It seems like the only ones that are more expensive are the dual grit size ones, and that's just because you get two different useable faces. They aren't more expensive when you factor in that you're getting two grit sizes in one stone. They're significantly less expensive.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
DMT diamond sharpening: continuous or interrupted stones?
- Thread starter maximus83
- Start date
It seems like the only ones that are more expensive are the dual grit size ones, and that's just because you get two different useable faces. They aren't more expensive when you factor in that you're getting two grit sizes in one stone. They're significantly less expensive.
Clearly you think I'm attacking you based on your overall tone. I'm not attacking you and I invite you to chill.
I'm here to learn and share the small amount of knowledge I have. When I see something that doesn't make sense to me, I ask questions. It's all about the quest for knowledge and understanding.I made the point about cutting surface area because you said something like "you're not getting more stone with the diasharps". This implies that the duos have as much cutting surface as the dias. It at least implies that they both cut equally quickly.
But as you point out I have NOT used the duos, so I'm not in a position to comment based on experience. It just seems that more abrasive per stroke *should* equal more material removed per stroke.
Brian.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,134
hum ... do 1 duosharp cost more than TWO diasharps?
because with the DUOsharps you are getting TWO stones.
and imho the continuous are better.
-they feel better when sharpening
-the don't catch fine tips
-i'm not bothered by swarf as i deal with it continuously while grinding,
-they don't stick to waterstone's surface significantly more than polka dots plates when flattening,
-i can't feel any difference in speed but i can see one in polishing performance and scratch pattern,
-and more than anything else they wear less when used for flattening waterstones.
i've been through a XC interrupted in a bit more than a year when i worked in high volume kitchen and sharpened at least a knife per day this was just flattening waterstone, not much sharpening if any. my XXC and XC diasharp are 6 years old (more or less) and still going strong.
just my 2 cts. it's my opinion, yours may be different.
edited to add:
i see that now even the single grint polka dots plates are more expensive than the diasharps, iirc it was not the case when i bought mines. i may be wrong here but i doubt ...
because with the DUOsharps you are getting TWO stones.
and imho the continuous are better.
-they feel better when sharpening
-the don't catch fine tips
-i'm not bothered by swarf as i deal with it continuously while grinding,
-they don't stick to waterstone's surface significantly more than polka dots plates when flattening,
-i can't feel any difference in speed but i can see one in polishing performance and scratch pattern,
-and more than anything else they wear less when used for flattening waterstones.
i've been through a XC interrupted in a bit more than a year when i worked in high volume kitchen and sharpened at least a knife per day this was just flattening waterstone, not much sharpening if any. my XXC and XC diasharp are 6 years old (more or less) and still going strong.
just my 2 cts. it's my opinion, yours may be different.
edited to add:
i see that now even the single grint polka dots plates are more expensive than the diasharps, iirc it was not the case when i bought mines. i may be wrong here but i doubt ...
Last edited:
From the 2 retailers where I was just price quoting, even the 8" single-grit"whetstone" models were still running higher- than the the equivalent single-grit continuous (though not by as much as the 2-grit duosharps, which is of course what we'd expect). Also as obsessed said, DMT claims the Duosharp models are engineered to be extremely flat.
However, I just noticed on their site some interesting trivia: they have a special Dia-flat 10" lapping plate that's made to extreme tolerances specially for lapping. However, they retail for around $200. So for LIGHT lapping needs, it might be an interesting application for the duo's.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,495
I've used the Coarse side my C/F Duo-Sharp to flatten both sides of a Spyderco DoubleStuff ceramic hone. Worked very well, but took a looonnng time. Kept the Duo wetted with water, using light pressure. It held up beautifully for that job.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 11,601
Wow that is odd. Everywhere I have been has the continuous surfaces higher priced than the dotted so long as I compare single to single.
I would pay more (and did) for continuous surfaces. If the interrupted surfaces now cost more, it certainly will not change my preference for the continuous surface
I would pay more (and did) for continuous surfaces. If the interrupted surfaces now cost more, it certainly will not change my preference for the continuous surface
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2001
- Messages
- 4,608
From my experience creating wave using diamond coated files, the excess metal is caught by the blade. Reason: the blade turns out to be magnetic 
Tried this with all Sanrenmus, Enlans & Navy that's my EDC.
Will not be the hole function less necessary if this is the case?
I have not Spyderco or Benchmade to try though
Tried this with all Sanrenmus, Enlans & Navy that's my EDC.
Will not be the hole function less necessary if this is the case?
I have not Spyderco or Benchmade to try though
The Duosharps are all less expensive considering you get two grits instead of one...it's the diamond whetstones that are more expensive, but not by much, and they all come with either a wooden box or a nonslip pad. I'm guessing they're more expensive due to being thicker? I'm not sure though, but they seem to fall into a different category than either the duosharp or the diasharps.
EDIT: The Whetstones could also be more expensive because they have mounting tabs.
