Now the SFF:
[attachment file=“SFF-Shoulder-Leading—A.jpg”]
Some of the things about technique that this study reinforced:
- Pressure really matters! Push a little harder and you get deeper scratches which can extend to the very edge and rip out chunks of the edge. This is true for all grits.
- How clean vs. loaded the ceramic stones are really matters. It was taking forever to remove all the scratches from the previous grits until I cleaned my stones with Barkkeeper's Friend. Before I used that, I did a little cleaning with rubbing alcohol which definitely helped and sped up the scratch removal process.
- I want to compare the number of strokes that are needed to remove the 1000# scratches with the SF, MF and Diamond Lapping Films. I'm guessing that the lapping films are much faster.
- The crosshatch method is very effective for ensuring that you've removed the scratches from the previous stones but you really need a good, lighted loupe to take advantage of the technique.
Looks good… of course now you have to go back and do the other scenario the same way hahaha… I still want my way to “win”. (Kidding of course).
It’s interesting seeing whatever the particles are getting ripped out… that Bladeforums thread for some reason made me think about it more than in the past.
Thanks!
I put the bevel pictures in order so I could compare the scratches.
1000 grit:
SFC:
SFF:
MFC:
MFF:
I think this is the preferred order, but I’m still hesitating on some transitions. (Like MFC->MFF. On the other pics I was convinced the MFF were the finest stones, but here there scratches look wider, although maybe a bit shallower, than those of the MFC.) Curious what other people think.
And here are the final bevels of two progressions to compare:. May we have your votes, please? 
1000->MFC->SFC->SFF-MFF:
1000->SFC->SFF->MFC->MFF:
[quote quote=32177]Some of the things about technique that this study reinforced:
- Pressure really matters! Push a little harder and you get deeper scratches which can extend to the very edge and rip out chunks of the edge. This is true for all grits.
- How clean vs. loaded the ceramic stones are really matters. It was taking forever to remove all the scratches from the previous grits until I cleaned my stones with Barkkeeper’s Friend. Before I used that, I did a little cleaning with rubbing alcohol which definitely helped and sped up the scratch removal process.
- I want to compare the number of strokes that are needed to remove the 1000# scratches with the SF, MF and Diamond Lapping Films. I’m guessing that the lapping films are much faster.
- The crosshatch method is very effective for ensuring that you’ve removed the scratches from the previous stones but you really need a good, lighted loupe to take advantage of the technique.
Those are very good tips for everyone, Clay, from beginner to experienced user. Did you also use edge-leading strokes only? (The pics are all have “leading” in their names.)
Maybe you could include one of the diamond stones in the “number of strokes for scratch removal” test (e.g., using 1000 to remove 800 scratches). That way we also get an impression of the efficiency of the diamond stones vs. ceramic stones.
I’ll be honest, my vote now is what I said yesterday… I’m not sure it matters. In looking at the pictures Clay took today, it made me think that what I thought was leftover scratches from the diamond, is actually probably just what the ceramic stone is leaving behind. I’m actually not sure now why I thought the former… when I think about it now, it doesn’t make much sense. Brain going down the wrong track I reckon.
So, thinking of it this way, I guess the real question now, to me anyway, is what works better cleaning up after the ceramics, if your goal is to obtain a (or close to) a true mirror finish? That’s sorta where I was headed yesterday… what happens after the ceramics? If there is a difference in the ceramci progression, how it looks after the next step (after ceramics) is where it might matter more. I think it’s safe to say the ceramics are a good step before the leather strops (or diamond film)… or go the route Josh did, and switch to all diamond stones and strops.
Anyway… that’s my vote. 
[quote quote=32195]And here are the final bevels of two progressions to compare:. May we have your votes, please? 
1000->MFC->SFC->SFF-MFF:
1000->SFC->SFF->MFC->MFF: [/quote]
Isn’t it if you make enough strokes, you should get the same results either way? IMHO they do look the same. The question should be - which way is faster to get there? I still would try to evaluate each stone like this https://knife.wickededgeusa.com/forums/topic/strops-or-stones/page/5/#post-32123 . There is a possibility that some stones work the same, so some stone (or two) can be skipped.
Some good points raised here. I decided to try what was suggested and check the efficiency of each of the stones at removing the scratches of the 1000# diamonds. So first I did 20 strokes with the diamonds:
[attachment file=“1000#-A.jpg”]
Then 50 strokes with the SFC:
Then another 20 strokes with the 1000# diamonds to erase the SFC scratches. I didn’t image that but was very confident under the loupe that the diamond stones remade the bevel.
Next up were 50 strokes with the SFF:
I remade the bevel again with another 20 strokes with the 1000# diamonds and then did 50 strokes with the MFC:
Remade the bevel again and then 50 strokes with the MFF:
And for fun, remade the bevel again and then 50 strokes with the 6µ Diamond Lapping Films:
The lapping films were already well used, definitely not new strips.
Probably the best, or at least the most telling tests done on this subject so far.
Good experiment design is everything I guess Credit to dulledge for the suggestion, thanks!
At each iteration, the scratches going top right to bottom left (TRBL) were renewed with the 1000# stones. Any scratches going from top left to bottom right (TLBR) are from the stone listed and any remaining scratches in the TRBL orientation were 1000# scratches that the subject stone failed to remove.
Curtis, I am curious why would you go both directions with each stone? Imho not only is it not needed and costs extra time, it also ‘muddles the waters’ so to speak because then you can’t tell where you are at.
This would be neat across the board for sure!
