Shapton 120 grit stone

Re: Shapton 120 grit stone

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>Taking the scratches out from a 220 stone is a big job never mind 120.

Favorite Shapton Stones

Steve Elliott

>My Shapton 120x removed stock quickly, but dished out faster than other Shaptons. By mistake I got the non-pro version of the 120, and used it until the ceramic backing came through on the surface.

The 320x Shapton never seemed to work well for me. For one thing, the dark blue color made it hard to see which areas were low when I was flattening it. It also just didn't seem to remove metal very fast.

The 1000x Shapton was somewhat better, but isn't one of my favorites.

The 2000x Shapton is TERRIFIC! It removes metal quickly while leaving a pretty good surface on the tool, and wears slowly. I wish all my Shaptons worked like this one.

I've had stiction problems with the 8000x Shapton when I use it on the backs of plane blades, and it leaves some rogue scratches. Maybe they're from SiC grit embedded in the stone from when I flatten it, but for a finish stone I'm now using my Takenoko.

If I had it to do again, I'd probably only get the 2000x stone, and maybe the 120x stone in the pro series.

Re: Shapton 120 grit stone

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I've flattened the backs of at least a hundred blades on a Shapton 120 Pro stone and wouldn't be without it.

It would be awfully agressive for bevels, but for backs, well life is too short to be without one.

I don't have any trouble cleaning up after it with a 220 non Shapton waterstone, and/or a Shaption 320 (which I kind of like).

I've commented more about his over the last several months, just look up my name and blade flattening.

Lyn's Blade Back Flattening Notes

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>In case you have trouble finding them your self, I am posting these saved these notes - they may be from two messages.

-----------------------------------------------

I'm not up in the Steve Knight category, but I've flattened the backs of almost 100 blades this last year. Most of them have been A2, but there has also been M2 and M4, Japanese irons, and more traditional blades.

Over the years I've tried almost everything. Tormek, Veritas Power Sharpening System, Oil Stones, Diamond "stones," Scary Sharp, Waterstones and various combinations.

I like Scary Sharp with mylar backed micron graded microfine abrasives because under optimal conditions I feel I achieve the most consistently flat surface and the most control over grit range, but conditions are rarely optimal. Despite several approaches, I have yet to find a convenient method to keep the abrasive sheet solidly fixed to the underlying substrate. Under the pressures of sharpening, glue creeps and tensions papers stretch, such that the surface can develop a suble wave in front of the forward edge. This prevent uniform flattening. Second, I just go through too much paper, as the abrasive dulls rapidly on some of the more exotic steels and must soon be replaced, or the cutting action slows to a crawl.

My shop is almost littered with dead diamond stones. I'm always trying another in hopes that one will finally live up to the claims made for them. I find that diamond stones often are not flat, impossible to make flat if they don't start that way, and actually have a very short life compared to their price. At this point, I rarely use a diamond stone for anything more than touch up trueing of my Waterstones.

Waterstones are now my abrasive of choice for flatteing the backs of bench plane irons. I mostly use Shaptons (I have the entire range of the Professional series), but not exclusively, as I actually prefer some of the cheaper stones in certain ranges, specifically 4000 and 8000.

I like to flatten the entire back. I find this a lot more work up front, but much easier to maintain (and maintain accurately) over the long haul. I find it is far easier and quicker to start flattening a back with a stone in the 220-350 range. I take a few passes sufficient to highlight any variations in the surface. If they appear significant (which is actually much of the time), I immediately drop back to a 100 grit Shapton. This is a very aggressive stone (which also wears quite quickely, I've used up 2/3rd of the thickness of mine already), which makes short work of getting a back flat and leaving all the remaining work to refining the scratch pattern. I then go to a 220 (Shapton or anything else), then go up to the 1000 Shapton (one of their best stones IMO), I also go to a 2000 but I suspect most won't bother because of expense, but it does shorten the time to achieve refinement on the higher grits.

