Getting a mirror finish on your edge?
Recent › Forums › Main Forum › Welcome Mat › Getting a mirror finish on your edge?
- This topic has 55 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 02/22/2015 at 2:14 pm by
CliffCurry.
-
AuthorPosts
-
02/19/2015 at 8:42 am #23592
One other comment – and please correct me if I’m wrong – If you lap a super-fine ceramic stone with a 100 grit diamond stone, that super-fine ceramic will still have its same super-fine grit rating. I don’t believe there is a need to go to higher lapping grits. The grit of the ceramic is homogeneous and unaffected by the lapping stone’s grit..
This is directly contradictory to my present understanding of the nature of the ceramic stones. I believe they are essentially solid ceramic, and though they have an inherent grain it is largely subordinate to the finish that is applied to the stones. I believe that although lapping with a 100 grit diamond plate will not replicate a 100 grit surface as there will not be full abrasive penetration, it will nevertheless produce a much coarser stone than the original super-fine finish.
As a point of reference it has been stated that the Spyderco Fine and Ultrafine ceramics are the same material; only the surface finish is different.
02/19/2015 at 9:08 am #23593One other comment – and please correct me if I’m wrong – If you lap a super-fine ceramic stone with a 100 grit diamond stone, that super-fine ceramic will still have its same super-fine grit rating. I don’t believe there is a need to go to higher lapping grits. The grit of the ceramic is homogeneous and unaffected by the lapping stone’s grit..
This is directly contradictory to my present understanding of the nature of the ceramic stones. I believe they are essentially solid ceramic, and though they have an inherent grain it is largely subordinate to the finish that is applied to the stones. I believe that although lapping with a 100 grit diamond plate will not replicate a 100 grit surface as there will not be full abrasive penetration, it will nevertheless produce a much coarser stone than the original super-fine finish.
As a point of reference it has been stated that the Spyderco Fine and Ultrafine ceramics are the same material; only the surface finish is different.[/quote]
Been stated. Does not mean it is true.
02/19/2015 at 9:20 am #23594Been stated. Does not mean it is true.
I have a set of fairly new micro ceramics(never lapped) that arent seated correctly and will need to be returned, seems like a perfect pair of test subjects for quick side by side lapping comparison…Say one lapped with 100 grit diamond & 1 lapped w/ 1000 grit? Then test them both on a mirrored edge under microscope? :unsure:
02/19/2015 at 9:38 am #23596Would be a cool test Cliff!
02/19/2015 at 10:08 am #23598One other comment – and please correct me if I’m wrong – If you lap a super-fine ceramic stone with a 100 grit diamond stone, that super-fine ceramic will still have its same super-fine grit rating. I don’t believe there is a need to go to higher lapping grits. The grit of the ceramic is homogeneous and unaffected by the lapping stone’s grit..
This is directly contradictory to my present understanding of the nature of the ceramic stones. I believe they are essentially solid ceramic, and though they have an inherent grain it is largely subordinate to the finish that is applied to the stones. I believe that although lapping with a 100 grit diamond plate will not replicate a 100 grit surface as there will not be full abrasive penetration, it will nevertheless produce a much coarser stone than the original super-fine finish.
As a point of reference it has been stated that the Spyderco Fine and Ultrafine ceramics are the same material; only the surface finish is different.[/quote]
I lapped my super fines and could tell a tremendous difference right after I lapped them. They performed horribly for a few knives until they smoothed back out. I finished lapping them with the 1000 grit stone and they didn’t polish at all. Just left a weird film on the blade. And I can confirm. The super fine and micro fine are not the same material. I have lapped them both and gotten below the surface and the micro fines are waaaaaay harder than the super fines. The super fines have little honeycombs in them and are powdery. The micro fines are completely smooth all the way through
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02/19/2015 at 1:27 pm #23604Ok guys, I did not know what to expect & figured it could go either way… I took 2 never before lapped micro ceramic paddles, marked one with blue tape(to avoid confusion) and lapped that one on both sides with a new 100 grit paddle. The other one was lapped on both sides with a well worn 1000 grit paddle.
For each test I taped off half the blade and applied 50 smooth vertical strokes with the 1000 grit lapped ceramic, moved the tape to cover the fine area and repeated right next to it with the 100 grit lapped ceramic. I repeated this test for both the course side and the fine side of the ceramic paddles and took photos with my $18 usb scope 😉
Side by side comparision of course micro ceramic with 100 grit lapping on left & 1000 grit lapping on right:
Side by side comparision of fine micro ceramic with 100 grit lapping on left & 1000 grit lapping on right:
Although probably not up to laboratory standards for a scientific conclusion, the results were obviously way better with the finely lapped stones. To the hand & the eye the difference was striking! :woohoo:
As a follow up, and keeping with the thread topic of mirror edges, I pulled out a p2500 strip and repeated:
p2500 sandpaper strip on left / Fine micro ceramic lapped with 1000 grit on right:
The scratch pattern above may look worse on the left but I found its of a uniform depth and started to buff out quickly with 5u/3.5u strops, while the ceramic side showed some residual deeper scratches but overall appears to be of a slightly lower grit judging by the residual marks left after stropping.
