arkansas stones?

[ninjajoe]

Thanks for the pictures Annr, and the responses Cliff, verry intresting and informative. I too will have to respond in more detail later (probably tomorrow), as I accually have to get up tomorro (in the AM too!) Your responses definatly got me thinking Cliff. till then.

 

[annr]

Ninjajoe,
A little context before the geometry: By and large knife sharpening is taught as a footnote, maybe 1 hour of about 150 hours of training at the preliminary levels. The assumption is that you will get there on your own and that there are more important things. That leaves 3 options: figure it out on your own, read a book, or ask someone else. After you decide that doing it on your own is not going as well as planned or you are curious about improvements you buy a reed making book, which may contain almost 3 pages on sharpening. Well, that book is not likely to agree with what you had been allowed to observe previously, so naturally you buy another reedmaking book. That is yet a third opinion. By that time nearly everything is different: angles, technique and abrasives and knives. So then you are back where you started, figuring it out on your own, experimenting. Asking someone else is about like reading a reed book, contradictions. With the web it is just faster to get contradictory or just vague opinions. (I'm talking about reedmaking specific sites, not all information at large.) Eventually you come up with a viable solution, but is it optimal, efficient?

Two things got me to revisit the sharpening question:
1. I bought a Tormek grinder and had to start dealing with specific angles rather than relative angles.
2. I read this statement in the longest! Book on knife sharpening: “ there will always be controversy over raising or not raising the back of the knife during sharpening." What this means is that people are using geometries ranging from 45deg/10deg (asymmetrical) to 20deg/20deg. (symmetrical) One guy I talked to grinds the front 35deg and keeps the back flat-about 10deg. Then he adds a second bevel at 20deg/20deg and then he uses a steel at 35+/35deg. I later learned that this last guy makes about 3 reeds a month. I make 25-30 and formerly 200-300 per week so maybe I have different needs? And sharpen and hone 1,000s of times and where will you wind up?

So I thought that I wanted to test the limits of some of these theories. One problem I’m running into is that we seem to use a slightly different vocabulary: burr root thickness, lift angle, rake angle, chattering, gouging. We don’t have any shaving or paper cutting tests. We mostly go by sight, feel and how it works. We do test the edge on our thumbnail.

When I attended the Wilderness Awareness School in Washington State, I ended up sharpening some of their knives too, because most of them didn’t know how. The more I see this in the tracker community the more appalled I am. I offered to teach anyone wanting to learn.... I even offered, for free, to organize and teach a class I thought up called “Knife selection, care, use and sharpening for the tracker"

Then there is the question of teaching. When a student is having problems: is it the student the abrasives, the knife or what? What approach did you plan to take? What do you think is a good way to go with students that are not geometry savy?

 

[ninjajoe]

“Knife sharpening was often given short shrift in music school but you can't make a good reed without a sharp knife, keenly sharp” “By and large knife sharpening is taught as a footnote”

This is interesting. It often seems that many essential teachings are missing from formal education.

We don’t have any shaving or paper cutting tests. We mostly go by sight, feel and how it works. We do test the edge on our thumbnail.

Maybe it would be helpful to introduce such tests to the reed making community. Its intresting to hear how much difference there is of opinion, It seems that some kind of comparative analysis, instead of subjective opinions, would help you determine the techniques that produce better results. Just recently I discovered when reading other posts here that the newspaper cutting test can be much more accurate than the way I was doing it, by seeing how far away you can cut from the point you are holding the paper. The string test Cliff uses seems to be pretty accurate too. http://cablespeed.com/~sgelliott/blade_testing/html/testing_sharpness.html

It seems to me that you are in an ideal situation to study the effects of edge geometry, sharpening substrates, etc. Since you sharpen so much, and it seems to be a proffesion where pricision results are critical. It would seem that other reed makers are in the same situation, and it differs form woodworking as in, as far as I'm aware, there are fairly accepted angles and techniques there.

Then there is the question of teaching. When a student is having problems: is it the student the abrasives, the knife or what? What approach did you plan to take? What do you think is a good way to go with students that are not geometry savy?

