Couple questions about the ceramics

[Kyle]

I own both sets of ceramics and i have seen on another forum a few guys saying to use the micro fine 1.4/0.6 before the 1200/1600 super fine ceramics. Is this true? My other question is about lapping the ceramics, are you supposed to lap these before you evan use them? I have only used them on 1 knife so far. And can anyone put a link to what kind of stone would be good to use for lapping the ceramics? Thanks for any help.

[tcmeyer]

I’ve never heard it said on this forum that you’d use the micro-fines before the super-fines. I can’t imagine what the rationale would be for that.

As for me, I didn’t lap my ceramics until they were pretty heavily loaded with steel and I’d worn a low spot at the middle of the super-fines after more than three years. I don’t think lapping them when they’re new is necessary unless there is some anomaly, like a small bump sticking out. Or if you can see or feel a nasty roughness as you move them along an edge. But the 1200/1600’s always felt a little rough to me.

I use an EZE-Lap plate, but any diamond plate would work, except that I wouldn’t recommend one of the very coarse grits, like 100 to 200. My EZE-Lap is 400/1200.

If you think you need to lap them, and you don’t have a diamond plate, you can use one of your WE diamond stones, like the 800s or 1000s. Lay them on a flat surface on their sides, facing each other. Press the faces together and scrub them back and forth, applying not much more pressure than you’d apply at the sharpening contact point. I would thing that about 10 strokes is about all you’d need with new stones.

I should point out that these stones don’t need to be absolutely flat, but the thickness of the stones shouldn’t vary by more than about 0.010″ end to end. When they get visibly worn, that’s when you think serious lapping.

[Mark76]

The progression I use – if I use both sets of stones – is: 1.4 mu, 1200, 1600, 0.6 mu. You can read here why: https://moleculepolishing.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/more-on-the-wicked-edge-micro-fine-ceramic-stones/

Molecule Polishing: my blog about sharpening with the Wicked Edge

[Aaron kimpton]

The progression I use – if I use both sets of stones – is: 1.4 mu, 1200, 1600, 0.6 mu. You can read here why: https://moleculepolishing.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/more-on-the-wicked-edge-micro-fine-ceramic-stones/%5B/quote%5D

I do also

[Kyle]

It wasnt this forum i heard people saying it. It was a sub forum off usn. Was just looking for an explanation as to why and figured this forum may be better for this question. Looks like mark has a pretty good explanation. Thanks.

[tcmeyer]

Now that Mark says it, I recall him saying so earlier, but my 1.4’s don’t behave like that. 1200 grit should be the equivalent of 12 to 15 micron – so if a stone which is sold as a 1.4 micron leaves scratches coarser than a 12 micron, there’s something amiss. My micro-fines polish. My 1200’s scratch. I’ve never noticed that the micro-fines weren’t doing anything out of the norm.

This is interesting because I just lapped my super-fines and micro-fines but haven’t yet used the micro-fines. Later this week, I’m going to do a comprehensive series of scratch photos, alternating directions so that new scratches can be positively identified.

If the micro-fines perform differently after being lapped, that could be a flag for all to be aware of. I lapped them using a 1200-grit diamond plate. If necessary, I’ll re-lap ’em with a finer diamond film on a granite base or a 3/8″ glass plate to see if it changes properties. I have some samples of non-adhesive-backed diamond abrasive on non-woven fabric. I’ll have to snoop around and see if I can tell where they came from.

[Josh]

Tom, a year or two ago this was indeed the thought that you use the micro fines before the super fines for some reason… which I also found weird. But since the transition to the new server I can’t find those old threads.

[tcmeyer]

Bingo! I think I’ve nailed the reason for the confusion. As I said in my post just above this, I had recently lapped my super-fine ceramics – not so much because they needed it as because everybody here seemed to think it was the thing to do. Well, it wasn’t. Count one pair of super-fines as trashed! I tried them on my old Buck 110 and sure enough, the 1.4’s are now about 1200 grit. The 1.4 fineness lies only at the surface. Underneath that, it’s just crummy old ceramic, like my gray-brown Spyderco triangles.

On looking closely at them, you can see that I hadn’t lapped the entire surface, so I was able to get a photo of the difference.

Note to those who haven’t yet lapped their super-fine ceramics: If you get the urge, cut off a finger instead.

Attachments:

• IMG_0330.JPG

[Zamfir]

I like my fingers!! I have been too busy to do my testing..I have some utility blades and am working to polish them all then hit each one with each ceramic and take pictures.