Not the best photos but working with what I got before bed and wanted to get this up. I am now excited to do some side by side comparisons on more sandpaper strips and the stropping end of the deal to streamline the process….yet again(and again). :whistle:
Aloha,
Cliff02/19/2015 at 5:32 pm #23605Ok guys, I did not know what to expect & figured it could go either way… I took 2 never before lapped micro ceramic paddles, marked one with blue tape(to avoid confusion) and lapped that one on both sides with a new 100 grit paddle. The other one was lapped on both sides with a well worn 1000 grit paddle.
For each test I taped off half the blade and applied 50 smooth vertical strokes with the 1000 grit lapped ceramic, moved the tape to cover the fine area and repeated right next to it with the 100 grit lapped ceramic. I repeated this test for both the course side and the fine side of the ceramic paddles and took photos with my $18 usb scope 😉
Side by side comparision of course micro ceramic with 100 grit lapping on left & 1000 grit lapping on right:
Side by side comparision of fine micro ceramic with 100 grit lapping on left & 1000 grit lapping on right:
Although probably not up to laboratory standards for a scientific conclusion, the results were obviously way better with the finely lapped stones. To the hand & the eye the difference was striking! :woohoo:
As a follow up, and keeping with the thread topic of mirror edges, I pulled out a p2500 strip and repeated:
p2500 sandpaper strip on left / Fine micro ceramic lapped with 1000 grit on right:
The scratch pattern above may look worse on the left but I found its of a uniform depth and started to buff out quickly with 5u/3.5u strops, while the ceramic side showed some residual deeper scratches but overall appears to be of a slightly lower grit judging by the residual marks left after stropping.
Not the best photos but working with what I got before bed and wanted to get this up. I am now excited to do some side by side comparisons on more sandpaper strips and the stropping end of the deal to streamline the process….yet again(and again). :whistle:
Aloha,
CliffAaaaaaaand that’s why I followed Clays lead and lapped them up to 1000 grit. Huge difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
02/19/2015 at 6:20 pm #23616Vindicated. Thank you. 🙂
02/19/2015 at 6:25 pm #23617The super fine and micro fine are not the same material. I have lapped them both and gotten below the surface and the micro fines are waaaaaay harder than the super fines. The super fines have little honeycombs in them and are powdery. The micro fines are completely smooth all the way through.
Thank you. Have you used the Spyderco Fine or Ultrafine? [strike]It is my understanding that these are similar to the WEPS Super Fine stones in composition, and the Micro Fine are something new apparently.
[/strike]
Correction: From reading this post it is clear that the Spyderco stones are closer to the WEPS Micro Fine than Super Fine, but distinct nonetheless.02/19/2015 at 6:35 pm #23620Been stated. Does not mean it is true.
Surely not everything that is written is true. Anyway here is a post with the quote I was recalling for your own evaluation: https://knife.wickededgeusa.com/forum/9-basic-techniques-and-sharpening-strategies/4256-micro-fine-ceramic-stones-my-first-impressions?start=10#4286
02/19/2015 at 8:21 pm #23630Well, I stand clearly corrected and humbled before you. However, the principle I espoused I still hold to be true – that the grit rating of the stone is not affected by lapping with a coarse stone – The grit is inherent in the ceramic structure throughout the stone. I understand that this contradicts Spyderco’s claim that all their stones are the same, but are surface-ground differently.
I believe what they mean is that the starting powder material grit may all be the same, but the treatments (process temps, pressures, etc.) are different, resulting in different abrasive qualities.
I infer from Cliff’s tests here that the more different the lapping grit is from the intended grit, the longer it will take to break in the stone, returning it to its former glory. And yes, this blows my theory (recall that I said “Correct me if I’m wrong!) that “lapping with a coarse stone should be adequate” out of the water.
And to blow Spyderco’s statement out of the water, if the grits are inherently the same, then lapping your 1200 and 1600 stones with a 1000 grit diamond should result in them ending up with the same grit. Nicht wahr? After all, once lapped with 100-grit diamond plate, the original surfaces are long gone.
And lapping your microfine ceramics with 1000-grit diamond plate would be the equivalent of lapping the 1600 with a 100-grit stone. How would you lap the micro-fines? Their equivalent grits are about 13,000 and 40,000 grit.
02/19/2015 at 8:36 pm #23634Ok guys, I did not know what to expect & figured it could go either way… I took 2 never before lapped micro ceramic paddles, marked one with blue tape(to avoid confusion) and lapped that one on both sides with a new 100 grit paddle. The other one was lapped on both sides with a well worn 1000 grit paddle.