When I teach, I usually just play by ear and adapt to what seems to be sinking in, I just set a general guideline and go from there. I was planning to present it similar to the way I was taught, the “take 90 degrees, split that, then split that again” technique. That way you can just eye it and get pretty good results without having to remember angles and what not. Also I would teach them how to recreate the factory bevel (the marker technique). I was not going to get too heavy into the different geometry, as I think I would have lost a lot of students in confusion. I was just going to mention that there were different angles, and they can affect performance, and to talk to me after class if they wanted to know more (of go over it in class if there was significant intrest). My goal was just to provide them with a simple technique that works most of the time. I was also going to use the 3M film for consistency’s sake, so I could more accurately isolate individual students problems and address them (also it fit the cost factor). As far as the knife, well there is not much I could do about that, but most of them did have moras so there could be some consistency there.

As a function of grit yes, but not in detail for type at similar grit. I actually don't have them. I would tend to assume what you would see dominate would be the difference in grit but it would be interesting to see to correlate edge retention to grit and see if the coefficients were the same.

This is purely speculation, but I would think that the shape of the abrasive, brought to my attention by yuzuha’s post, might play a role in edge retention. Here’s my thought; since (correct me if I’m wrong) dulling is a combined process of small metal pieces being abraded off by the material being cut, and also the metal of the edge flexing and fatiguing, the microscopic “shape” of the edge in profile, i.e. if there are small serrations / jagged edges on a microscopic level; http://www.tzknives.com/edges.htm the shape and size of these ridges / serrations, as a product of the shape of the abrasive that cut them, might have an influence on how the metal is abraded off in use.

Now of course, this might be getting far too detailed for any practical variation in edge retention, as probably these ridges are abraded off fairly quickly, regardless of there shape. However, it has come to my mind also that “grit” size of different sharpening substrate does not necessarily directly correlate to the fineness of the atonable edge. For example, as stated earlier by yuzuha “since they are so tightly bonded (grit of Arkansas) they can produce an edge equivalent to the edge from a 5,000 grit waterstone though the actual particle size is closer to a 2,000 grit stone” and in my experience and annr’s for example, the finishing / sharpening “ability” of the Arkansas stones seems to improve with age, even though the size of the grit must remain constant.

Also consider the atonable edge produced by different grits and different substrates. For example, is the edge from ½ micron strop paste “four times” sharper than that of an 8000 grit (1.84 micron according to Shapton) waterstone? Or even more simplistically is the edge form an 8000 grit waterstone twice as sharp as the one form a 4000 grit? I realize that this is oversimplifying the effects of abrasives on steel and the dynamics of sharpening, and I probably am thinking of things to linearly, no doubt it is quite complex and there are many factors to consider. Henceforth should we look at sharpening substrates (as they relate to atonable edge, or edge durability) simply on the bases of grit size, like how everyone seems to be saying that there is no way an Arkansas stone could produce an edge equivalent to an 8000 grit waterstone (because the waterstone has a finer grit)?

My answer would be that different sharpening substrates abrade the steel differently, possibly in many complex ways, also depending on the steel, and not necessarily directly relating to grit size. It seems to me that grit size should be used as more of a general guideline than a steadfast and constant rule when dealing with the difference in substrates. Also consider that the grit size ratings vary quite a bit from different sources, Cliff stated that Arkansas are about 1000 grit, yuzna said it was 2000 but acted like 5000, in my experience the edge its more like 8000 or 10000 waterstone. Tools for working wood says .3 micron aluminum oxide (3M film) is equivalent to a 12000 grit waterstone, but shapton puts their 30000 grit diamond glass stone at .49 micron.

Yeah, lots in the early reviews as I did a lot of angle adjustment and then used the same finish. You tend to see large improvements because of the effect it has on cutting ability. For example if you use a relief grind on kitchen knives it increases the edge retention massively because it reduces the force you use during cutting which means less force of the blade on the cutting board which is one of the major sources of wear.

I’m very interested in this and I have begun to read more about it (long process looking through all those posts) but I am especially interested on what you said here about kitchen knives, as that’s a big part of what I sharpen. By relief angle you mean the secondary bevel? As in the one between the primary bevel of the blade (the one that goes form the spine to almost the edge) and the sharpening bevel? What degrees have you found most effective in kitchen cutlery?

