Translucent vs Lily White Stones

Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones

joel

>Translucent arkansas stones are a top grade of arkansas stone. Lily white was a norton trademark

for a washita stone. I don't know exactly what it is as I have never seen one in the flesh (so to speak) and they are no longer sold.

Attached is a section from a page from a Norton booklen - How TO Sharpen from I think the 1920's.

Queer Creek stones are still available. It is a coarser stone than a translucent.

at the time of the booklet a norton HB8 (2x1x8) was $8.00. The Lilywhite LB8 of the same size was 1.35

Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones

Todd O. Cronkhite Native of Maine

>OK then,if I understand correctly Lily White is merely a grade of the Washita grit stones. since we're on the subject Washita is sofer and coarser than the Soft Arkansas grits, the next in line is the Hard Arkansas, which is usually black right?, and then the translucent.

Some times you hear of Arkansas stones being pink in color, where do they fit into the line of Arkansas stones?

Thanks for getting me straightened out on the Lily White question Joel, at least I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Todd O.

Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones

joel

>Lily White is a Norton Trademark of a grade of Washita. (at least that's what I infer from the booklet)

Washita stone is a form of Arkansas stone. They are all forms of Noviculite.

Norton for most of it's life defined White arkansas stone

the same as "Hard Translucent" because depending on when and where it comes out of the mine it may be translucent, white, black, pink or any combination. Some people consider black arkansas stone finer than any other. It depends. Some of it actually depends on how the stone is finished at the mine and it is my opinion that they all wear and end up cutting about the same. with my eyes closes and feeling the stone I can't tell the difference. but I might be wrong.

I do know that if you bought an HB8 in the 1940's it would be white. in the 1980's translucent, now, usuaully white - however Norton has changed their grading system and is selling the black seperately. My own personal stone is from the 1980,s is translucent with black and pink strips. THe stone we have in the multistone in the office is from now and is white with pink highlites (very pretty). They all seem to work about the same after they wear in.

The reason for the confusion is that there is no standard between the makers and what passes for hard from norton (not hard translucent) might pass for a higher grade of stone from another company. Part of the problem oilstones face today is that in the 1980's a few mass market woodworking companies were taking stones from lesser makers and passing them off as top grade stones. The reason was cost and HB8 is currently I think at $109.

Norton found out it could get better yield from their stones if they sliced them thinner and wider (don't ask me why) so they finally have a lower priced alternative. but in the 1980's none of the major WW retailers carried top notch oilstones and the expense of the really top notch stones opened the door for Japanese waterstones.

Sleep tight.

another reason for their demise

Bill Tindall, E. TN

>The ARK stones are quartz which has a hardness of a mere 7-7.5, which is orders of magnitude softer than even aluminum oxide which is still yet softer than silicon carbide. Compared to Waterstones(aluminium oxide as I understand them) or synthetic abrasives, Arkansas stones will wear away hard tool steels at geologically slow rates of errosion. Modern synthetic abrasives became more effective and cheaper to buy and use. It is doubtful that many would use ARK stones today if they were 1/10 the price. It's been a long time since I have had mine out of the box.

Re: another reason for their demise

joel

>I hollow grind and sharpen A2 blades on my arkansas stones very easily. I had thought it would be a problem but it turned out it isn't. Arkansas stones mostly work by gently working the wire edge back and forth until it cleanly and sharply breaks off. the crystals of the stone are rounded with wear and they don't need to cut like a waterstone. It's slower but I get a very sweet edge with little or no stone maintenacne

(I use everything depending on mood).

IIRC Pop Wood has a comparison test - their waterstone guy compared edges with an edge produced by a oilstone guy. Dead heat.

For carving tools I can't think of any more convineint technology.

White v. black stones

Jim Cosgrove

>I think that you're right on the mark when you say that the color of the stone is of limited value in determining its fineness. I have a Norton HB8 (milky/translucentish white) that I use for carving tools. My friend bought a "surgical black" stone (not Norton) from Woodcraft. Although I had heard that black was supposed to be finer than white, when I tried his stone I found that it was coarser than mine.

question

Bill Tindall, E. TN

>Is it possible that the very fine ARK stones are burnishing the edge more than abrading it (or is that was you were saying?)? I think at a Rc hardness in the low 60's that the steel is approaching the hardness of the rock so that abrasion seems less likely, or at least way less aggressive.

I have a cousin who has a love affair with his "been in the family"classical Washita(sp?) stone and at the same time complains that his Russel Rc 60 knife is too hard to sharpen (with it). It seems to me that as steel for tools has gotten harder and tougher that classical approaches to sharpening are no longer the fastest and least costly. Perhaps unfairly I have relegated ARK stones in the same catagory as flint sand paper.

Of late I have been simply abrading the edge with ever finer grits until the wire edge gets so thin it "floats" away, usually at between 10 and 3 microns depending on toughness of steel. Seems quicker for me.

