For the love of oil stones!

S

Spartan00

Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
1,329
Hey guys , over the years I've accumulated a lot of sharpening stones . From diamonds to low end water stones to high end water stones and everything in between .

All the talk of water stones honestly made me feel like my old sic stones were just inferior to be honest . So my sic stone has sat for years getting no love .

I love my diamonds and I love some of my water stones but the type of steel your using has a lot to do with what edge what sTeel will get what edge .

Anyhow wife got a new kitchen knife in the mail few days ago and it came with the worst grind and the worst edge I've ever seen on a knife.

The bevel was horrible ground . It was ground at about 20 degrees on one side at the heel then about 35-40 at the tip, other side was about 35 degrees at the heel and about 20 at the tip and the edge was a butter knife .

I smiled when she opened it and she said oh lord here we go. First i rebeveled it with diamonds but I wasnt getting an edge I liked so I switched to water stones same deal nice looking edge but the cutting I wasn't a fan of .

Finally I decided to try the old sic stone I never use and actually boiled it to get all the old gunk out of it .

Threw some machine oil on it and not expecting much did 10 passes and felt for a burr , I had a nice burr and a scratch pattern that looked like a new coarse grit diamond .

10 passes on the other side and 20 alternating stropping strokes and I'm push cutting the little curly cuts in my woodcraft news letter .

Point being I'm guilty of getting caught up in the latest and greatest sharpening gear . I want the best water stone or the best diamond plate .

The edge this oilstone gave me was a great edge though. Point being these stones are great . For guys wanting to get into freehand a sic stone can be had for cheap and IMHO my sic stone (180 grit ) cuts very fast.

I've overlooked these stones for years because I figured no way they can put an edge on that can compete with a shapton or a bester or a dmt.

Boy was I wrong and I could not be happier about it . I also think the sic is a better all a rounder stone as in does more types of steels better than water stones .

For fun after the kitchen knife I grabbed a case knife , zdp-189 stretch and a zt 0770cf . Sic stone put a great edge on all of them.

If you haven't tried a sic stone yet and are serious about sharpening I suggest it . They are cheap and they cut great and leave a great edge . It's been my experience in sharpening you get what you pay for and maybe that's why I didn't have much faith in the sic stone because of the price . Well they work and they are cheap!

I've got some handheld India stones I'm going to pull out next but this old sic stone is awesome!
 
Personally, I like the India over the SiC, the harder surface produces a better edge IMO. I actually used mine to sharpen a Fiddleback knife the other day and the results were very impressive. I love my waterstones but the Fine India is a very good stone on carbon and low alloy stainless.
 
I'm working on a treehouse for the kids, the knees brace to the deck using an open mortice. My biggest chisel was not in the best shape, so slapped it on a Crystalon stone with a 1/2 tsp of oil. In no time whipped up some thin mud, the bevel was a nice flat lightly frosted edge, top and bottom. The extra wide bevel also made for a finer scratch pattern than usual. Hair popping and much finer than the rated 280 grit.

Smeared some reclaimed mud on paper over a Washboard and it was shaving curls from pine and leaving a nice 'wet' finish as it went - a screaming edge for the amount of time and materials. My all time favorite stone so far.

I like the India too, but am a lot faster with the SiC stones. I agree that it (SiC) as a mineral (stone or wet/dry) just seems to handle the widest range of steels with equal efficiency - even more than diamonds IMHO.

Martin
 
I have a bester 220 that if u lapped it true it'd be done . Playing around I made a slurry on the sic stone with the bester or Beston.

Really charged the sic stone .May play around with this a little more and just see what kind of finishes I get . Especially at coarse grits or rebeveling this stone is so big I don't worry about it , and I use pressure when rebeveling may try my hand at reprofiling using 220 Waterstone mud
 
Silicon carbide stones are best for doing rapid stock removal but finer grits in it can be done--you just don't find 'em as often as the coarse through medium grit range. Aluminum oxide stones are generally found in the finer grits and are less aggressive. Both materials make excellent and economical sharpening stones, which is why they've been crowd-pleasers ever since they were first developed.
 