Yeah , on the softer knives you have to increase the edge angle or it won't be stable and will roll, similar with harder use. Thinning the grind helps cutting ability but you have to leave enough metal to be stable. Once you have figured out the stable edge angle(s) then you adjust the primary grind down and see how much thickness is required. This will be different for each steel, how much so depends on the properties of the steel. You see a big difference between the 45 HRC machetes and the 60 HRC tool steel blades for example in how much steel is required.

a similar thing (than the thing I stated with the USMC) happened to my nimravus, chipping and such at lower angles. This could be due to the M2’s being somewhat brittle as others have stated. It would be useful, as you said, to compile this data to a more usable format, even including ideal angles for various steels and for various uses, etc. you seem to have put a lot of work into collecting this data.

For knives that just do cutting, no prying or impact work, the primary edge grind (the bevel you see) is about 4-6 degrees and less than 0.010" thick and the part that cuts (0.1 mm wide) about 6-10

So I’m clear about your classification, here your just talking about the edge bevels, not the main knife grind / bevel (as in, on a full flat grind, the bevel that goes from the spine to the sharpening bevel) and when you state thickness, it’s the thickness at the start of the bevel in cross section? That’s incredibly small! To get an edge that thin the main blade grind must be fairly thin too, I’m surprised that a knife that thin has the necessary rigidity to carve with. Does that edge last long? Your chopping angles are also fairly thin for what I would be comfortable with, don’t you have lateral flex of the edge when batoning through twisty woods?. Compared to your cross sections my knife looks like an axe, so I’m curious to know just how much more efficiently these super thin bevels cut? I’m not sure I would want to sacrifice the durability of my edge if the gain were not extremely dramatic, is it? When you say “0.050"/15” you mean 0.050” relating to the thickness at the start of the bevel and 15 being the bevel angel?

 

[annr]

Maybe it would be helpful to introduce such tests to the reed making community. Its intresting to hear how much difference there is of opinion, It seems that some kind of comparative analysis, instead of subjective opinions, would help you determine the techniques that produce better results. ...It seems to me that you are in an ideal situation to study the effects of edge geometry, sharpening substrates, etc. Since you sharpen so much, and it seems to be a proffesion where pricision results are critical.

I have thought about this and maybe the time is now. We certainly have to be sensitive with reeds and am concerned about some of those same nuances that you mention. Do you know of a book which would help round out my background before I design any tests? Do you think that it would be an obstacle not having access to a microscope to check my subjective impressions?

I am especially interested on what you said here about kitchen knives, as that’s a big part of what I sharpen. By relief angle you mean the secondary bevel? As in the one between the primary bevel of the blade (the one that goes form the spine to almost the edge) and the sharpening bevel? What degrees have you found most effective in kitchen cutlery?

We turn to anything that may correlate to our needs, kitchen knives being one of them. I made a site for my students and there are a few articles there that you may find interesting. This one has a good article by a DVM, the "cow Doctor" http://www.squidoo.com/oboereedknifesharpening/
http://www.squidoo.com/oboereedmaking/ The second link has articles on sharpening "Sharpening Made Easy" deals with kitchen knives. As I recall they are big on ceramic sticks and they have some neat little technical tricks. I agree with your question about terminology. Sometimes I have trouble judging the angle or thing in quesiton. Is there a reference site to help with this?

“0.050"/15” ....0.050” relating to the thickness at the start of the bevel and 15 being the bevel angel?

I found some numbers on our knives. The edge is considered dull at .005 to .007 inches and the burr root thickness ranges from .002-.004"; .002-.006"; .002-.004"depending on the model. How does this compare with the knives that you are familiar with? Hooray of the microscopic images. I was wondering if I could email you some photos, knife edges magnified 800x (electron microscope it says). I have a specific question that I'm having trouble finding the answer to and the images are not in the public domain.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

This is purely speculation, but I would think that the shape of the abrasive, brought to my attention by yuzuha’s post, might play a role in edge retention.

I would think it would have to because it would effect the nature of the teeth which would effect how they reacted to forces upon them, however I think the actual size of the teeth would be more dominant.