For polishing I may use or Shapton 5000 but I like a 4000 Lee Valley (probably King, but I don't know) stone even better for backs. For larger blades, I have fewer "sticktion" problems with the Lee Valley stone and make better progress. I find the Shaptons in the 5000 -8000 range to be very touchy about just the right amount of water to avoid "sticktion" but still get reasonable cutting. I will follow the 4000-5000 with an 8000 (and again, I like my 8000 Lee Valley a bit better for blade flattening than the Shapton--but like the Shapton better for bevels). I then follow this on a Shapton 12000, which is also the stone I use to maintain the back. The Shapton 12000 has not been getting much press lately, but it is actually my favorite stone in the polishing range. I have fewer "sticktion" problems with it and it is the only one that I feel leaves a true mirror polish with the scratch pattern beginning to vanish under low magnification. Prior to obtaining this stone, I felt my Lee Valley 8000 stone did the best job obtaining this.

Re: Lyn's Blade Back Flattening Notes *LINK*

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Hi,

"I like to flatten the entire back"

I'm curious about this. Can you elaborate on the benefits of flattening the entire back?

I tend to register as much of the chisel on the lower grits as the width of the stone will permit. As I move up in grit, I register less of the chisel. and as I get to polishing, probably only the last 1/2" and less.

I go up to my highest stone I have, a shapton 8,000 and stop there and I to have the "sticktion" problem at 8,000 (very annoying).

I beleive the Shapton Pro series goes up to 30,000 grit. Is there any woodworking application/benefit in going beyond 12,000?

I'm quite happy with the performance level at 8,000 on plane irons and chisels, can you further explain any benefit in going higher?


Chisel backs

Re: Lyn's Blade Back Flattening Notes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Well, a computer I don't usually use just ate a reply (well, actually it just hung and required a restart) that I'd put a good chunk of time into, so now you just get the quick and dirty version.

Going in order:

Jonathan quoted me and asked:

"I like to flatten the entire back"

I'm curious about this. Can you elaborate on the benefits of flattening the entire back?

Lyn:

I like to flatten the entire back for three general reasons.

One, on bevel up blades, the back is the mating surface to the bedding, and I wish to achieve optimal contact between those two surfaces. Any variation from that sets up stresses and distortions in the blade. So, I make both surfaces flat.[This also applies to the face of bevel down plane blades]

Two, flattening the entire back allows for more registration area, more consistent pressure, and more even wear on waterstones.

Three, flattening the entire back makes it easier to maintain the blade in the future. I usually use a several strokes on a 12000 stone to end each bevel maintainence session. This removes the burr, helps compensate for back of bevel erosion, and helps further refine the back. Doing the entire back makes it easy to just slap down the blade on a waterstone and perform this maintanence quickly without having to worry about accumulating minor inconsistencies of geometry.

Jonathan:

I tend to register as much of the chisel on the lower grits as the width of the stone will permit. As I move up in grit, I register less of the chisel. and as I get to polishing, probably only the last 1/2" and less.

Lyn:

You present a techique often employed and found successful by many. At the same time, you illustrate why I like to do the entire back. Not doing the entire back forces one to engage in this stepwise reduction in registration area to avoid introducing unplanned backbevels due to accidentally registering against the step instead the flattened area. I've seen dozens of examples of this occuring, even by quite experienced sharpeners. You also reduce the registration area and make for less consistent contact with the waterstone surface, requiring earlier flattening and inaccuracies. This technique makes it much easier to dub a corner, generate convexities and apply differential pressure along the outer edges of the blade.

Jonathan:

I go up to my highest stone I have, a shapton 8,000 and stop there and I to have the "sticktion" problem at 8,000 (very annoying).

Lyn:

Yes, I have sticktion problems with ethe finer Shaptons as well.

Jonathan:

I beleive the Shapton Pro series goes up to 30,000 grit. Is there any woodworking application/benefit in going beyond 12,000?

I'm quite happy with the performance level at 8,000 on plane irons and chisels, can you further explain any benefit in going higher?