Last edited:
It's the sides that rust for the most part. Also, what's the best way to clean that removed metal off of the hone? I've tried scrubbing them, but it doesn't seem to do much good. Is there any way to remove the diamond from the surface by using too much pressure and thereby expose the underlying steel? I hope this isn't what I've done. You seem to be more knowledgable than most regarding these stones, and were the impetus for me purchasing them.
Jason B.
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 11,196
I have used barkeepersfriend and my finger tips for a few years now and it seems to do the trick.
Too much pressure will remove diamonds but you will know this has happened. Bare metal with no diamond coating sticks out. Sharpening a recurve is how I damaged my XC stone, that and pushing like a cave man. The high amount of pressure focused on the edge of the hone ripped out the diamonds and left a nice shiny spot to remind me of my mistake.
With diamond hones less pressure actually makes them work faster and produce a finer edge. If it ever feels gummy like the metal is being torn away or you experience sticking of the bevel you are pushing too hard. The weight of the knife and your hands is all you need.
Too much pressure will remove diamonds but you will know this has happened. Bare metal with no diamond coating sticks out. Sharpening a recurve is how I damaged my XC stone, that and pushing like a cave man. The high amount of pressure focused on the edge of the hone ripped out the diamonds and left a nice shiny spot to remind me of my mistake.
With diamond hones less pressure actually makes them work faster and produce a finer edge. If it ever feels gummy like the metal is being torn away or you experience sticking of the bevel you are pushing too hard. The weight of the knife and your hands is all you need.
So back to my original Q on continuous vs interrupted pros and cons: from the feedback here and what I can see, it looks like you can summarize as follows:
Interrupted
Note: this is not about the specific DMT interrupted MODELS, such as the duosharp or whetstone lines. Instead, I am trying to focus here only on the "interrupted" feature itself. So, I will not list the other pros/cons of the duosharp DMT stones (such as that they are supposedly more flat [for lapping], or that they have the convenience of 2 grits on one stone). I'm only listing actual pros/cons of the interrupted feature regardless of the hone it's on.
Pros:
- DMT claims that it enables swarf (sharpening residue) to fall into the recessed holes, reducing "loading" and as a result making sharpening more effective. Note that they don't specify exactly HOW it makes sharpening more effective: what they say is only that it makes your sharpening work "quick and easy." A little vague to me--perhaps "quick and easy" in the sense of having to clean less often? Some users of interrupted stones report they believe the "quicker" part of the claim really works, that it actually sharpens more aggressively. Others are skeptical (we had both in this thread). I myself honestly cannot confirm one way or the other, but it's something I want to look into, perhaps by getting a continuous 8" stone and doing a side-by-side test. If I do that, I'll report back. I am not interested in simply trying to justify my initial purchase of the Duosharp stones: I like them and they work well. But this is a hobby I am getting more interested in, so I really don't mind buying another couple of hones to see what gets the best results. If the continuous ends up working better for me, I'm sure it'll be no problem to sell my duosharps, which are only lightly used to date. Or maybe I'll just keep both, since the duos are also apparently handy for lapping tasks.
- Apart from the DMT claim about the purpose of the recessed holes, unless I missed something I do not see any other potential advantage of the "interrupted" feature by itself. Even DMT says in their FAQ, regarding the difference between their interrupted and continuous stones: "Therefore the difference between the two diamond product lines becomes a matter of preference to the user."
Cons:
- The main con that I hear consistently mentioned in the thread is that the interrupted surface seems to interfere with the sharpening experience: it doesn't feel as "smooth", it creates uneven points of "friction" during sharpening, etc.
- Another con that comes up is that the tips of knives, or of smaller pointed devices, can catch in the recessed holes.
Continuous
Note: the pros/cons are pretty much the flip side of the interrupted, but anyway.....
Pros:
- Several users say they get a more smooth, consistent grinding experience as compared to an interrupted surface.
- Clearly easier to sharpen tips and small pointed objects since there are no holes to get caught in.
Cons:
- Allegedly, that they don't have a built-in feature for handling the "swarf." But it sounds like most folks in this thread who use continuous haven't found this to be an issue, or that it makes much difference. I have to agree with what one poster said earlier: I've often observed that a lot (but not all) of the swarf tends to stick to the blade anyway.
At this point based on the discussion, I've seen enough to convince me to get a continuous stone and give it a try. Thanks for the input!
Interrupted
Note: this is not about the specific DMT interrupted MODELS, such as the duosharp or whetstone lines. Instead, I am trying to focus here only on the "interrupted" feature itself. So, I will not list the other pros/cons of the duosharp DMT stones (such as that they are supposedly more flat [for lapping], or that they have the convenience of 2 grits on one stone). I'm only listing actual pros/cons of the interrupted feature regardless of the hone it's on.