However, it has come to my mind also that “grit” size of different sharpening substrate does not necessarily directly correlate to the fineness of the atonable edge.

Yes, I was using the term very sloppy, meaning the size of the microteeth created. The stones should be rated by the finish they produce on a simple steel like 1060, specifically the height of the microteeth at 10 degrees or similar. That is what I mean when I say grit, though I should say something else because it isn't what it is usually used to describe.

For example, is the edge from ½ micron strop paste “four times” sharper than that of an 8000 grit (1.84 micron according to Shapton) waterstone?

No, the difference is not that large. I have showed the difference than an increase in polish makes in several reviews, the South Fork for example has many different abrasives on the same geometry. Verhoeven and Lee both show various grits under high magnification as well. You are looking at root law behavior for the increases [the percentage increase in edge polish is n-root (grit decrease].

By relief angle you mean the secondary bevel? As in the one between the primary bevel of the blade (the one that goes form the spine to almost the edge) and the sharpening bevel?

The main grind which shapes the knife from bar stock is the primary and the one that thickens the edge is the secondary. The relief grind is used when those two are not optimal and the user can't adjust the primary because it takes too long so he does as you describes and applies a bevel between those two. Unfortunately this is often advocated as optimal and makers even do it on customers knives which is absurd, if you have power equipment you reduce the primary accordingly.

What degrees have you found most effective in kitchen cutlery?

It depends on how the knife is used and by who. On general kitchen knives I usually set the primary at about 10 (because that is as low as I can go on the belt sander and it doesn't hollow grind) and microbevel at 20 with a 600 DMT finish or similar. Most people do a lot of slicing even with chef's knives and it benefits from the more coarse finish both in initial cutting ability and edge retention. You also need the obtuse edge angle because people bang them around a lot. My kitchen knives are much more acute/thin because foods are actually really soft, the big issue is plates, and contacts off of other things in drawers, sinks, etc. .

So I’m clear about your classification, here your just talking about the edge bevels, not the main knife grind / bevel ...

Yes, the main knife bevel is lower as I rarely use partial height grinds, the main bevel even on my large bowies is only 3-4 degrees.

Does that edge last long?

Yeah, in general there is a massive increase in cutting ability with a reduction in edge profile which compensates for the loss of strength because the edge is under a lower stress during a given cutting task. But as noted these are the best I have seen on optimal steels, you really can't run these profiles on the common tactical stainless blades as there is far too much carbide, too much retained austenite and they are too soft. The difference between were most steels are and where they could be is actually comparable to where they are and the low end knives that are commonly regarded as junk.

Your chopping angles are also fairly thin for what I would be comfortable with, don’t you have lateral flex of the edge when batoning through twisty woods?.

Yes, that is why the profiles are as thick as they are, if I was only chopping clear wood they would be thinner/more acute. Again though this depends on the steel. The reason most knives are so thick is because the steels are vastly underhardened and they are horrible choices for the blades, using materials which were never intended for cutting tools.

When you say “0.050"/15” you mean 0.050” relating to the thickness at the start of the bevel and 15 being the bevel angel?

Yes.

The edge is considered dull at .005 to .007 inches and the burr root thickness ranges from .002-.004"; .002-.006"; .002-.004"depending on the model.

What exactly is a burr root, the irregularity in the finished as-sharpened edge? Those edge thicknesses for a dull knife are kind of high, there are knives that are thinner than that behind the actual edge bevel (Boye, Wilson, Johnston and Spyderco).

-Cliff

 

[annr]

What exactly is a burr root, the irregularity in the finished as-sharpened edge? Those edge thicknesses for a dull knife are kind of high, there are knives that are thinner than that behind the actual edge bevel (Boye, Wilson, Johnston and Spyderco).

I did not coin the term 'burr root thickness' but the author depicts it as the thickness where the primary grind and microbevel meet, or what I have heard termed 'the shoulder'. In this example, the primary grind is about 10deg and the microbevel is about 35deg .

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Ideal microbevels, where the edge is just barely applied, are less than 0.1 mm in width, or less than 0.004" wide. The thickness is then 0.001-0.002" depending on the angles. Burr is used on the forums to describe the extent of the non-intersection of the bevels in the very edge. If you look right at the edge, or from the side, how far is it away from perfect. This can be as low as 0.1 microns for a very high polish on a suitable steel.

