[quote quote=52548]
Not Sorry if anyone is offended. This is a logical question.[/quote]
Yeah. Right. Being a “snowflake” myself, I’ll count myself among those who forgive, but don’t forget. Or maybe not.
Hi all,
I’m away at a conference today. When I’m back in the office I’ll pay the specs with some pictures and explain the logic of switching to a new system. The current progression is rational and each of the diamond stones progress from one to the next as pretty much you’d as you’d expect them to.
First I’ll address the elephant in the room:
I am perplexed by the decision to release the new stones without also releasing the same information you’ve released with every other stone in the Wicked Edge lineup.We removed our old grit chart well before the release of the new stones. We did it for a variety of reasons, the foremost of which is that we are in the process of switching to a new grit system. I will elaborate on why we are doing this and exactly what the plan is in my next post.
This in my mind means either you released the stones without knowing the micron rating or you knew and didn’t want to release the information.Of course the other option, which is the real reason, is stated above though bears repeating: We didn't post particle sizes with these stones because we're moving to a new system that makes more sense to us.
If you didn’t know, then you released a product without knowing what it was.We do and did know the particle sizes but considered them irrelevant because of the new system we're developing.
If you did know, you chose to hide requested information from your customers.Not posting information that we feel will no longer fit into the new grit system is not the same as deliberately hiding information. Anyone with a microscope can look at and measure the stones. Suggesting that we would deliberately hide information when we've always been so transparent is silly.
So did you hide information or did you release a product without knowing what it was?Neither, please see above.
Yes, our plan is to include all the abrasives we off in the new system.
The charts below represent the efforts of some very smart, dedicated people to make some sense out of all the different grit systems on the market today. In addition to the clear confusion represented in these charts, there are concerns about the way different abrasives behave when used to grind metal e.g. 14 micron diamonds plated to a steel substrate produce very different results from diamonds of the same size in an emulsion or paste and applied to a leather strop and ceramic stones with original constituent particles of the same size can no longer be characterized by their particle size once they undergo the sintering or vitrification processes.
The above examples are just two of the charts put together to try to make sense of the various abrasives on the market. They do not take into account:
- Substrate
- Friability of the abrasive
- Fusion/transformation of particles during production of some types of ceramic stones
- Sintered ceramics
- Vitrified ceramics
Here is the approach we’ve taken:
- Polish to all samples to 0.1 microns
- Electro-polish the samples
- Continue polishing with 3M diamond lapping films
- Alternate with each grit and image at each stage to ensure all previous scratches are removed
- Apply the grit to be studied to the polished surface
- Send the samples to LANL to be analysed
- LANL will report on:
- # of scratches per distance (density)
- Scratch profile
- Avg width of scratches
- Height of ridges
- Depth of valleys
- RA (roughness average of the surface)
- Cross-section profile image of the sample showing scratch width, depth and height
- LANL will report on:
I just completed imaging diamond stones from 800# - 3000# and measuring a sample of the individual diamonds on each stone which I then average:
800# - 19.13um
1000# - 13.68um
1500# - 9.67um
2200# - 7.14um
3000# - 5.04um
*It’s worth noting that there is some variation between sizes depending on how well we can determine the edges of the stones, especially since they are irregularly shaped and it’s not always clear with the diamonds which planes or edges we should referencing.
Clay, I believe those of use with some sharpening experience recognize that the same grit particle size when adhered to a steel plate as with a diamond sharpening stone and applied to a stropping medium through a paste, suspension or an emulsion, or adhered to a plastic film do behave (possibly very) differently. I believe if the grits you list on the grand-unified chart or the gritomatic chart are simply identified to what they are, sharpening stone VS stropping abrasive VS etc., etc., it will be very clear to us what they are.
My understanding of the grand-unified chart is the placement of all those different grits used by all the different companies and sources is how they relate and compare to one another. As a user of mixed sharpening mediums the placement in this relationship is most helpful. I don’t really care how large or small the grit particle is, measured, or named, but more so how it relates to another grit particle called that same size by another source or producer.
A chart that objectively visually measures, grades or rates, and compares all the different grits made by all the different companies by the appearance of the scratch patterns that those grit particles produce, by width, depth and distance between the scratches would be wonderful. It seems dauntingly impossiple to produce such a chart and tremendously expensive for that long tedious process. A chart that only places W.E. grits together, how they relate to one another, would be nice, but not nearly as helpful, to me.