My wife has some inexpensive knives and my crew have some cheap American cutlery that I don't want to "waste " my nice stones on.
Between my harbor freight diamonds and cheap Norton stones I get a damn good edge on them. I confess I like leaning on a crystolon and seeing the slurry build.
I am sure if I hadn't gotten in to hard carbide madness I would be OK with these cheap but workable sharpening utensils.
Russ
 
I have an oil stone set - Norton JB8 Crystolon combo, Norton IB8 India combo, and an 8" soft/hard Arkansas combo. I prefer to use one or more of those for any steel that they are suited for. Most of my pocket knives are 420 or 440 series stainless or a 1095 type carbon, and those stones take care of anything I need to do with those knives.

For the few I have with fancier steels, and for my higher end kitchen knives, I will use water stones. I just find I prefer the feel and speed of the oil stones. I've got some DMT polka dot diamond hones but just don't like the feel of them or the odd little micro scratches that magically appear on the flats of the blades, I am guessing from dislodged diamonds.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Silicon carbide stones are best for doing rapid stock removal but finer grits in it can be done--you just don't find 'em as often as the coarse through medium grit range. Aluminum oxide stones are generally found in the finer grits and are less aggressive. Both materials make excellent and economical sharpening stones, which is why they've been crowd-pleasers ever since they were first developed.
Click to expand...

42, yes. I've searched back with the use of Norton's IM 313 Tri-hone and found the same 3 stones being used in the set in 1950. Perhaps back to 1947. Those I've found in old meat markets. This was the standard in use for industrial/ commercial grade knifes. Though the knives of this era were carbon and simple stainless this set could work on much higher grade stainless steels. I rarely find a fine SiC stone in the 5-600 grit range. DM
 
mycough said:
My wife has some inexpensive knives and my crew have some cheap American cutlery that I don't want to "waste " my nice stones on.
Between my harbor freight diamonds and cheap Norton stones I get a damn good edge on them. I confess I like leaning on a crystolon and seeing the slurry build.
I am sure if I hadn't gotten in to hard carbide madness I would be OK with these cheap but workable sharpening utensils.
Russ
Click to expand...

I like using pressure with them too . I've got a cheapie diamond handheld plate and a few passes on the oil stone like it was a waterstone gets a slurry .

If you haven't tried a Waterston slurry on a silicone carbide stone give it a try. I like using pressure so I got a 220 mud built on the sic stone and just added enough water to keep it gummy .

Pitch and sound and feel felt like a 220 waterstone but I could use pressure .

The mud stayed in place too.
 
I just received a stone for father's day that is somewhat interesting and relative to the thread. Zandstra Foss speedskate sharpening stone. Is a good size, 10x3" coarse/fine silicon carbide.
https://www.cascadespeedskates.com/zandstra-foss-speedskate-sharpening-stone-details.aspx

foss-stone.jpg


Haven't had a chance to really run it thru, but initial impressions are good. The surface of it, sound, feel made me think I'd better try with water first and sure enough it works great. Acts very much like a super hard waterstone - slight mud, no loading,finish with a leading edge and maybe a trailing pass with more familiarity.

I tried it with oil but the mud was too creamy and it loaded up, so boiled it clean and back to water or dry (instructions claim it can be used with oil, water, or dry). Am a little disappointed its not better as an oilstone, but that's the way it goes when you go off script.

Finish is very close to that of a fine Crystalon, maybe a touch finer.

Am thinking of turning it into a set by adding the suehiro 8k silicon carbide stone from tools from japan, but need to work it a bit more first.
 
What's the difference between silicon carbide and aluminum oxide stones? Which produce a more toothy edge and which produce a keener edge?
 
MichaelMyers said:
What's the difference between silicon carbide and aluminum oxide stones? Which produce a more toothy edge and which produce a keener edge?
Click to expand...
Hi,
:) The primary ingredient is the difference :D
It doesn't really matter what the stone is made of, Corundum(Al2O3) or Carborundum(SiC)
Tooth depends on grit size , its just the scratches left by the abrasive on the apex, like teeth on a saw.

Smaller grit number means bigger scratches, means bigger tooth, and more slicing ability and longer edge retention on a slice (like a saw).