-Cliff

 

[ninjajoe]

Do you know of a book which would help round out my background before I design any tests? Do you think that it would be an obstacle not having access to a microscope to check my subjective impressions?

I would ask one of the more knowledgeable people here about reference materials, or you could start a thread, its also been discussed here quite a bit. I have very few books on sharpening, angles, etc. Most of the sharpness test / comparison data that I’ve seen has been online, I’m not aware of any books about it specifically. I’m pretty new to the non-subjective edge tests myself. I would think that the lack of a microscope wouldn’t hinder your progress much, if what you were going for was edge testing / comparison. It seems like there are a lot of physical tests that are fairly accurate.

I have a few links here that have been helpful for me, some informational sites, and discussions here. It seems like you’ve researched sharpening and the like quite a bit, so I’ll leave out stuff relating to that for the most part. But again I would ask someone more knowledgeable than myself about good references.

This post discusses a mathematical method used to determine angle when hand sharpening:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=437121&highlight=sharpening

here are some Japanese oriented sharpening videos, some you might not have seen. Shapton professional stones (same link) are pretty cool, I especially like their flattening plates, if only I could afford any of their productsL I’d really like one of their 30000 grit stones, $636!!!!
http://www.shaptonstones.com/stones/DVDsharp.php

here’s a discussion about using newsprint as a repeatable test for comparing sharpness
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3986743#post3986743

here is a discussion about edge retention testing
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=421313

one about edge finishes
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=419108

this is Cliff’s site, lots of good info if you want to look for it
http://www.cutleryscience.com/reviews/reviews.html

and I think I already posted this but here is the string cutting sharpness test
http://cablespeed.com/~sgelliott/blade_testing/html/testing_sharpness.html

Thanks for your links too, looks like you’ve put together a great resource for your students. The sharpening made easy link was very informative, their need to be more websites like this. I looked through some of the reed knives. It seems like they don’t tell you much about the steel / temper from what I saw “This Canadian made professional reed makers knife has a double hollow ground, high carbon steel blade and wooden handle. This model has three metal harnesses to choose from” goes on to say soft, med, hard. I think this would be helpful (more info on the knives), and really essential to comparative testing.

I found some numbers on our knives. The edge is considered dull at .005 to .007 inches and the burr root thickness ranges from .002-.004"; .002-.006"; .002-.004"depending on the model. How does this compare with the knives that you are familiar with? Hooray of the microscopic images. I was wondering if I could email you some photos, knife-edges magnified 800x (electron microscope it says). I have a specific question that I'm having trouble finding the answer to and the images are not in the public domain.

I’d love to see the pics, josha123@gmail.com, but I’m not sure if I could be of much help. I have very little experience looking at knife-edge pictures. Cliff maybe, or someone else here with, again, more experience. this link might be helpfull: http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388155
What was the specific question you were looking to answer?

Yes, I was using the term very sloppy, meaning the size of the microteeth created. The stones should be rated by the finish they produce on a simple steel like 1060, specifically the height of the microteeth at 10 degrees or similar. That is what I mean when I say grit, though I should say something else because it isn't what it is usually used to describe.

I see, that makes sense. I have always assumed when talking about grit people are referring to the abrasive particulate size of the sharpening substrate. Thanks for the responses Cliff, they cleared up a lot. I’m curious, what are these ideal steels you speak of? I assume that the nimravous in M2 would be an example of a “horrible choice for the blade, using materials which were never intended for cutting tools.”

 

[yuzuha]

it would be hard to rate stones by surface finish without trying them with all the variations in their parameters against some available standard. Hard to rate stones without actually using them. The finish produced by sharp triangular grains will give a higher surface roughness than produced by angled square grains or round grains. Different grit shapes have different error margins in particle sizing due to differing measurement parameters and standards allowances (how do you specify a grit size for long blade-like grains vs sherical grains like garnet vs more cubic shapes? and then each standard allows differing percentages of larger and smaller particles to be in a batch) And, surface finish is also affected by the material, speed, pressure, lubrication, porosity and bond type of the stone, grinding wheel or coated abrasive.

