picture of your edge from the 800 and 1K diamonds? That would be more tangible proof to see if the numbers on the stone are consistent with the results.
07/28/2012 at 10:57 am #4350
Phil Pasteur
Participant
- Topics: 10
- Replies: 944
Ditto this. I have maybe 30 edges done on my set of 800/1000 stones now. The 1000 grit stones still subjectively feel coarser then the 800s. Magnification shows that this is not the case.
I am not sure why they feel the way they do, but I am pretty certain that at least mine, are labled correctly.

Phil

This is funny. History might be repeating itself. When I first got my 800/1000 stones, about half a year ago, I also thought they might have been swapped. This was mainly on the basis of the sound they made, but also because I thought the 800 stones felt a bit smoother.

But when I took some microscope photographs, it appeared I was wrong. And after the stones were broken in, the 1000 grit stones felt and sounded smoother than the 800 grit ones.

You can find the original topic here .
07/28/2012 at 11:17 am #4351
Jende Industries
Participant
- Topics: 14
- Replies: 342
FWIW, my progression of the WEPS diamonds, including the 800 and 1K can be found here[/url].

IIRC, my plates were still pretty new when this was done – less than 10 knives, and you can see the plane of the edge becoming smoother compared to the 800.
07/28/2012 at 11:24 am #4352
Joseph
Participant
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 11
Joema – can you get a microscope picture of your edge from the 800 and 1K diamonds? That would be more tangible proof to see if the numbers on the stone are consistent with the results.

That’s a great idea; unfortunately it will be a day or so before I can do that.
08/04/2012 at 2:47 am #4451
Joseph
Participant
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 11
OK I did photomicrographs of an S30V Ritter Mini-Griptilian after 100 strokes of new 800 grit and 1000 grit diamond stones; see below. It apparently confirms the previous photos, also the tactile feeling of the stones. 1000 grit is significantly more coarse than the 800 grit. There are several possible explanations, but the most obvious is the stones are mislabeled.

The stones are relatively new but not pristine — I’ve previously done about 10 knives on them. I don’t think continued break-in will alter the current behavior.

Progression (all mostly-new diamond stones): 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000. After that I went back to 800. Whether stepping up from 800->1000 (as labeled) or down from 1000->800, the behavior is the same: 1000 is more coarse and produces a less finished bevel.

For now I’ll just use the 800/1000 diamond stones in reverse sequence.

1000 grit diamond:

800 grit diamond:
08/04/2012 at 11:05 am #4457
Jende Industries
Participant
- Topics: 14
- Replies: 342
Perfect pictures, Joe!

Believe it or not, your paddles are correctly labeled.

What you are seeing is the 1K diamond beginning to reveal the deeper scratches left over from previous diamond plates – probably the 200 or 400. The 600 and 800 plates actually do a very good job in masking them.

You can go back to the 600 and 800 and do about 50 or so ultra light passes, then hit the 1K again and see if things are improved. 😉
Author

Posts