Higher grit number means smaller scratches means smaller tooth (or none), and more push cutting ability and longer edge retention on a push cut (like a razor)

It doesn't take high grits to be able to shave hair, its just scratchy with the low grits
This video only shows newspaper slicing but it will shave Extreme low grit sharpening : 24 grit nubatama - Cliff Stamp
This one shows actual arm hair shaving Knife sharpening : 36 grit dressing stone - Cliff Stamp
 
MichaelMyers said:
What's the difference between silicon carbide and aluminum oxide stones? Which produce a more toothy edge and which produce a keener edge?
Click to expand...

Silicone carbide is harder than aluminum oxide .

Silicone carbide or Sic would probably produce a toothier edge at the same grit . As far as I know it's a little more to it than that but I need to fact check before I go into too much detail but as I understand it if diamonds are the hardest then silicone carbide is 2nd
 
bucketstove said:
Hi,
:) The primary ingredient is the difference :D
It doesn't really matter what the stone is made of, Corundum(Al2O3) or Carborundum(SiC)
Tooth depends on grit size , its just the scratches left by the abrasive on the apex, like teeth on a saw.

Smaller grit number means bigger scratches, means bigger tooth, and more slicing ability and longer edge retention on a slice (like a saw).

Higher grit number means smaller scratches means smaller tooth (or none), and more push cutting ability and longer edge retention on a push cut (like a razor)

It doesn't take high grits to be able to shave hair, its just scratchy with the low grits
This video only shows newspaper slicing but it will shave Extreme low grit sharpening : 24 grit nubatama - Cliff Stamp
This one shows actual arm hair shaving Knife sharpening : 36 grit dressing stone - Cliff Stamp
Click to expand...

That video of 24 grit sharpening is amazing.
 
Spartan00 said:
Silicone carbide is harder than aluminum oxide .

Silicone carbide or Sic would probably produce a toothier edge at the same grit . As far as I know it's a little more to it than that but I need to fact check before I go into too much detail but as I understand it if diamonds are the hardest then silicone carbide is 2nd
Click to expand...

In run-of-the-mill and and similarly inexpensive stones, SiC often will produce a toothier bite for a given grit than AlOx. A lot of inexpensive AlOx stones won't cut anywhere near their rated grit size, due not only to the less-hard grit, but to the shape of it as well, with a blockier or rounder and less-aggressive shape. Compare that to SiC grains, which will be harder and are more often jagged in shape, with very sharp, glassy-shard-like edges, which can dig & cut very aggressively. AlOx is often more prone to glazing as well, which wears away the cutting edges of the grit pretty quickly, further diminishing their ability to cut aggressively. Cheap 'tile rubbing stones' are an example of this, as are a lot of cheap hardware store AlOx stones, which might seem very aggressive in the first few uses (maybe ONLY in the first use), and then plateau out afterward to a much less aggressive 'effective grit'. I've accumulated several inexpensive AlOx stones over some years, including a tile rubbing stone, and every one of them has exhibited that same tendency to lose aggressiveness pretty fast, sometimes during or immediately after the first use. Most of them, at least, settle into being better finishing stones over time (even my 60/80-grit tile rubbing stone is better suited to this, now), and become less effective at heavy stock removal or for producing very toothy edges.

AlOx manufacturing is very sophisticated though, and it can be engineered for hardness within relatively narrow limits (still less-hard than SiC), shape, friability and toughness. The last two factors can make a big difference in how quickly (or not) it loses aggressiveness; some versions of AlOx can remain very consistent for a long while (alumina ceramics and zirconia-alumina are both very tough and durable, for example). 'Friability' is the property that allows the grit to fracture to smaller size in use, for specific end goals, and AlOx manufacturers can design grit to be either more or less friable.


David
 
Last edited:
MichaelMyers said:
What's the difference between silicon carbide and aluminum oxide stones? Which produce a more toothy edge and which produce a keener edge?
Click to expand...

Am no expert and the following is mostly speculation, but a lot of what determines this comes down to the condition of the abrasive surface itself.

An AlOx stone in good condition will make a nicer rough edge than a loaded SiC stone. SiC has the advantage of, while being hard, it is also not durable. Under good conditions as it breaks down it is always presenting a sharp surface, and it breaks down with less pressure than most forms of AlOx. Of Diamond, SiC, or AlOX, AlOx is most likely to glaze somewhat, being more durable but not as hard - so while still tearing out metal it isn't doing so with the sharpest of tips. Diamond also does a good job but over time it too will 'glaze' and the tips won't be as sharp. If you let your SiC stone load or glaze it will underperform. Keep up on it and it will maintain the sharpest contact points.