Would be interesting to see a stone rated "produces an ASTM #8 surface on O1 hardened to Rc60, but then someone would come along and try it on 440c at Rc 56 and wonder why they weren't getting the same result. Probably why grinding wheel manufacurers just specify the abrasive type, grit size, porosity, and bond type or hardness and let the user figure out if it works for them in a particular application.

 

[yuzuha]

Here is an example. This is a micrograph of 3m 15 micron silicon carbide micro-finishing film (25x objective or about 1300-1400x... depth of field sucks at this magnification so I can't get the top layers in focus at the same time as the bottom layers).

You will note considerable variation in size and shape and also that many of the grains have sharp blade-like corners

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Would be interesting to see a stone rated "produces an ASTM #8 surface on O1 hardened to Rc60, but then someone would come along and try it on 440c at Rc 56 and wonder why they weren't getting the same result.

All material tests are of that nature, specific to the test conditions. In steels the edge finish will be effected by the carbide volume/size and hardness and harder abrasives are necessary to optimally polish the higher carbide steels.

How does that sheet look after moderate use? Do the abrasives round, fracture or tear out?

-Cliff

 

[yuzuha]

Don't know. I would suppose it would depend what you grind with it. I just grabbed fresh 3M film because their glue is good and I didn't want crud falling off it onto the optics of my scope (it is an inverted metallurgical so if something falls off, it would be onto the lens). Oh, btw, I grabbed the wrong photo... that is actually more like 2,400x (40x objective). I posted a series of photos at about 1400-1500x (25x objective) that better shows the size and shape distributions here http://www.knifeforums.com/forums/showtopic.php?tid/783674/

 

[mischaz01]

Hi, Folks:

This posting will seem like quite an aside, I'm sure, but I am a professional musician, and I've long use Spyderco bench stones, which I believe are actually "Space Shuttle Tile," to shape my nails, which I use to play guitar. The most important part of the process is, of course, the final "mirror" finish, for this allows the nail to go through nylon in the smoothest fashion, helping both nail durability and, more importantly, guitar tone--for a mirror finish can make for a very rich and smooth guitar tone quality. I use the 8"x2" stones in medium, then fine grit, then finally finish off using the old 4"x2" "Dental/Medical" stone. Unfortunately, this stone does not seem to be available from Spyderco nowadays. Also, I am trying to compile a set of these files in more portable, cheaper sizes, to market to classical guitarists, a "nail care kit." We've generally been using the new glass nail files, finishing with super-fine "powder" wet and dry sandpaper, but this has been a 2nd-class solution, the stones offer much great control, and the possibility of working the nails as a unit, rather than one nail at a time. The present unavailability of the ultra-fine stone from Spyderco means that I need to research the market again, however.

So, I've been on the phone and the Internet to Norton and others, and I go through Little Rock, Arkansas on my way to Nashville in a couple of weeks. But, trying to find what might be the "Ultimate Mirror Finish Stone" for fingernails doesn't seem possible via the folks I've talked with. I see 8000-grit water stones, yes, I'd love to try those, but the most knowledgeble statements I've found by far came on this Forum, there are some folks here who have truly extensive experience, folks who could perhaps help me to cut to the chase, rather than spend lavish amounts of money on various "translucent" and "medical hard black" and other stones, tiles, and synthetics that might not work as well for me as this old Spyderco dental/medical stone. Ideally, I'll find something better than anything I've ever tried for the final polish, a type of stone that will give me the best, smoothest guitar-playing sound ever! As I need to work my right nails as a group on a stone, to create the same plane of string approach for each finger, I do need some length in these stones, 8" is great, but 6" would actually work. I certainly don't need 2" in heavy width, though, so perhaps down the line I can find slip stones in more portable sizes that can make an easy-to-carry kit. But, for now, folks, if anyone has any idea what type of stone might give me the finest nail mirror finish possible for this project, please let me know! I would be forever grateful!

All my best,

Mischa

 

[matt321]

Mischa,
I am an amateur guitarist. I have tested several different Arkansas stones for polishing nails. Some feel chalky and unpleasant (like nails on chalkboard). I found a few that I would describe as white/hard that do a nice job. They polish the edge quickly and have a nice pleasant feel. You may be looking for something finer, bit I just wanted to add a little to the nail polishing sub-thread.

