Why don't more sharpening pros use ceramic bench stones?

Wowbagger said:
Ceramic stone. Spyderco Ultra Fine Triangle.
Allow me to give you a forzample :
My brand new Case Trapper in Chrome Vanadium (CV) = basically high carbon steel that will rust; not particularly hard. A couple of days ago I sharpened it on the Edge Pro = sharpened it right for the first time. I took the bevel angle back some; not particularly shallow but some. Did a halfast polish on it to Shapton Glass 4000. Whittling.

Used it at work the last two days. Came home to night to find the edge had rolled some.
I pulled out the ceramic UF triangle rod and took the roll off and got a bur. Going edge leading I just could not get the bur off and did not want to go steeper (that would probably have took it off).

I whipped out my little chunk of USA made Norton 8,000 water stone (new ones are made in Mexico now).
In no time I had taken off the bur effortlessly and the knife was whittling again. Seemed to be a touch better edge than off the Edge Pro using the Shapton Glass.

If I had stuck with the ceramic rod FOR THIS STEEL I would still be there flipping that bur back and forth even though I was going edge leading. For other steel alloys the bur would have formed and soon would have come off and I would have stopped there.

Just depends.

I will say I love that Norton 8000 though.
I find the Ceramic triangle very useful most of the time.

PS: before I started the ceramic rod was very clean from using cleanser on it before putting it away from the previous session.
Click to expand...

Don't use the ceramic for removing a rolled edge. Use it for a few light strokes on either side after removing the edge damage on other stones. If you were to use it after the Norton you'd probably get good results. It would be most accurate to refer to them as hones rather than "sharpening stones".
 
Hey FortyTwoBlades FortyTwoBlades , since you like ceramics for edge refinement: how do you see this fitting in with say the 2-stone solution I ordered from your store? American Mutt for profiling, Artic Fox AlOx stone (I think it's 400 grit, right) for everything else. Do you see the Arctic Fox as a type of ceramic, or do you use an additional stone that is a hard, high-grit ceramic beyond the Arctic Fox?
 
Last edited:
As a two stone solution, those work well together. Both the Mutt and Fox have ceramic bonds, but are not sintered like the Spyderco ceramics. I have some prototype sintered ceramics and some natural locally sourced black siltstones that I like to use as a final stage.
 
Make sense. So after I try your 2-stone setup for a bit, if I want to add a 3rd step for edge refinement (remember I'm trying to keep my process and amount of gear and steps minimal), I assume it would be one of these options:

  • Use my existing strop paddle with the Tomek 8000-grit paste
OR
  • Get an ultra-fine ceramic bench stone (Spyderco, etc.)

True? I kind of agree with the approach of some sharpeners I see here, I'm not that interested in cosmetically polished edges, so I will only mess with a separate stropping step if I have to, and if it actually gets me a sharper edge. If I can get the same results by just hitting a 3rd stone, IMO that is preferable, it's the same sharpening motion.
 
maximus83 said:
Make sense. So after I try your 2-stone setup for a bit, if I want to add a 3rd step for edge refinement (remember I'm trying to keep my process and amount of gear and steps minimal), I assume it would be one of these options:

  • Use my existing strop paddle with the Tomek 8000-grit paste
OR
  • Get an ultra-fine ceramic bench stone (Spyderco, etc.)

True? I kind of agree with the approach of some sharpeners I see here, I'm not that interested in cosmetically polished edges, so I will only mess with a separate stropping step if I have to, and if it actually gets me a sharper edge. If I can get the same results by just hitting a 3rd stone, IMO that is preferable, it's the same sharpening motion.
Click to expand...

To finish off I'd use a hard backed strop - your Tormek compound or stone residue from the Arctic Fox wiped on a sheet of paper and wrapped around your Mutt. This will work whether you use oil or water, tho you will want to let the paper dry before using if the stone residue is mixed with water. You could use this sheet many times before it loads up. This mud/residue can also be smeared on poplar or maple and get a similar effect though is a little less forgiving.

Or use an eef diamond plate in place of the ceramics.

The finishing step is the most effected by different alloys, using diamond in this role (if taking it to a fine edge polish) eliminates problems with high alloy steels or low RC ones that are especially prone to burnishing with diamonds.
 
Cereal box cardboard laid on top of the stone makes a good strop if recycling grit. I generally feel that strops should be as rigid as you can feasibly make them.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Don't use the ceramic for removing a rolled edge. Use it for a few light strokes on either side after removing the edge damage on other stones. If you were to use it after the Norton you'd probably get good results. It would be most accurate to refer to them as hones rather than "sharpening stones".
Click to expand...

See now this is why I don't have any friends.
The world is just a different place for me. I suspect I am from another planet but can't prove that.

I KNEW that I could unroll the edge using the hard ceramic rod using the corners of the rod.
Yes, yes I saw the Cliff Stamp vid on how the edge is all "work hardened" and what are all the other scary terms he uses (I actually like Mr Stamp). In practice I find that is a bit exaggerated unless the blade is properly heat treated (think fine Japanese kitchen knife up around 64). This Case is more along the lines of a framing nail (exaggeration) because if it were harder it would have chipped rather than rolled. Give me a chip rather than a roll any day ! ! ! !

Sooooooo . . . where was I . . .

Got 'er all unrolled and pretty much shaving to both sides (balanced edge shape) . . . that just left that pesky bur.
In my mind going back to the ceramic after the Norton 8,000 would have been a step backward for two reasons : the 8,0000 is finer than the ceramic and secondly I would have been starting another bur after I had just got it all taken off.