Lyn:

Well, until recently, we didn't have the opportunity to go any higher with waterstones, and the 8000 waterstones offered some of the most refined scratch pattersn available. But yes, I do believe for some woods and some tools, going beyond 8000 is desirable.

First, 8000 really isn't that small in micron terms, coming in somewhere around 2-3 microns. Compare this to the .3-.5 micron papers and honing compounds that many of use. There is not much point in going to .5 micron on the bevel if the back is going to be left at 3 microns. Now one of the problems is that abrasivs are only nominally a given number, but in actuality the particles range over a fairly wide size both above and below the target size. The finer you go, the finer the largest allowable particle size tends to be.

Both microscopically (actually a hand lense) and by surface finish, I have found surface improvements with edges that were brought to a less than 1 micron level of scratch refinement. Finer edges are also more long lasting edges (see my article on sharpening for woodturners found here

http://www.fholder.com/Woodturning/lyn.html

for an explanation.

There is much more to say (and, alas, I wrote most of it once before the computer took offense), but I'm out of time right now. Feel free to ask me to follow up in specific areas and I'll at least offer my viewpoint on the specifics.

Re: Lyn's Blade Back Flattening Notes

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Hi Lyn,

I'm sorry to hear that the longer version didn't make it. You have a way of speaking that I find easy to understand, and belive me the effort does not go unappreciated.

I do have a few questions:

Lyn:

the back is the mating surface to the bedding, and I wish to achieve optimal contact between those two surfaces. Any variation from that sets up stresses and distortions in the blade

Me:

Is this still a consideration with thicker plane irons? Maybe this is partly why I like L-N irons so much, they aren't cheap, but they are reasonably flat. I also like their new chipbreakers. The pressure applied by the levercap would appear to be more evenly applied/dispersed than on a standard chip breaker. I also find that with older irons the irons are bent creating a gap with the frog bed. A few strategic blows with a hammer will straighten this out. Overtightening of the lever cap screw can't help matters much either.

Lyn:

flattening the entire back allows for more registration area, more consistent pressure, and more even wear on waterstones.

Me:

My stones average 2 3/4" to 3" wide. I looked into the Hippo stones but they are prohibitively expensive. How do you go about registering the entire chisel or plane blade backs on your stones? One of the reasons I stay to the edge of the stone for backs is that the middle tends to wear faster and the sides *seem* to be flatter. Also, The area of the back of the blade that seems to count most for flatness and scratch is at the very edge where the bevel meets the back. The rest of the back would appear to get polished in due time through repeated sharpenings, even though the back will never touch a lower grit stone again.

Lyn:

You present a techique often employed and found successful by many. At the same time, you illustrate why I like to do the entire back. Not doing the entire back forces one to engage in this stepwise reduction in registration area to avoid introducing unplanned backbevels due to accidentally registering against the step instead the flattened area. I've seen dozens of examples of this occuring, even by quite experienced sharpeners. You also reduce the registration area and make for less consistent contact with the waterstone surface, requiring earlier flattening and inaccuracies. This technique makes it much easier to dub a corner, generate convexities and apply differential pressure along the outer edges of the blade

Me:

This does indeed require a "feel" when holding the tool. If holding the blade or chisel in your left hand, you certainly can't push down to hard or lift to much. I tend to let my right hand do most of the work, while my left is lightly supporting the tool, but this does get harder as there is less tool registered on the stone.

I'l stop here and leave stone grits for another day

Thanks

Jonathan

Re: Lyn's Blade Back Flattening Notes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Sorry for the delay, I've finally found some time to continue this. Picking up where things left off:

Lyn 1:

the back is the mating surface to the bedding, and I wish to achieve optimal contact between those two surfaces. Any variation from that sets up stresses and distortions in the blade

Me:

Is this still a consideration with thicker plane irons? Maybe this is partly why I like L-N irons so much, they aren't cheap, but they are reasonably flat. I also like their new chipbreakers. The pressure applied by the levercap would appear to be more evenly applied/dispersed than on a standard chip breaker. I also find that with older irons the irons are bent creating a gap with the frog bed. A few strategic blows with a hammer will straighten this out. Overtightening of the lever cap screw can't help matters much either.