Simply how the new grits fit into this existing grand-unified chart compared to the other Wicked Edge sharpening stones is really what I’m wanting. My concern was, were these grits withheld or not included with the chart because they didn’t fit in with the flow and placement that would be expected or interpolated as suggested by how they were named, in relation to previously marketed and sold sharpening stone grits.
This could certainly be problematic for you Clay, if the sharpening stone manufacturer you are using, or the manufacturing process has changed. If, or when, the new stones are found inconsistent in their behavior, effect, quality and appearance of their scratch patterns produced, compared with older stones from the previous manufacturer but called or named similary, because they’re supposed to be the same grit, could be a difficult situation. Many products change with out renaming them. This happens.
It’s all the more reason to place them in the chart how they compare to the other stones and grits we may be using. Even if they don’t fit as expected or predicted. I’m left wondering are you finding yourself forced find a new way to compare them and label them so they fit together in a flow that better matches the naming system now being used.
As I wrote at the onset of this post, those of us with some sharpening experiences have come to learn that different mediums behave and work differently even when they share a grit (size) name. That just “is how it is”. That may become the same case, for same mediums stones named by grit number, in this situation diamond sharpening stones. Even though they’re all branded Wicked Edge, they are different and don’t fit together neatly the way the once did. Maybe just call them new stone and old stones.
I don’t know this is the case, but I’m guessing it is the case. My very first 1500 grit diamond stone from 2016 was exactly like the second 1500 grit stone I bought some time later as the first one showed signs of wear. The 2019 1500 grit stone released, was somewhat different from the earlier sold 1500 grit diamond stones. Though equally effective, they were still differences in the scratch patterns the two era 1500 grit diamond stones produce.
The new 1500 grit, 2200 grit and the 3000 grit diamond stones all fit together nicely and produce similar progressively finer, shallower and closer together appearing scratch patterns. As would be expected. Whereas, by my personal experiences and observations the earlier version 1500 grit diamond continues to produce finer and more polished appearing bevels then even my well broken in 3000 grit diamond stones. I am aware of this situation I have with my 1500 grit sharpening stones. So I simply use the stones accordingly for the sharpening effect and results I’m looking for.
I’m not concerned but I do wonder if this is what I should expect down the road from the other grits when it’s time to replace them again.
Reading your preceding post made as I’m typing this appears your making a lot of effort to test study and relate the grits one to the next and I thank you and commend you for the effort and your expenditures. We’ll see what it looks like when completed. The size of the particles as observed and measured is nice to know. But moe important to as a sharpener is exactly what you stated in your conclusion on the last post, I really don’t care the particle size but what the grits will do to my knife edges as I am using them. And are they named or labeled so I can place them in an order to follow in my sharpening progressions.
Will the results force you and us stone owners/users to rename our previously bought manufactured and named grit stones so that the name reflects how the relate one to the next, like your new chart is supposed to do?
I’m looking forward to seeing the results of these measurements. One thing that I would love to see (in addition) is the material removal rate.
Thanks Clay: The particle sizes you’ve measured and the assigned grit ratings fall very close to the numbers I’ve been using. I am really curious though, as to how they will be rated now. Seems to me it ought to be something like “scratches per inch,” but I’m guessing it will be straight micron particle size, to stay in the “apples for apples” format with 3M’s diamond lapping film. For sure, they’re not likely to change. But who knows? With the Vikings winning yesterday, they might be in a good mood.
I know this may be too early to ask, but does anyone have an idea as to these stone’s longevity? Will the 2200/3000 stones last at least as long as the 1500?
Are you planning a similar analysis for the 80 through 600 grit stones? If not I humbly request it.
Also is there a time frame for the LANL results?
So I’m looking at going with some finer grit stones and begin on providing a more polished result to those who want that. I currently have the 800/1000 diamond and the 1200/1600 ceramic. It seems that the next set of stones would be the 2200/3000 diamond but the vibe I’m getting from this thread is that it’s a no-no to do a diamond/ceramic/diamond progression. Why is that?
Each sharpening medium, whether using diamond stones, ceramic stones, lapping films or whetstones imparts a different character scratch pattern but which is consistent within the grit progressions in those individual mediums. In the situation you’re discussing, that is wanting to sharpen to a finer, more refined grit level. I suggest you stick with the finer grits available in the diamond stone progression. The 1500, 2200 then 3000 grit diamonds stones will allow you to take advantage of the refined and consistent scratch patterns they create, that you’re seeking.
You will not find the refined results you seek switching back and forth between different abrasive sharpening mediums. The scratch patterns differ that much.