However, just so the new guys don’t misunderstand and apply this though process (i.e. "x amount of strokes is guaranteed to erase the prior scratches) I think we should clarify. While in this experiment one knife is being used so these things don’t change, in real use there are a lot of unaccounted variables that play an influence in how many strokes are needed to erase the prior grit scratch pattern… such as type of steel, hardness of steel, width of the edge (from apex to shoulder) that the stone will be contacting, loading of the stone, etc. 
Great idea though Mark I agree, so we can have a benchmark! 
[quote quote=32218]
I kinda do what Josh suggested… although with each stone I go in both directions… I don’t go a specific direction with one stone, than switch with the next.Curtis, I am curious why would you go both directions with each stone? Imho not only is it not needed and costs extra time, it also ‘muddles the waters’ so to speak because then you can’t tell where you are at.[/quote]
I think it covers a blade better, especially if it has any recurve in it. Not sure it takes anymore time… I don’t go one direction than switch and completely wipe that grind mark out going the other way… I probably spend the same amount of time if I just went one direction at a time. Only the final stone do I set the edge the direction I want the grind marks to go. I’m not sure what you mean about not knowing “where you are at”… so I’m maybe not answering this correctly.
I did use leading strokes with all but the 1000# stones.
I did 20 edge leading strokes with the 800# diamonds:
[attachment file=“800#-Bevel—A.jpg”]
[attachment file=“800#-Edge—A.jpg”]
And then set to erasing the 800# scratches with the 1000# stones, checking every 5 strokes to see if any scratches remained. Most were gone after the first 5 strokes but it took a full 20 strokes for them to be all erased:
[attachment file=“800#-1000#-Bevel.jpg”]
[attachment file=“800#-1000# Edge.jpg”]
Sorry, but I’m a little behind on this discussion - had a funeral to go to today. I did have a couple of comments I wanted to make.
Since Clay’s observations, I’ve been trying to stick with “edge leading” strokes. I’ve only done a few knives, but I sense that it’s producing finer edges - fewer and smaller “tooth” serrations.
Next, there was some question about the number of strokes required to remove scratches from the previous grit and it comes up frequently on this forum. I haven’t done anything specifically designed to determine the number of strokes needed to remove all traces of the previous grit, but I have paid a little attention to it. The amount of metal removed per stroke is dependent on the length of the abrasive contact for any point on the blade, the grit and the pressure applied. Certainly, the condition of the abrasive (metal loading in the grit substrate) is also a factor.
Consider a situation where you are making a full length vertical strokes over a given point. About 4 inches of the stone will abrade on that given point with each up or down stroke. If you have a very long blade and your stroke is a slowly-rising or falling pass over the same given point, the amount of abrasive passing that point is only slightly more than 3/4". For a straight blade, the length of abrasive is the hypotenuse of the up or down slope. A shorter blade will have a much more vertical stroke than a longer blade.
Where a blade has a relatively short radius to its belly shape, the amount of abrasive passing over a given point may be even less than the 3/4", as the stone may only make contact at something well under 3/4".
I have a batch of seven Grizzly Z-knives, which I use here and there for all kinds of small-knife tasks around the home. Their blades are fairly short (2") and deeply radiused, but I’ve found that five strokes of any grit will remove the scratches left by an earlier grit. The blades are certainly not straight-edged, but if they were, their short length means that the slope is about 2:1 (4" of rise in 2" of horizontal travel. The length of contact works out to be 2.23 times the 3/4" width, or about 1.67".
If you used Cliff’s pattern of strokes parallel to the edge, the length of contact over any one point would be 3/4". If you use vertical scrubbing strokes, each up/down stroke produces 8" of contact. Of course, the number of strokes is also then driven by the length of the blade.
My point here is that the length of the blade is a significant variable on the WEPS or any similar system. Expect to use more strokes with a longer blade.
For all the newbies who might be trying to follow all this, we only need to remove scratches from a previous grit when you are in pursuit of a mirror edge. For anything else, you should focus on the quality of the edge. That said, deep scratches produced by lower grits (<1000) can prevent the attainment of a quality edge.
[quote quote=32223]
I think it covers a blade better, especially if it has any recurve in it. Not sure it takes anymore time… I don’t go one direction than switch and completely wipe that grind mark out going the other way… I probably spend the same amount of time if I just went one direction at a time. Only the final stone do I set the edge the direction I want the grind marks to go. I’m not sure what you mean about not knowing “where you are at”… so I’m maybe not answering this correctly. [/quote]I kinda do what Josh suggested… although with each stone I go in both directions… I don’t go a specific direction with one stone, than switch with the next.Curtis, I am curious why would you go both directions with each stone? Imho not only is it not needed and costs extra time, it also ‘muddles the waters’ so to speak because then you can’t tell where you are at.
I guess what I was meaning was how do you know for sure all the previous scratches are removed? If you are going both directions it would seem to be hard to tell.
It was talked about a long time ago, you can kinda tell when a stone is ‘done’ just by a change in how it feels (it no longer feels like it’s cuttings as aggressively), and by the sound (it quiets down a bit), and if looked at under magnification, you can still see if any scratches stand out from the current finish. (And if the last few posts are any indication, I’m probably going a bit beyond what’s needed anyway).
But I also don’t polish bevels out, especially to the level you do, so it’s not as important to me. Usually now on the W.E. I just finish with one of the diamond stones, and use leather just enough to clean up the edge a bit. If I want to refine an edge further, the polish is more of a ‘side effect’ of the sharpening, if that makes sense.