Sharpening philosophy- for speed I am tending toward non-jig sharpening. The more strokes it takes me to produce a wire edge or remove the scratches from a previous grit, the less likely I can maintain the same bevel angle. Hence, I am gravitating toward ever increasingly aggressive (harder/sharper)abrasives that do the job in a few strokes.

Re: question and digression

joel

>When you include the time needed to maintain the stones I don't think there is any difference in time spent - arkansas stones seem in that sense to be overall less work.

The basic view of sharpening with sharp micro abrasives is as you say. With oilstones you first create a wire edge with something coarse. A medium india for example. Then the arkansas - which abrades only a little bends the metal back and forth till it breaks.

In both systems you end up with the same thing but with sharp abrasive (waterstones, sandpaper) as you are wearing away the wire edge you are creating more of it. With arkansas stones the same thing happens only slower.

In the way I was taught after you finish getting rid of the wire edge - that is you can't feel it anymore you strop with a PLAIN, untreated strop - this gets rid of the last bits of the wire edge that we can't really feel. THe edge becomes to touch "sweeter" smother and lasts longer. And Sharper - it really works.

REcently I started doing this when using waterstones - after I had done with the 8K stone and I think I am getting sharper results. I hope for the same reason.

As for your cousins case - unless he has a way of creating the wire edge for sharping using a couarser stone trying to sharpen from start to finish on an Arkansas Stone seems to me a exercise in patience.

If I had to state what I think is the basic flaw with sharp abrasive systems is that I see too many mirror polished edges that still have a faint wire edge on them - and espceially with power sharpening - the steel seems to get consumed faster.

With Arkansas stones the basic flaw I see is that unless you practice good technique it's every easy to get to a situation where short-cuts give you a nice belly that is impossible to sharpen well.

By free hand sharpening with both systems you pick up a lot of speed and with waterstones espceially you even out the wear on the stone.

Also I think with free hand technique sharpening other items isn't such a problem.

THat all being said I don't think it matters which technology of sharpening one picks - they all work, with tradieoffs and compromises betweent them. The single more important thing in sharpening is understanding what a sharp edge is and having good, consistent technique (which is differnt than technology).

Re: another reason for their demise

Don Clark

>A couple of years ago Stephen Thomas posted a description of using a surface grinder to flatten some stones (on Badger Pond) I believe that he noted that normal abrasives worked fine until he tried his translucent stone. He had to switch to diamond wheels to get satisfactory results with the translucent.

I have never understood why this might be because everyone says that all Arkansas stones have the same makeup. The confusion to me is that Thomas was a very reliable person and he noted a substantial difference in the apparent hardness and/or abrasion resistance between translucent Arkansas stones and other oilstones, including black hard Arkansas.

I have a couple of small translucent stones and they do seem to cut better than the black stones or even soft Arkansas. Is it possible that there is something in their makeup that is different?

Don Clark

losts of wisdom in your post

Bill Tindall, E. TN

>

abrasion resistance and hardness

Bill Tindall, E. TN

>Abrasion resistance and hardness are not equivalent. The particles making up all ARK stones will be the same hardness as they are all silica, a relativey soft abrasive. Similarly, all aluminium oxide grinding wheels contain grits of the same hardness. However, grinding wheels differ greatly in their abrasion resistance (how fast they wear) because how fast they wear depends on how well the particles are held together and is less dependent on how hard they are. I am speculating, but I suspect this same principle is responsible for the differences in wear rate (abrasion resistance) of ARK stones. The fine ones likely have a finer well bonded grain structure.

Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones

David Miller from Iowa

>OK, I am actually a geologist, with a couple degrees to prove it. Frankly, I can�t weigh in on this discussion because I always have used synthetics to sharpen. This thread has a lot of reliable rationale about these various features of Arkansas stone (hardness, porosity, etc.) and I take no issue with any of this.

However, for the less than 5% of you who are interested, the geology of the Arkansas stone is really quite interesting. In the Paleozoic Era (covers a long time but say 300 million years ago) a mountain range called �Llanoria� was created, which in turn was eroded to the sea. The beach deposits contained a very well sorted; fine grained quartz crystals (not unlike ocean beaches today). Then they were buried, recrystallized and now show up in a fairly small geographic area around Hot Springs. The geologic name of these outcrops is novaculite, based upon some Latin word for �razor stone� � although I�m not even sure they had razors when Latin was in regular use.

For much of our country�s history, this was the premier whetstone available. Native Americans traded it widely, and those $400,000 dressers from 1790s Boston you see on Antiques Roadshow were probably made with tools honed by Arkansas stone.

FWIW, Arkansas stones have a place in our woodworking lore, even if we choose not to use them today.

Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones

Todd O. Cronkhite Native of Maine

>I found that to be quite interesting David. Thanks. It it a source of no end of fasination to be how this planet has produced such marvolous things such as diamonds and obsidian just to mention a few of the zillions of marvolous things created by nature. When I see a stalk of corn it never ceases to amaze how such a giant thing comes from such a small seed, not to mention that it reprodues its own seed 1000's of times per stalk. Some folks have called me simple minded for wondering about, and being fascinated by such things, but I don't care. I feel sorry for those who don't.