Lyn's reply: I too like thicker blades, though beyond a certain point, I think they are deleterious on a bevel down blade, moving the cutting edge too far away from the bedding surface. A good fit to a chip breaker relies on two coplanar surfaces mating. That means, to me, that you want the mating edge of the chip breaker to be linear and in the same plane as the back of the blade, and you want the back of the blade to be flat to achieve its part of the optimal interface to the chipbreaker as well as its contribution to the edge. But the face of bvel down planes may be important too (I think so, but I can't say that I can prove so), to achieve the optimal mating with the frog. You don't hear of folks flattening faces of bevel down blades very often, but I do.

For bevel up blades the face isn't as important (though you still want a good interface with the lever cap) but the back contributes both to the edge and to the mating surface of the bed. Thus I flatten the entire back. Again, I may be overly cautious here, but without some scientific evidence it isn't necessary, it is worth my time to deal with all possible factors that might contribute to improved performance.

Jonathan:

My stones average 2 3/4" to 3" wide. I looked into the Hippo stones but they are prohibitively expensive. How do you go about registering the entire chisel or plane blade backs on your stones? One of the reasons I stay to the edge of the stone for backs is that the middle tends to wear faster and the sides *seem* to be flatter. Also, The area of the back of the blade that seems to count most for flatness and scratch is at the very edge where the bevel meets the back. The rest of the back would appear to get polished in due time through repeated sharpenings, even though the back will never touch a lower grit stone again.

Lyn's reply: I mostly use Shapton Pro's, though it greaves me that they have such controlled distribution and thus are overpriced IMO. The are big enought to allow the entire surface of all my blades to be lay flat on top of them (including my #8 blades). The only thing that won't fit are the 112 blades, but then scraper blades are a different issue.

Yes, of course with respect to refinement of the scratch pattern that forms the edge, you don't need more than the slightest fraction of an inch on both sides of the edge. But the scratch pattern is only part of the issue. There is also the issue of obtaining and maintaing proper geometry and the ease with which that can be done. I find it much easier to maintain a flat back all the way along the edge if I flatten the entire back and use that entire surface against the waterstone for future sharpenings. Its just easier for me, and yes frankly I find it aesthetically more appealing as well. I don't fault others if they can and choose to maintain a smaller area of the back, it's just not the most successfully and easy method for me.

Lyn 1:

You present a techique often employed and found successful by many. At the same time, you illustrate why I like to do the entire back. Not doing the entire back forces one to engage in this stepwise reduction in registration area to avoid introducing unplanned backbevels due to accidentally registering against the step instead the flattened area. I've seen dozens of examples of this occuring, even by quite experienced sharpeners. You also reduce the registration area and make for less consistent contact with the waterstone surface, requiring earlier flattening and inaccuracies. This technique makes it much easier to dub a corner, generate convexities and apply differential pressure along the outer edges of the blade

Me:

This does indeed require a "feel" when holding the tool. If holding the blade or chisel in your left hand, you certainly can't push down to hard or lift to much. I tend to let my right hand do most of the work, while my left is lightly supporting the tool, but this does get harder as there is less tool registered on the stone.

Lyn's reply: You illustrate why I am not fond of this procedure as it require too much user technique to insure proper registration and a successful edge. Obviously one can master the techinque, as you likely have done, but I prefer the all flat back because it reduces the need for technique and makes human error less likely. I'm not opposed to mastering the skills for many techiques but sharpening isn't the area where I care to invest the time. But we all have our own priorities of what we'd like to master, and your efforts seems as well placed here as any.

Seriously, I'm not trying to impose my approach to flattening backs on anyone else. I have given thought to what procedure seems best to me, and have a rationale for it. But I am sure that other procedures have worked for others before me, and continue to work for others now.