Beside the observed scratch pattern differences seen from one sharpening medium to another, the grit numbers used to describe the particle size for the abrasives in these different sharpening mediums are not necessarily consistent, from medium to medium. So even though they appear to be described as equal or close in the finer grit progression you seek, the grit number diamond sharpening stones and ceramic stones, (or for any other mediums), may still differ markedly and visually in the scratch patterns they produce.
When you have the opportunity to continue with the same sharpening medium down the grit progression, finer and finer, you’ll see better sharpening efficiency with more consistent results then if you mix sharpening mediums.
You can certainly try following the fine grit diamond progression, 1500, 2200, then 3000 grit, with the 1200/1600 grit ceramic stones, because the scratch patterns are that different. You will probably see a more polished effect resulting from using the ceramics following the fine grit diamond stones.
I have a set of the 2200/3000 diamond stones. I have used them for months and they are still not broken in and leave a more scratched surface than my 1500. There are rogue diamonds that just won’t go away. With so many people in this thread that have them, is there something different I should be doing for a successful break in?
Depending on when you purchased the 1500 diamond stones they may appear very different in the scratch patterns from the newer 1500/2200/3000 grit diamond stones.
Here’s what I wrote on 11/05/2019 in Post #52574 in the previous page of this same thread:
I don’t know, for sure, that this is the case, but I’m guessing it is the case. My very first 1500 grit diamond stone pair from 2016 were exactly like the second 1500 grit stone pair I bought some time later, as that first ston pair showed signs of wear. The 2019 1500 grit stones released, were somewhat different from the earlier sold 1500 grit diamond stones. Though equally effective, there were still bid visual differences in the scratch patterns seen in the two era 1500 grit diamond stones.
The new 1500 grit, 2200 grit and the 3000 grit diamond stones all fit together nicely and produce similar progressively finer, shallower and closer together appearing scratch patterns. As would be expected. Whereas, by my personal experiences and observations the earlier version 1500 grit diamond continues to produce finer and more polished appearing bevels then even my well broken in newer 3000 grit diamond stones. I am aware of this situation I have with my 1500 grit sharpening stones. So I simply use the stones accordingly for the sharpening effect and results I’m looking for.
If you experience stray looking scratches from an odd placed too large diamond, by running your sharpening stone across the edge of a piece of plate glass or even a piece of plate steel, often will knock off those odd larger diamonds or knock it/them down so they are even with the rest of the grit pattern. When you’re dealing with very fine diamond grits it doesn’t take much of a difference in the abrasive particle’s size for it’s larger, deeper scratch to clearly stand out.
I sharpened a knife today at 15dps bevel angle using an all diamond stone progression: 400, 600, 800, 1000, then new version 1500, 2200, 3000, (released in Summer 2019), and last I used the 3 year old version 1500 grit diamond stone.
I saw no discernible difference between the scratch patterns imparted with the recently released 3000 grit diamond stone and the original version 1500 grit diamond stone that was first released in 2016 or 2017.
This is consistent with Mr. Wizards measured observation shared with the forum in post 53416:
To avoid a possible misunderstanding I did not perform any testing or measurement myself. I am merely using the values that Clay provided. The old/original 1500 was previously listed as 5µ in the Wicked Edge grit table. Thank you for your testing however!
Excited to see the new ratings for the stones. Further down the rabbit hole we go
I have the same problem and have posted a few times recently about it. It is especially prevalent if you are introducing new 2200/3000 into a 3 year old set. I did a scope pic analysis on another recent thread and am currently working on how much I need to scrub the new 2200/3000 on some TBD material (glass, granite, etc) in order to use them. Have you made any progress ?
[quote quote=52562]
If you are moving towards a new system, what is it and why move away from an industry standard, and will all your diamond stones be rated on the new system so we can compare in an apples to apples manner? Thank YouYes, our plan is to include all the abrasives we off in the new system. ...
Our new system attempts to solve these issues and provide our customers with information that clearly relates one abrasive to the next in an “apples to apples manner”. Here is the approach we’ve taken:
- Polish to all samples to 0.1 microns
- Electro-polish the samples
- Continue polishing with 3M diamond lapping films
- Alternate with each grit and image at each stage to ensure all previous scratches are removed
- Apply the grit to be studied to the polished surface
- Send the samples to LANL to be analysed
- LANL will report on:
- # of scratches per distance (density)
- Scratch profile
- Avg width of scratches
- Height of ridges
- Depth of valleys
- RA (roughness average of the surface)
- Cross-section profile image of the sample showing scratch width, depth and height
- LANL will report on:
Any news on this front?
Biannual check: any updates yet?