Pros:
- DMT claims that it enables swarf (sharpening residue) to fall into the recessed holes, reducing "loading" and as a result making sharpening more effective. Note that they don't specify exactly HOW it makes sharpening more effective: what they say is only that it makes your sharpening work "quick and easy." A little vague to me--perhaps "quick and easy" in the sense of having to clean less often? Some users of interrupted stones report they believe the "quicker" part of the claim really works, that it actually sharpens more aggressively. Others are skeptical (we had both in this thread). I myself honestly cannot confirm one way or the other, but it's something I want to look into, perhaps by getting a continuous 8" stone and doing a side-by-side test. If I do that, I'll report back. I am not interested in simply trying to justify my initial purchase of the Duosharp stones: I like them and they work well. But this is a hobby I am getting more interested in, so I really don't mind buying another couple of hones to see what gets the best results. If the continuous ends up working better for me, I'm sure it'll be no problem to sell my duosharps, which are only lightly used to date. Or maybe I'll just keep both, since the duos are also apparently handy for lapping tasks.
- Apart from the DMT claim about the purpose of the recessed holes, unless I missed something I do not see any other potential advantage of the "interrupted" feature by itself. Even DMT says in their FAQ, regarding the difference between their interrupted and continuous stones: "Therefore the difference between the two diamond product lines becomes a matter of preference to the user."
Cons:
- The main con that I hear consistently mentioned in the thread is that the interrupted surface seems to interfere with the sharpening experience: it doesn't feel as "smooth", it creates uneven points of "friction" during sharpening, etc.
- Another con that comes up is that the tips of knives, or of smaller pointed devices, can catch in the recessed holes.
Continuous
Note: the pros/cons are pretty much the flip side of the interrupted, but anyway.....
Pros:
- Several users say they get a more smooth, consistent grinding experience as compared to an interrupted surface.
- Clearly easier to sharpen tips and small pointed objects since there are no holes to get caught in.
Cons:
- Allegedly, that they don't have a built-in feature for handling the "swarf." But it sounds like most folks in this thread who use continuous haven't found this to be an issue, or that it makes much difference. I have to agree with what one poster said earlier: I've often observed that a lot (but not all) of the swarf tends to stick to the blade anyway.
At this point based on the discussion, I've seen enough to convince me to get a continuous stone and give it a try. Thanks for the input!
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,495
Regarding swarf-handling on hones used dry, I've been in the habit of using either a paper towel wetted with Windex, to periodically 'blot' the hone, OR a dry microfiber towel works real well too. On a dry hone, it picks up a LOT of the filings very quickly, and holds onto 'em (minimal 'dust cloud' effect, with microfiber towels). When I operate this way, I find it difficult to even conceive of the swarf building up so thick, that it'd ever become an issue on a dry hone, much less on a wetted hone.
Last edited:
Jason B.
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 11,196
You would need to sharpen several knives for swarf to become any sort of problem with either hone. Even the hardest steels grind very fast on diamond hones not allowing you to build up enough swarf when sharpening a single blade.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 11,601
I would suggest that it really depends on how much repair you are doing and how large the blade is.
For routine sharpening of pocket knives, I would agree with your statement...however the speed at which steel is ground has no bearing on swarf build up. If you have to grind 0.00X" off a blade to fix a ding/compression/chip/whatever, it does not matter how quickly you grind it, or what you use to grind it, you will be grinding off the same volume of material and therefore generate the same volume of swarf (unless I am missing something).
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,495
Here's some more perspective on how minimal the swarf usually is. I mentioned earlier that I do a lot (actually, almost all) of my re-bevelling with hones no larger than Dia-Folds, and a lot of touch-ups on the credit card hones. Even on that small surface area, there's not enough swarf generated in a re-bevelling of say, a 4" blade, to be of concern. As mentioned, I just blot the hone after every 20-30 passes or so, and that handles it. Don't need to blot this often to maintain performance. But, it keeps the dust down, for the sake of my sinuses, and helps keep the fingers cleaner too (this has more to do with the blotting, than anything, for me). The same amount of 'sharpening dust' would be virtually invisible on a big ol' 8" x 3" hone. One would have to ignore the maintenance on it for a long time, for it to start clogging the hone.
After finishing with the hones, I use a little dish soap & hot water, scrubbed with a fingertip for maybe 30 seconds, then rinse it off. These things are as easy to take care of, as can be.
After finishing with the hones, I use a little dish soap & hot water, scrubbed with a fingertip for maybe 30 seconds, then rinse it off. These things are as easy to take care of, as can be.
Last edited:
Hey Knifenut, I see from your links that you have some great threads on sharpening, and that you have a whole set of the continuous hones in all the available grits. Couple questions.
If I get a continuous stone to test against my interrupted ones....
* Would you suggest the 8x3, or the 10x4 versions, for all-around usefulness? Is the 8x3 large enough? I have the 10x4 interrupted duos and really like the extra size, but I've also thought that I could probably get by just fine with an 8" stone on probably 90% of my knives anyway.
* Which grit would you suggest as a good all-around starter for comparison, should I go with Coarse or Fine?
If I get a continuous stone to test against my interrupted ones....
* Would you suggest the 8x3, or the 10x4 versions, for all-around usefulness? Is the 8x3 large enough? I have the 10x4 interrupted duos and really like the extra size, but I've also thought that I could probably get by just fine with an 8" stone on probably 90% of my knives anyway.
* Which grit would you suggest as a good all-around starter for comparison, should I go with Coarse or Fine?