Tom, I do not think you can half ass a lapping on the 1.3. you need to break through the entire top surface glaze. otherwise you will have a hard rough weird transition point that will cause bigger scratching becasue of the left over glazed ceramic and the nice raw ceramic below. Remove the whole glaze on it on it. on a fine diamond bench stone and see the difference. You have nothing to loose now eh?

I was going to do testing before and after lapping. My super fine ceramics turned into something I love after lapping them. No love before I lapped them. I have not done anything to the micro fine yet..nor used them much.

[Josh]

Also, if you simply use them for a bit then they should glaze back over… at least, that’s how water stones work. 😉

[Daniel maloon]

This old topic again. I believe that progression was due to a kiln layer? I did lap my super and micro fine ceramics in order up to the the necessary grits. It made them flat and polish how they should. The micro fines were pretty good but the super fine ceramics and me always had beef. I eventually went with a different option.

[tcmeyer]

Of course guys, where I referred to “super-fines” I actually meant “micro-fines.”

Sorry, but I don’t believe the surface will ever regress back to its original grit.. And I don’t believe in some transition zone which is causing the 1200-grit scratch patterns.

When I lapped my super-fines (the 1200/1600 stones) it really did clean up the surfaces and the ceramic kept its characteristics – cutting at the original 1200/1600 grits. If you look closely at the photo of the area where I lapped the 1.4 micro-fine, you can see that where the super-smooth surface has been entirely removed, the individual nodules of ceramic are exposed. Even if there was a slurry, there ain’t no pores to fill. Here I zoomed in on the part of the photo that was clearest. Hope you can see what I’m talking about.

I think the super-smooth surfaces were produced by some clever work in the kiln firing process. Maybe even with a painted-on glaze. Like the diamond stones, once you remove ’em, they’re gone forever. That said, I’d sure like someone to prove me wrong. I wouldn’t have to buy a new set.

Attachments:

• microfinelapped.jpg

[tcmeyer]

Dan: Due to my error and any confusion I might have caused, I’ll ask you to confirm – was it the 1200/1600 stones you had trouble with?

[Zamfir]

What grit did you use to lap your micro fine you are showing in the picture?

What I plan on doing removing that glaze with my fine dmt bench stone and make it nice and flat. Then use 1.3u diamond lapping film stuck to a marble flat surface to “polish” the ceramic back to what it is supposed to be grit wise. There were comments in the other thread that this ceramic is very hard and can take on the grit of what you sharpen it with.. It got me very curious and it is why I picked up a set of the micro fine.

I just need some time to get 4 utility blades sharpened to a really good mirror edge. Then I can hit each one with the ceramics and post some usb microscope pictures of the results. I have not lapped mine yet. So I guess I can do a 5th utility blade so I can see the difference before and after.

[tcmeyer]

Well, once again I proved myself wrong. Looks like you’re headed in the right direction, Eric.

I had lapped my micro-fines with a 1200-grit EZE-Lap plate. The resulting scratch patterns were, in fact, pretty close to what I’d see with my 1200-grit ceramics. I couldn’t see a grit matrix with my microscope that suggested a 1200-grit surface.

This afternoon I tried to re-lap the stones, using a 3 micron diamond film. I was really surprised to see that the surface seemed to be changing back to the original glaze. But with the film on a flat substrate (my granite block) the ceramic managed to tear up small sections of the abrasive from the film backing. I don’t know what was causing this, but I switched to sanding the surface with the film held against the surface with my fingers. This seemed to work better and I could focus on areas according to their appearance. Remember that flatness is irrelevant here – we’re talking about a couple of microns.

I tried to test the resulting apparent grit by polishing an area of my Buck 110 all the way to 0.1 micron film. I took micro-photos of each grit stage for comparison. Then I used the micro-fines to go backwards, observing the effects of the fine and the coarse. Both the white and brown surfaces produced scratches I’d expect with 3 micron stones – the white maybe a little finer than the brown – but with a lot of scratches that were coarser and non-uniform. Not at all as pretty and uniform as before.

This is a very limited basis for a statement of fact, but it looks like you can polish the ceramics with diamond film to whatever grit you desire. I will continue to try restoring my stones to their original 1.4 and 0.6 micron (more likely 1.5 and 0,5) performance. I’m estimating that it would take only 3 or 4 strips of film to restore a pair of stones. I really liked them and used them to put a light polish on knives in lieu of the 5 and 3.5 micron stropping after a 1000-grit finish. I didn’t need to drop the angle by 2 degrees and there was no danger of rounding the edge.

[Author]

Posts