For each test I taped off half the blade and applied 50 smooth vertical strokes with the 1000 grit lapped ceramic, moved the tape to cover the fine area and repeated right next to it with the 100 grit lapped ceramic. I repeated this test for both the course side and the fine side of the ceramic paddles and took photos with my $18 usb scope 😉
Side by side comparision of course micro ceramic with 100 grit lapping on left & 1000 grit lapping on right:
Side by side comparision of fine micro ceramic with 100 grit lapping on left & 1000 grit lapping on right:
Although probably not up to laboratory standards for a scientific conclusion, the results were obviously way better with the finely lapped stones. To the hand & the eye the difference was striking! :woohoo:
As a follow up, and keeping with the thread topic of mirror edges, I pulled out a p2500 strip and repeated:
p2500 sandpaper strip on left / Fine micro ceramic lapped with 1000 grit on right:
The scratch pattern above may look worse on the left but I found its of a uniform depth and started to buff out quickly with 5u/3.5u strops, while the ceramic side showed some residual deeper scratches but overall appears to be of a slightly lower grit judging by the residual marks left after stropping.
Not the best photos but working with what I got before bed and wanted to get this up. I am now excited to do some side by side comparisons on more sandpaper strips and the stropping end of the deal to streamline the process….yet again(and again). :whistle:
Aloha,
CliffThis is what i was getting at in a more general sense. With out looking under a scope one is not going to be able to verify or validate the work done. When concerned to a true mirror polish, instead of a mirror like polish.
my only concern of this is how much contamination was given from the 100/1000 grit lappings to the stones in general. I would be interesting to see a non lapped stone as a control.
I have simply been wetting and rubbing my stones face to face before each knife. This has improved them incrimentally over the last 10 knives or so. Little bit each time.
02/19/2015 at 11:24 pm #23644I understand that this contradicts Spyderco’s claim that all their stones are the same, but are surface-ground differently.
I believe what they mean is that the starting powder material grit may all be the same, but the treatments (process temps, pressures, etc.) are different, resulting in different abrasive qualities.
And to blow Spyderco’s statement out of the water, if the grits are inherently the same, then lapping your 1200 and 1600 stones with a 1000 grit diamond should result in them ending up with the same grit. Nicht wahr? After all, once lapped with 100-grit diamond plate, the original surfaces are long gone.
And lapping your microfine ceramics with 1000-grit diamond plate would be the equivalent of lapping the 1600 with a 100-grit stone. How would you lap the micro-fines? Their equivalent grits are about 13,000 and 40,000 grit.
Many of the ceramic hones are indeed of different composition or process; for example the Spyderco Medium is different from the Fine/Ultrafine. However the Fine/Ultrafine apparently are the same with different surface finishing. The 1200 and 1600 stones are not the same material as evidenced by Mark’s micrographs. Regarding the Micro Fine stones the coarser one is apparently coarser than even the 1200 ceramic, not 13,000 grit. In summary none of the four Wicked Edge ceramic hones are the same material, however the harder and denser they are the more that the surface finish will be dominant. To get the finest finish possible from the fine Micro Fine stone you probably do need to lap it with something finer than the 1000 plate.
02/20/2015 at 2:39 am #23650So as it happens I realized I have another set of micro ceramics unopened in box and thought what a great time to carry the experiment a bit further. Unfortunately I think my process was flawed as I didnt expect the results I got and suspect I did not polish the edge enough to remove discrepancies and allow for a clear base line to be set and measured against.
I once again used my trusty p3000 grit auto grade sandpaper as a control and reference. Shown below on left is a virgin .6u micro ceramic & on right the p3000. The ceramic is much more coarse the the p3000:
Then I took the .6u stone previously lapped to 1000 grit diamond and lapped with 1500,2000,2500,3000 grit sandpaper on a flat surface. And this is where the experiment fell down…for today at least. I believe the results I witnessed to be not much different when in actuality the finely lapped ceramic was not making hardly a mark. So I removed the tape and scrubbed BOTH sides at a 45 degree angle(for clarity) for over 100 vigorous passes. This is the result:
Again nothing conclusive to offer, but I do think it opens up and continues a discussion of several things. Is the effective grit of the ceramics “adjustable”? And what grit is it at? :ohmy: More testing is definitely needs, and hopefully by others more skillful with better scopes.
Aloha,
Cliff02/20/2015 at 9:25 am #23662OK, so I did a little testing of my own. But the only lapping plates I had were 400 and 1000 grit. So I lapped my 1200 grit super fine with the 400, tested it on a previously polished bevel, and then lapped it with the 1000 and tested it alongside the 400-lapped ceramic, much as Cliff had done. I didn’t take photos, but can say that the difference was as follows: the 400-grit-lapped scratches were equivalent to the 1000-grit scratches, but were obviously less uniformly distributed. The difference could be said to be similar to that produced by stones which had been “broken-in” and those “not yet broken-in.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.