Naniwa SuperStone 8k gouge

Kerneldrop said:
What exactly do I need to do to get it back to 8k factory smooth?
Click to expand...
in order to obtain a perfectly flat surface, using stones for leveling, in theory, it is necessary to apply the method of three plates. I wrote above about the powder F400, with almost the same success you can use a stone for leveling F400. You have a F320 stone, work on it, and after that pour a little water on the glass and prove the stone on its own suspension. Then the 8k stone will have a "native" surface
 
vlodko_lviv said:
in order to obtain a perfectly flat surface, using stones for leveling, in theory, it is necessary to apply the method of three plates. I wrote above about the powder F400, with almost the same success you can use a stone for leveling F400. You have a F320 stone, work on it, and after that pour a little water on the glass and prove the stone on its own suspension. Then the 8k stone will have a "native" surface
Click to expand...
*not necessary
 
vlodko_lviv said:
and it was possible to do nothing at all! and like i said, why use stones like naniva 8000? There is an Atoma 140, sharpened, removed the burr and everything, a sharp knife. Not?
Click to expand...
Why is it always absolute? The point you are missing is that your method will likely work very well, but it isn't the only method. Using words like "necessary" conveys the meaning that anyone doing something different to you is wrong. There are many expert sharpeners that don't use your method. Are you saying you are superior?
 
I use the words: in theory, for the perfect result. A person should know what will theoretically give an "ideal" result. And whether to use it or not, it is already a matter of his choice.
chalby said:
Are you saying you are superior?
Click to expand...
I am not above, but the theory
 
vlodko_lviv said:
I use the words: in theory, for the perfect result. A person should know what will theoretically give an "ideal" result. And whether to use it or not, it is already a matter of his choice.

I am not above, but the theory
Click to expand...
It's interesting that despite the use of SiC powder being very well known it is far from the most popular method of maintaining stones. It is a very effective method, but not clearly superior.
 
chalby said:
It is a very effective method, but not clearly superior.
Click to expand...
Maybe because this method is not that popular in the American sharpening community. This is firstly, and secondly, it is a little "dirty", requires compliance with "hygiene" when changing powders, and it is even better to use different sheets of glass for different powders. It's inconvenient.
Is he better? Yes, in my opinion, and not only in my opinion. First, because when leveling or flatting, there is no flexible backing on the glass, as in the case of using sandpaper. If you use stones for flatting, then I have not met a perfectly flat stone, as a rule, they all have a hump in the middle. And then, as a result of grinding, a pit is formed on the whetstone. The glass must be thick enough to eliminate its deflections when the stone is proofed.
Secondly, the area of the glass is several times larger than the area of any flatting stone, which makes it possible to use different movements of the stone during alignment or proofing and thus avoid the formation of pits, humps or the formation of a propeller-shaped surface of the stone.
The difference is especially clear on hard natural or synthetic stones
Is it all to use and is it worth bothering with? Each user's case. As I wrote above, here as in many other fields, the Pareto rule works: 20% of work - 80% of the result, the next 80% of work - only 20% of the result
 
Last edited:
vlodko_lviv said:
Maybe because this method is not that popular in the American sharpening community. This is firstly, and secondly, it is a little "dirty", requires compliance with "hygiene" when changing powders, and it is even better to use different sheets of glass for different powders. It's inconvenient.
Is he better? Yes, in my opinion, and not only in my opinion. First, because when leveling or flatting, there is no flexible backing on the glass, as in the case of using sandpaper. If you use stones for flatting, then I have not met a perfectly flat stone, as a rule, they all have a hump in the middle. And then, as a result of grinding, a pit is formed on the whetstone. The glass must be thick enough to eliminate its deflections when the stone is proofed.
Secondly, the area of the glass is several times larger than the area of any flatting stone, which makes it possible to use different movements of the stone during alignment or proofing and thus avoid the formation of pits, humps or the formation of a propeller-shaped surface of the stone.
The difference is especially clear on hard natural or synthetic stones
Is it all to use and is it worth bothering with? Each user's case. As I wrote above, here as in many other fields, the Pareto rule works: 20% of work - 80% of the result, the next 80% of work - only 20% of the result
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. If it was that much superior everyone would be doing it.

I'll say it again, you are over-complicating it.
 
chalby said:
You are mistaken. If it was that much superior everyone would be doing it.
Click to expand...
Why did you decide that I was wrong and not you? Because the majority does so? Questionable logic... I've given reasons why I think so, and yours is that the majority is right. Well well
 
vlodko_lviv said:
Why did you decide that I was wrong and not you? Because the majority does so? Questionable logic... I've given reasons why I think so, and yours is that the majority is right. Well well
Click to expand...
Your wrong because you are stating that your method is the only way. There are many very skilled sharpeners who don't use your method and get exceptional results. If your method was so much better then they would all be using your exact method. They are not.
 
chalby said:
Your wrong because you are stating that your method is the only way. There are many very skilled sharpeners who don't use your method and get exceptional results. If your method was so much better then they would all be using your exact method. They are not.
Click to expand...
The majority does so - this is not an argument, it is simply a fact that does not prove that this method is better.
In addition, I did not write that the method using powders is the only correct one. I wrote that, IN THEORY, it gives the best result. I explained why I think so, and you repeat again that the majority does so.
I won't argue with you anymore.
 
