Spyderco Hone Micrographs

[eKretz]

I recently decided to take a few close-up photos of my Spyderco UF to show the difference between a factory surface and a lapped surface since some here seem to think this isn't a possibility or can't be done. While I was at it, I also took some of the Spyderco F hones and Spyderco M hones for comparison. All of these are taken at 168x (calibrated and correct) when they are at 1:1 pixel ratio on my computer's monitor. Your monitor size may be different, yada yada. Without further ado:

First up is a Spyderco M - or "brown" hone. This first shot is taken with the scope's ring light:

Next, same hone with contrast lighting. Bright points are peaks of abrasive particles sticking up, dark areas are low points:

Spyderco F Ring Light:

Spyderco F contrast lighting, same again, bright spots are peaks, darker areas are low:

Here's where it gets interesting. Spyderco UF factory surface. These are flat ground with a diamond cup wheel to differentiate them from the plain-jane Spyderco F. First, ring light shot, then contrast. Note the plainly visible grind marks in the contrast shot:

Then the lapped side of my UF. This was lapped with silicon carbide loose grit - which some seem to think isn't possible. It's plain to see that it works just fine if you know what you're doing. Ring Light, then Contrast. Note the lower prevalence of bright spots and larger span between them - wider areas of dark. This means the hone is much flatter and more even:

 

[Wowbagger]

I recently decided to take a few close-up photos of my Spyderco UF to show the difference between a factory surface and a lapped surface since some here seem to think this isn't a possibility or can't be done.

Way to go. You read my mind. I have been wondering what the surface the UF leaves looks like.
Oh, this is the stone surface.
hmmmm

 

[eKretz]

I will update further...hold your horses!!

Seem to be having trouble getting that F contrast shot to display for some reason.

 

[Wowbagger]

Some photos are not posting; just a tiny blue rectangle with a "?" mark in it.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'm wondering if taking a super, super fine diamond plate to the UF would be a good idea . . . to take the ridges off the whooptiedoos ? My Algner diamond stone is 8,000 grit.

 

[eKretz]

Photopunkit....grr. How many are missing? There should only be one missing and one extra img tag that the photo showed up on the second attempt but the old tag is still there - can't get rid of it.

 

[eKretz]

I would NOT do that. an 8000 grit diamond hone would be very easy to strip that way. See here:

https://bladeforums.com/threads/cleaning-diamond-stones.1608909/

If you are going to use a diamond plate, use something coarser. No finer than 600 for flattening a UF IMO. Maybe 1200 to smooth more but keep it WELL flushed and be careful. I'd finish with SiC or other loose grit. I took mine to 1500 and let it break down even finer.

 

[Wowbagger]

I'm seeing these missing :
Spyderco F contrast lighting, same again, bright spots are peaks, darker areas are low:

and the one above this paragraph :

Then the lapped side of my UF. This was lapped with silicon carbide loose grit - which some seem to think isn't possible. It's plain to see that it works just fine if you know what you're doing. Ring Light, then Contrast. Note the lower prevalence of bright spots and larger span between them - wider areas of dark. This means the hone is much flatter and more even:

beyond that we're good

 

[Wowbagger]

PS: a basic BladeForums membership makes all your photo posting trials and tribulations go away; at least when using a desk top which is all I ever use.
After that just click on "up load a file" and load it right off your desk top.
Make the file small first in a photo editor on your computer.

 

[Blues]

E eKretz

What size loose SiC grit did you use please?

 

[eKretz]

It's in post 7 - finished with 1500, but it breaks down finer during use. The finer you let it break down the finer it will cut, but the slower your UF plate will be.

For most of the flattening I used 120, then 320, then 600, then 1200, last 1500.

That's for straight razor use though, and only the final bit of polish after going up to 12k synthetic. The other side of the UF I left alone and use that for knives - sometimes I'll use the razor side for a final touch on some knives too.

 

[Wowbagger]

It's in post 7 - finished with 1500, but it breaks down finer during use. The finer you let it break down the finer it will cut, but the slower your UF plate will be.

