And the Micro-Fine Fine stones:
Wow, particularly the microfine coarse stones are a huge surprise to me! In my experience they were a lot more coarse. I have to repeat my experiments. I’m also interested what other people’s experiences are. (Unfortunately we don’t have such nice USB-microscopes as you, Clay.)
I also did the 3µ stones:
The edge is obviously rough showing how there are clumps of diamonds creating larger gouges.
So I lapped the 3µ on my Micro-Fine Fine stones and redid the micro-bevel:
That seemed to make a pretty good improvement. I could feel and hear the difference right away when using the stones.
I think the scratches at the .1 micron film are from two things; 1) a few remaining scratches that I hadn’t removed 2) some contamination on my films. I haven’t been operating in a pristine environment, so some grit is probably getting onto the stones and films.
Can you do these 2 test that may tell the difference?
- 1000g --> Coarse MicroFine--> both Superfines --> Fine MicroFine
- 1000g --> both Superfines --> both MicroFines
[quote quote=31994]Can you do these 2 test that may tell the difference?
- 1000g –> Coarse MicroFine–> both Superfines –> Fine MicroFine
- 1000g –> both Superfines –> both MicroFines
You bet. I think I won’t be able to get to it until Wednesday, but possibly tomorrow morning I could do it.
Okay, here’s the first batch, the rest I’ll have to get to on Wednesday:
1000#
[attachment file=“1000#-Shoulder-A.jpg”]
[attachment file=“1000#-Bevel-A.jpg”]
[attachment file=“1000#-Edge-A.jpg”]
Thanks. (the last picture under micro fine fine is actually the mf coarse again).
Thanks for pointing it out. I’ve swapped it with the correct one.
I put the four bevel pictures next to each other just for myself to be able to compare them better.
1000 diamond:
Microfine coarse (“1.4 mu”)
Superfine coarse (“1200 grit”):
Superfine fine (“1600 grit”):
Microfine fine (“0.6 mu”):
This experiment is pretty revealing to me halfway already. What strikes me is that the microfine coarse is much finer than I expected. And what also catches my eye is that most of the ceramic stones seem pretty effective: only in the pic of the MFC after the 1000 grit diamonds (part of my personal progression 
) there are very obvious scratches from the previous stone left behind.
Any idea of how many strokes you did with the stones, Clay? And whether there is much individual variation within these stones?
After setting the bevel with the 1000# stones I did twenty strokes per side with each of the subsequent stones. I think the stones are pretty consistent. The biggest variability probably comes from how much a stone has been used and whether it’s been lapped. How it’s been cleaned probably matters as well as how clean it is at the time of sharpening. I imagine that if the stone is heavily loaded with metal filings, it probably cuts much less effectively. Both my MF and SF stones had been lightly lapped on the 3µ diamond stones.
I am newbie without any experience at all, but to my eye it looks like MFC could be skipped in this progression or better used as 1000 > SFC > SFF > MFC > MFF. Am I only one seeing like that? I am very curious to see what Josh is using: 1000 > 30 um film > 15 um film > 9 um film.
Pictures from cbx34 with progression 1K diamond (coarse MF –> both SuperFines –> Fine MicroFine) look very convincing too.
You guys are having serious fun here. 
Clay, what is model of microscope do you use? Is it something that can be bought on Amazon?
I’m using an AmScope Metallurgical microscope. Those pictures are at 2000x.
[quote quote=32054]
I’m using an AmScope Metallurgical microscope. Those pictures are at 2000x. [/quote]
I put it in my toys list in case I win a lottery.
[quote quote=32057]
I’m using an AmScope Metallurgical microscope. Those pictures are at 2000x.I put it in my toys list in case I win a lottery.
[/quote]
Agreed…Havent wanted, bordering on needed something like this in a long time! 