NOW if the blade had been like M4 or much harder or something I would perhaps be inclined to agree.

just depends on the steel/temper and some other thing I can't quite put my finger on but may have to do with where ever it is I may, or may not have come from.
:)
 
Nah the 8000 isn't a finer than a fine sintered ceramic. Grit size is only one part of the equation for the results produced. Vintage barber hones, for instance, are technically around a 600 grit or coarser, with the average size of the particles probably being closer to 400. The reason why they're so fine is because their surface is treated so the particles are only just barely above the substrate. Think of it as similar to setting the depth of the iron on a plane or spokeshave. Sintered ceramics typically have an average particle size of only around 1µ, and very low grit protrusion.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Sintered ceramics typically have an average particle size of only around 1µ, and very low grit protrusion.
Click to expand...

The following two "guestimates" educated opinions taken from two different threads in an entirely different discussion forum tends to agree with my practical (shall we whip out the term "empirical") results.

I hear what you are saying. I have one of those razor stones you speak of here at arms length away so I know what you are talking about. I have never used it; it was my Granddad's and is just a conversation piece how ever a razor expert acquaintance of mine warned me to NEVER attempt to flatten the surface or other wise abrade the surface because it would ruin that top surface you are describing.

I will keep what you have taught me in mind.
THANK YOU !

1. GUGC says the UF are 3 micron. For reference, my 4k shapton glass stone is 3.68 micron
Click to expand...


2. Comparing grits between different type materials seems to be a bit difficult. Especially with ceramic which Spyderco doesn't even apply a grit or micron rating. Med., fine, UF are the designations they use. So a while back I used DMT, Shapton glass and Spyderco stones and compared the scratch patternes. I put them in the following progression for my use if I were to use each one.


DMT extra-fine (rated at 9 micron)

Spyderco fine (rated at 6 micron on the Unified Grit Chart)

Spyderco UF (rated at 3 micron on the Unified Grit Chart)

Shapton Glass 8k (rated at 1.84 micron)


This progression works perfectly fine for me. I also have the Shapton glass 2k, 4, 6, 8k in EP size. But skipping grits is fine I believe. You don't need every grit. Anyway, I think the 3 micron rating is pretty accurate. Maybe a bit under 3 but NOT higher IMO. The Unified Grit Chart (found on chefknivestogo.com) is put together by people who know quite a bit about many different type sharpening stones. Even so I wanted to check myself so I compared scratch patterns. The scratch patterns matched up very well with the order the chart places stones in. I think it's a good chart to go by when deciding to buy stones of different type.


The chart puts Spyderco stones at the following micron rating (FYI).

Medium = 15 micron

Fine - 6 micron

Ultra-Fine - 3 micron
Click to expand...
 
I still use the Spyderco medium when I want a quick edge on a low alloy knife that hasn't gotten very dull, and I also like it for my kitchen knives, which are on the soft side (no sushi knives). Other than that, I do also prefer either diamond or waterstones, depending what I'm working on.
 
FWIW, my old three line Swaty hone was only a touch finer than my hard Arkansas, a shade less fine than my translucent - gotta remember a strop was always intended to be used after the hone.

My 8k Norton is very close to a mirror finish if the progression is good - I wouldn't use a ceramic anything after it. A strop if using it on woodworking tools, or plain paper or leather for a Chef's knife.
 
I find bonded stones to trend towards the soft side at the high end simply due to the relationship between grain size and bond ratio. Where I find sintered ceramics excellent is taking an edge that may have plowed into abrasive grains from a soft tone and just putting the final crisp apex on it. That's done with very light, minimal pressure, and only a few strokes.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
I find bonded stones to trend towards the soft side at the high end simply due to the relationship between grain size and bond ratio. Where I find sintered ceramics excellent is taking an edge that may have plowed into abrasive grains from a soft tone and just putting the final crisp apex on it. That's done with very light, minimal pressure, and only a few strokes.
Click to expand...

Following up on this suggestion of using a finishing stone for a few light passes to apex, I'll compare the following:

Arctic Fox (400) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Ptarmigan (JIS 6000)
Arctic Fox (400) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Spyderco UF

One disadvantage for the Spyderco UF in the comparison. It's the triangle rod, it'll have to be handheld. To keep the test more similar, I could put a micro on the blade when I use the Ptarmigan to finish, and when I get to the Spyderco UF, I could put them in the Sharpmaker 15 dps slots and assume that the light passes will create a micro.
 
maximus83 said:
Following up on this suggestion of using a finishing stone for a few light passes to apex, I'll compare the following:

Arctic Fox (400) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Ptarmigan (JIS 6000)
Arctic Fox (400) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Spyderco UF

One disadvantage for the Spyderco UF in the comparison. It's the triangle rod, it'll have to be handheld. To keep the test more similar, I could put a micro on the blade when I use the Ptarmigan to finish, and when I get to the Spyderco UF, I could put them in the Sharpmaker 15 dps slots and assume that the light passes will create a micro.
Click to expand...

I'd also suggest trying Arctic Fox (22.5µ) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Ptarmigan (3µ) versus
Arctic Fox (22.5µ) > Ultrasharp (1200) > Ptarmigan (3µ) > Spyderco UF
 
HeavyHanded said:
FWIW, my old three line Swaty hone was only a touch finer than my hard Arkansas, a shade less fine than my translucent -.
Click to expand...
I checked my Swaty hone and found it to be close to this tier alignment as well. Something around 900 US grit. DM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top