For most of the flattening I used 120, then 320, then 600, then 1200, last 1500.

Wow I wouldn't think it would take much at all to knock those microscopic edges off the waves.

 

[eKretz]

It's not the flattening that takes all those successive steps, it's the smoothing out of the plate. These hones are extremely hard, unlike normal water stones. They're basically fused abrasive - no real binder content. Once you put a texture on the surface, it stays there for quite some time. If it's coarse it will impart a coarser finish to whatever you're honing on it. If it's finer it will impart a finer finish. And it does take a while, because you need to level the entire hone surface down to those low points. In addition, if the hone isn't flat to begin with there's even more to remove.... It's slow going with abrasives this hard and large surface area.

 

[eKretz]

PS: a basic BladeForums membership makes all your photo posting trials and tribulations go away; at least when using a desk top which is all I ever use.
After that just click on "up load a file" and load it right off your desk top.
Make the file small first in a photo editor on your computer.

Yes, I'm sure that is so, but not possible for me at the moment. I am disabled due to godawful back pain, so money is tight, to put it lightly. Luckily I purchased all kinds of fun things before my back blew out, so now I play with them when I feel well enough for a while. Nowadays I get about an hour or so at a time on the good days before I need to go lie down for a couple hours until it doesn't hurt as much. Maybe some day.

 

[Wowbagger]

if the hone isn't flat to begin with there's even more to remove.

Oh, I never even considered Spyderco would put out stones that weren't flat.
Hmmm
All I have is the Ultra Fine Triangle rod. I use that quite a bit for very light touch up (to go from mostly shave sharp back to hair wittilng on the better alloys. I never felt the slightest vibration that a wavy stone would have surely produced.

I'm glad I stuck to the rods; one at work and one at home.
Shapton Glass stones and Diamond plates for ever then.

 

[eKretz]

It's not a huge amount, not too critical for knife sharpening. For razors though with very narrow included angle, catching a tiny ledge can be disastrous. Same I guess for narrow angle knives, especially freehand. Also if the stones in a progression aren't all the same in terms of flatness the razor won't be honed evenly all along the edge. Flatness is more of a problem for razors for sure - but really only those with a very straight edge. I've grown to prefer those razors with a slight "smile" myself.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Oh, I never even considered Spyderco would put out stones that weren't flat.
Hmmm
All I have is the Ultra Fine Triangle rod. I use that quite a bit for very light touch up (to go from mostly shave sharp back to hair wittilng on the better alloys. I never felt the slightest vibration that a wavy stone would have surely produced.

I'm glad I stuck to the rods; one at work and one at home.
Shapton Glass stones and Diamond plates for ever then.

The stones typically warp very slightly during firing, but the degree to which they do so is insignificant for the majority of sharpening tasks, including for things like precision woodworking tools. The cost of machining after firing is enormous, which is why the UF costs so much more than the F stone despite the fact that they're literally the same thing, except the UF has been machined. It also demonstrates the effect of surface conditioning on performance, since it produces a finer edge than the F stone, which is left with the as-fired texture.

 

[eKretz]

Here are a couple images I forgot to post earlier also. Just a regular photo of both sides of the plate. First the side as delivered from Spyderco. Note the visible grind marks:

Then the side I lapped with SiC:

 

[kreisler]

The cost of machining after firing is enormous, which is why the UF costs so much more than the F stone despite the fact that they're literally the same thing, except the UF has been machined. It also demonstrates the effect of surface conditioning on performance, since it produces a finer edge than the F stone, which is left with the as-fired texture.

Are you claiming that the material, say 1cm³ taken from inside the stone, is 100% identical between F and UF??

 

[eKretz]

Yes it sure is, he's correct on that. Here is a direct quote from Sal Glesser:

"I used a UF stone on my straight razors for years, 30 years ago. I made mine from a fine stone which I made finer using diamond hones. Ruined the diamond hones though, so I don't recommend it. I liked it so much, we developed and produced the UF stone., (2 x 8). Then we made the 3 x 8, which really is a nice stone."

sal