If you have never tried using loose abrasive on a flat plate you don't know what you are missing, I say this from experience. You really need to try it to understand what we are talking about. Comparing it to sandpaper on a flat plate is like comparing oranges to concrete, the two don't have much in common. The surface loose abrasive leaves on the stone is different and better, as in more open and aggressive. The stone will be flatter since sandpaper will wear the periphery more than the center but that really doesn't matter. I would suggest getting 60 and 200-240 grit, anything finer is just a novelty, at least for dressing stones. You will want either black Sic or brown Alox abrasives as those are the least friable types and hold up the longest. If you just want to try it out without spending any money try fine sand on smooth concrete.

For the 3 body method to work you need both surfaces to be rough enough to make the abrasives roll vs slide around and the right amount of water, not too much nor too little, it needs to be just right. This is a really good tool to have in your proverbial toolbox, it's not just for sharpening related items. Words alone will never do this process justice, you have to experience it.

For resin bond stones it is a game changer, there really is no other way to properly dress or prepare them, every other way I have tried is inferior. Since nagura stones shed grit so easily they are much more like the 3 body vs 2 body abrasion method and I find work very well at light cleaning and dressing.
 
Where do I find SiC powder in USA? I looked earlier just for kicks and it’s not abundant online.

Realistically I don’t have the skills for an 8k stone…I now just want to dress it to see what happens. I don’t even have a knife hard enough to take an 8k edge.

I'm going to try using one of my smoother flattening stones and wet sand paper first to see what that does.
 
Last edited:
Kerneldrop said:
Where do I find SiC powder in USA? I looked earlier just for kicks and it’s not abundant online.

Realistically I don’t have the skills for an 8k stone…I now just want to dress it to see what happens. I don’t even have a knife hard enough to take an 8k edge.

I'm going to try using one of my smoother flattening stones and wet sand paper first to see what that does.
Click to expand...
Amazon

gotgrit.com
 
Last edited:
Diemaker said:
If you have never tried using loose abrasive on a flat plate you don't know what you are missing, I say this from experience. You really need to try it to understand what we are talking about. Comparing it to sandpaper on a flat plate is like comparing oranges to concrete, the two don't have much in common. The surface loose abrasive leaves on the stone is different and better, as in more open and aggressive. The stone will be flatter since sandpaper will wear the periphery more than the center but that really doesn't matter. I would suggest getting 60 and 200-240 grit, anything finer is just a novelty, at least for dressing stones. You will want either black Sic or brown Alox abrasives as those are the least friable types and hold up the longest. If you just want to try it out without spending any money try fine sand on smooth concrete.

For the 3 body method to work you need both surfaces to be rough enough to make the abrasives roll vs slide around and the right amount of water, not too much nor too little, it needs to be just right. This is a really good tool to have in your proverbial toolbox, it's not just for sharpening related items. Words alone will never do this process justice, you have to experience it.

For resin bond stones it is a game changer, there really is no other way to properly dress or prepare them, every other way I have tried is inferior.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm skeptical when people are using arbitrary numbers like "20% better" or superlatives like "game-changer". If that was the case, then nobody would be doing it any other way.... but I'm going to get some SiC powder and give it a try. I'll probably make a thread in the future with what I experience.

Since nagura stones shed grit so easily they are much more like the 3 body vs 2 body abrasion method and I find work very well at light cleaning and dressing.
Click to expand...
You could say the same for sandpaper on a tile. There is a substantial slurry formed after a few circular motions.
 
chalby said:
To be honest, I'm skeptical when people are using arbitrary numbers like "20% better" or superlatives like "game-changer". If that was the case, then nobody would be doing it any other way.... but I'm going to get some SiC powder and give it a try. I'll probably make a thread in the future with what I experience.


You could say the same for sandpaper on a tile. There is a substantial slurry formed after a few circular motions.
Click to expand...
With the Matrix stones the difference between sandpaper and loose abrasive was a game changer in every sense of the term.

Not the same, the paper in between the plates totally changes the cutting action, for the worse. Even if you added loose abrasive it wouldn't work the same with the paper between the plates.
 
Diemaker said:
With the Matrix stones the difference between sandpaper and loose abrasive was a game changer in every sense of the term.

Not the same, the paper in between the plates totally changes the cutting action, for the worse. Even if you added loose abrasive it wouldn't work the same with the paper between the plates.
Click to expand...

What loose abrasive grit do you use for the 3k and up stones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top