Keeping in mind the individual abrasives depending on how they are arranged will either:

- cut with sharp projections - clean stock removal - low burr formation per unit
- plow with a projection that isn't sharp - stock dislocation, lower removal rate - higher burr formation per unit
- rub with a relatively smooth stretch of surface - stock dislocation, no removal - plastic deformation

img10_zpsi99xeilx.jpg


You can only manage so much of this, there is always going to be a variety of each in a given surface, and the rake angle of any given mechanism is going to change as well. As the minerals glaze (dull), the surface area increases - unit pressure goes down, depth of cut decreases, condition of the steel at the apex is more prone to drawing out/burr/wire edge. With a finer abrasive, this effect isn't as pronounced or might even be desirable (combined burnishing and abrading action of fine ceramic surfaces). At low grit levels this can leave you with a drawn out edge, low stock removal rate.

Combine that with the low abrasive density/ high unit pressure and many of the abrasive tracks will finish with a single pass trough being cut - there is no easy way to cleanly remove a burr from the opposite side esp if it is lower than the surrounding area - the quality of the abrasive cut on every pass becomes very important.

Also keeping in mind the main difference between a coarse abrasive field and a fine one is mostly the inherent spacing of the abrasives themselves and the effect this has on footprint (unit pressure) and relief areas for the removed stock to go. If you took 5 micron abrasives and mounted them to a 'bed of nails' in a 120 grit open pattern, it would cut far more like a 120 grit stone than a 1200 grit stone.

The rough abrasives will leave the edge irregularly cut both along the edge and across. Generally, a leading pass into the edge will tend to make more variation across the edge compared to a trailing pass. A trailing pass will tend to make more variation along the edge. On the down side it is very tough to manage burr formation on a trailing pass - the mineral has to have some mobility so when it bites it doesn't lodge into the steel and draw it out as it grinds - it will shift itself free if the resistance gets too high.

And then in some cases depending on HT and alloy content, a given steel may or may not take and/or hold a rough edge well, no matter how its created.


If the steel is soft enough, a file probably makes the best toothy edge, followed by SiC.
 
Obsessed with Edges said:
In run-of-the-mill and and similarly inexpensive stones, SiC often will produce a toothier bite for a given grit than AlOx. A lot of inexpensive AlOx stones won't cut anywhere near their rated grit size, due not only to the less-hard grit, but to the shape of it as well, with a blockier or rounder and less-aggressive shape. Compare that to SiC grains, which will be harder and are more often jagged in shape, with very sharp, glassy-shard-like edges, which can dig & cut very aggressively. AlOx is often more prone to glazing as well, which wears away the cutting edges of the grit pretty quickly, further diminishing their ability to cut aggressively. Cheap 'tile rubbing stones' are an example of this, as are a lot of cheap hardware store AlOx stones, which might seem very aggressive in the first few uses (maybe ONLY in the first use), and then plateau out afterward to a much less aggressive 'effective grit'. I've accumulated several inexpensive AlOx stones over some years, including a tile rubbing stone, and every one of them has exhibited that same tendency to lose aggressiveness pretty fast, sometimes during or immediately after the first use. Most of them, at least, settle into being better finishing stones over time (even my 60/80-grit tile rubbing stone is better suited to this, now), and become less effective at heavy stock removal or for producing very toothy edges.

AlOx manufacturing is very sophisticated though, and it can be engineered for hardness within relatively narrow limits (still less-hard than SiC), shape, friability and toughness. The last two factors can make a big difference in how quickly (or not) it loses aggressiveness; some versions of AlOx can remain very consistent for a long while (alumina ceramics and zirconia-alumina are both very tough and durable, for example). 'Friability' is the property that allows the grit to fracture to smaller size in use, for specific end goals, and AlOx manufacturers can design grit to be either more or less friable.
David
Click to expand...
Yes, I've noticed my 1960's mfg. U.S. made Behr Manning India stones are harder. Fired different, from Troy, N.Y.. Not much slurry produced and don't glaze. They wear very slow while giving excellent edges. More refined than a SiC edge. DM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top