A couple of things have come up in discussion lately that I would like to mention before I tell you what I think about this and why. The form a bit of support for my “hypothesis” . I don’t thin you will find a real theory, as a theory is based upon previously proven facts. I have not seen anything other than opinions so far.
First I wanted to bring up a quote that I posted from Sal over at Spyderco. Keep in mind that Spyderco started by making ceramic sharpeners. I will paraphrase as I don’t have the exact quote. He said that all of the ceramics had the same grit and the differences in performance were due to some different binders and diamond texturing.
I also remind folks of the SEM nanographs of steel after stropping. The SEM images of the edge of the edge were pretty amazing. There were sub-micron folds and many different kinds of what perfectionists would call defects.
If we lap a waterstone with something like the 140 Atoma, or the XXC DMT plate we are going to end up with some pretty serious scratches left when we are done. In use those scratches approach the edge of the edge with sharp shoulders from many different directions (depending on the direction used when lapping). I can easily see that this will cause significantly different results than a very flat surface would. Recall the differences in the ceramics that , for instance, Spyderco sells, mostly caused by texturing. Why would the fine waterstones not be affected in a similar fashion. I am not talking about something that would be detected in a 10X loupe. So maybe the effect is not huge, but I think that logically it is something that has to be considered. When you get a stone from Shapton or the Chosera stones, they are very smooth. There are no large scratches to be seen, even at 400X I don’t see scratches in a new stone. I have looked. Can we not assume that this is the way that they intend the stones to be used?
OK, again, maybe this is not something that grossly changes what the stone does, but it is hard to argue that the intent of the manufacturer is not to have the stones used in a quite smooth condition.
So, I think that it is all a matter of how OCD you want to get. If you want to imitate the condition that the stone arrives in as closely as possible, you finish lapping with as fine a grit as is practical.
I am not sure that this gives you an answer that you want to hear Mark, as I know you are trying to decide what (if anything) to buy. The thing is, asking folks like Mark at CKTG or Tom to give a definitive answer is in reality just asking for their opinion. Their opinion will be based on empirical data and long experience, but it is an opinion just the same. What you need to decide is whether the “potential” differences are really important to you. If what you are doing gets you where you want to be, maybe it is good enough.
I think the answers you got on the CKTG forum pretty much indicated that no one was all that concerned about this.
BTW, I am still on the edge about the 400 and 1200 Atoma plates… just because they might be a little better than what I have. This IS an example of compulsive behavior… or at least an addiction to sharpening stuff… The proverbial rabbit hole syndrome..
:woohoo: :evil:
So the question is… do you want that Atoma plate… if so grab one. You are the only one that can satisfy yourself as to whether it makes a difference in your edges!! No amount of educated opinions nor logic can give you that answer.