Todd O.

Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones

Dan Donaldson

>Or look at the seeds in a giant sunflower. They are arranged in multiple spirals that are related to the golden section.

Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones *LINK*

David Miller from Iowa

>Thanks Dan - a bit of a jump, but coincidentally another thing that interests me


Mathematical Patterns in Plants

OT Re: Translucent vs Lily White Stones

Dan Donaldson

>Yes, it is interesting. Nature is amazing in both its simplicity and its complexity. Another interesting area is fractals.

Also, is it not interesting that we started off talking about sharpening stones ;-)

Re: Translucent Stones

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>Maybe this has something to do with why they call it novaculite?

This is a fossil, of a razor clam or some similar bivalve, I think, that is in the back side of my translucent Arkansas stone.

A highly treasured tool, I can assure you. The guy I got it from thought maybe it was a mark left by adhesive used to glue it into the cedar box it came in :^) Even the best of them sometimes get it wrong.

one of the less than 5%

joel

>When you say that "Native Americans traded it widely" do you mean that they traded locally found bits of novaculite, actually traded bits of novaculite found in Arkansas thoughout the country, or actually mined the stuff and traded it?

My understanding is that "Arkansas stones" didn't become widely known or commercially exploited until after the 1840's. I would guess that part of the problem would have been the stuff is very hard to mine and shape.

Various regional honing slates were certainly common in the pre-1840 period. And prized. Also it was common for someone to look around the area for a stone that could be used as a honing stone.

I can't lay my hand on any colonial shop inventories at the moment (I can't find half the books I need at any given moment) but off hand I don't recall seeing any references to Arkansas stones from that time. I do know that Holtzapffel in the early edition of volume 3 (1849?) mentions Washita stones but isn't impressed. But by the later edition (1870 something) he trumpets the praises of Arkansas stones. Now he is in England not in the US but certainly once Arkansas stones hit the UK in any quantity in the 1870's they drove out the Cherney Forest stones so any famous American stone should have been better known in the UK early on.

My main question is your source of info and any documentation of commerical trade in the stones before 1840 and before 1800. Or were the stones just local examples of novaculite that were found. It's a most interesting subject that also says a lot about colonial trade and I would love to find out more sources on the subject.

Re: Translucent Stones

joel

>Wow - I'm impressed - no that's the wrong thing to say - this is better

"It's obviously defective. However would you like to get rid of it."

note:

Could you send me a higher res scan.

Questions

Bill Tindall, E. TN

>Do you know if the stones are composed of cemented grains or was the original material redissolved and redeposited?

Are the stones crystalline or amorphous?

Tough crowd *LINK*

David Miller from Iowa

>Man, I thought I could flash some credentials and walk scott free. Here's a link


http://www.state.ar.us/agc/novaculi.htm

Re: abrasion resistance and hardness *LINK*

Jim Brown

>I guess I'm surprised no one has gotten into a particle size discussion. Per Steve Bottorff's chart, the washita through the hard arkansas were near equivalent to a 600 grit waterstone & 2000 grit waterstone respectively based upon particle size. The material hardness & binding agent would seem to affect the speed of sharpening and wear of the stone but the particle size would indicate the degree of sharpness you could expect. He found the surgical black's to be a little finer grit than the hard arkansas but he didn't give data on the translucent. I suspect the translucent is a little harder to pin down due to differences in today's limited sources. Sellers are today selling translucents but I suspect these aren't the same quality as those called translucents 80-90 years ago.


grit size chart

Re: Novaculate Fossil Micrograph

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>As you know, I sent you a scan of a small detail of the intricacies of the shell. Instead of e-mailing the original scan at 600 dpi and no compression, because it is almost 4 megabytes, I uploaded it here:

http://members.aol.com/williamcohansey/razorclam600.jpg

...for your perusal. I figured I shouldn't insert the HTML code here to automatically fetch it, because even with a DSL link, it takes several minutes for me to fetch and display the whole thing, and a lot of viewers of this forum would be perturbed with the bandwidth it would take them to view something that only a bivalve paleontologist could love. I am definitely not one of those. What little I could find on the web while researching this subject last year was not much help. I couldn't even find out whether or not described razor clams of Devonian or Mississippian age were of the same genera as those that are living today. My very paltry understanding is that the old ones were similar to species that are still alive today.

BTW, my quip about the origin of the name "novaculite" has no basis in any fact I have been able to find. I think it is just a coincidence that I found a razor clam in a razor stone. Then, again, maybe it's a mussel?

What look like rows of serated teeth are artifacts of the fracture mode of the novaculite. As noted in the reference David provided, it typically breaks with a smooth conchoidal (shell-like) fracture

Re: Novaculate Fossil Micrograph *LINK*

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>On the off chance you haven't come across this, here's a bit about Coon Creek (90 miles east of Memphis) bivalve fossils. This is a pdf.

Pam


Coon Creek Fossils pdf