I don't use them on knives since I've been led to believe that Arkansas stones are not effective for modern knife steel.

 

[Cliff Stamp]

Also, I am trying to compile a set of these files in more portable, cheaper sizes, to market to classical guitarists, a "nail care kit."

I would suggest you contact Shapton and DMT, note your intention, and ask for suitable samples.

-Cliff

 

[ninjajoe]

This posting will seem like quite an aside, I'm sure, but I am a professional musician, and I've long use Spyderco bench stones, which I believe are actually "Space Shuttle Tile," to shape my nails, which I use to play guitar.

I would think you would want a very hard stone or surface, as nails are quite a bit softer than steel, and a "softer" stone like a waterstone might abrade the nail rather than polish it. So something with a harder surface that works slower on steel might be the answer. I'll have to try my water stones for this and see how they work.

One option that would be easy and cheep to try is the micro finishing film, or “scary sharp” technique. This uses very fine micro finishing film “sandpaper” (sometimes with adhesive backing) on a hard substrate to sharpen on. The clear advantage here, if they did end up being suitable for your purpose, would be you can cut them to any size you like. For a portable kit, you could easily buy thin metal strips, or have some made (or even cut up an old industrial hack saw blade) to whatever shape you desired. you could also use any number of small woden or plastic / polypropelene "bases", even with an intermittant layer (say thin neoprene rubber for example) to vary the stifness of the backing, and get a softer feel, flex, etc. They get down to 1/3 micron size; witch is much finer than any available stone, aside from shapton possibly. There also cheep vs. a comparable stone, and since I doubt your nails would wear them out as quickly as steel does, you might not go through that many. It might also be helpful to look for abrasive sheets made for other applications, there are literally thousands. Here's a couple links:

http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/...shop&Product_Code=ST-MAF.XX&Category_Code=THS

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=41708&cat=1,43072

I think Arkansas might work, they don’t give a very high polish on steel, but they are very hard. Unfortunately I've never seen an Arkansas slip longer than 4.". If you do go that route defiantly go with Norton, Arkansas stones vary ALLOT in quality. You could also try a leather strop with stropping paste, but this wouldn’t be very portable. Here’s a link for both:

http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/...en=CTGY&Store_Code=toolshop&Category_Code=THO

Shapton might be a good choice as Cliff mentiond, they produce some of the finest stones out there from what I've heard. there not really a waterstone, as in you do use water on them but you don’t have to soak them, and they’re harder than typical water stones. they have slipstones too, all the way up to 30,000 grit, witch is much finer than the typical finishing waterstone. Their slipstones don’t look very long either though.

http://www.shaptonstones.com/stones/slipseries.php

I'm not sure how fine the stone you are using is, but this might be similar:

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=44628&cat=1,43072

Hope this was helpful.

 

[annr]

But, for now, folks, if anyone has any idea what type of stone might give me the finest nail mirror finish possible for this project, please let me know! I would be forever grateful!

Hi Mischa,
So happens my brother was a professional guitarist, classical. And what a nail nut-- I remember well. I'll ask him. If there is one word to describe him: "picky"

 

[annr]

But, for now, folks, if anyone has any idea what type of stone might give me the finest nail mirror finish possible for this project, please let me know!

Mischa, I spoke with my brother over the holidays about his nail grooming for classical guitar. He uses a 2 or 3 step process. He starts with something like a Revlon diamond nail file. He 'softens' the file on smooth concrete so that it will not be too rough on his nails. He then (re)shapes the nail with the file. After that he uses sandpaper about 2.000# to polish the nail and remove residue under the nail. He thinks the paper is flexible enough to get all aspects of the the nail. You can go rougher or finer if you feel that it is necessary. Of course, you may shape your nails differently, or acutate the sound differently than he............

 

[willyf1]

Heh you're right, i agree.


========================
video applications,
there're people who say
they can see visions
with tarot reading
www.SPAM.com
i would like to stream that

 

[Gollnick]

Let's just say that Mr. willyf1's banning was...ah... "in the cards."