[quote="mark76" post=11063]



The stone that I had problems with were the 5K Chosera stones. Also water stones that I follow a procedure quite like what you do. Unfortunately, it seems that hard enough material can become embedded and resist soaking,rinsing and, rubbing the stones together!




Yes... when I told Ken Schwartz about it... he laughed at me too... but it was more of a "that pretty tivial" kindo of laugh. Everything is relative I guess.





I kind of bastardized what apparently is already a bastardization of something Emerson purportedly said in the late 1880s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door" is a phrase attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson in the late nineteenth century.[1] [2] The phrase is actually a misquotation of the statement:
If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods.

—Ralph Waldo Emerson, [2]

In 1889, seven years after Emerson's death, came the invention of the current standard of mousetraps.[2] That same year Emerson was quoted as saying: ("pretty tough if he had been dead for 7 years ???")


If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap than his neighbor..."[2]

The phrase has turned into a metaphor about the power of innovation,[2] and is frequently taken literally, with more than 4,400 patents issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for new mousetraps, with thousands more unsuccessful applicants, making them the "most frequently invented device in U.S. history".[1]

Something that would be easy to clean would be good. Many of the rubbery covers that I have seen, such as those similar to what I think that Mark was talking about for a tablet cover, or the one I have on my phone, are dust a lint magnets... and a pain to clean.

mark76 wrote:


Stones are subject to contamination just as much as strops. More applicable to the finer stones, say 5K and up of course. I have had it happen, and it caused me a bunch of extra work. When I strive for scratch free finishes, it definitely becomes apparent! In my case it was my 5K Chosera stone(s). I even had a dialog with Clay and Tom about it. I was convinced the stone was bad. Some scrupulous lapping and cleaning took care of it. I would have been very happy to have a system to prevent the problem, however.

I had not thought much about stone protection either, but when this came up, I remembered knocking a chip or two out of one of my 10K Chosera stones. That will make one think about stone protection...
As of now, I have a system that does pretty well at not allowing contamination and does a good job at protecting the stones (other than when I have them in my hands... sigh).

If I could get a purpose built device that would work for both, it would make my life simpler. Simple is good.

I guess that, if perfection is not the goal, and we can write off those scratches that appear as being simply "uncovered", then stone protection is not important. OTH, if both were available, I have an idea that more than a few of us OCD folks would go for it.

I personally am not sure I have a preference for construction, as long as the device works well for what it is intended to do, is durable, and is not excessively expensive. Ease of use comes into play, of course, but is not as important to me as the first three criteria.

Build a better mousetrap, and they will come !

So, it depends on the material used, doesn't it?
Sure it does not have to be stiff, but if the material used is too stiff, and that is a property of the material selected, then closing both ends may not be practical.

all of those Kudos for helping to design the extension are now erased...
Broke the prototype ?????????????????

try to go out and buy powder...

depends on the material..
Doesn't it?
If it is hard with not much give... one could never flex it enough to snap around the ... any of the paddles.

What kind of material do you envision Geo??

What would you think about leaving one end closed off? That would give a bit more support on that end and maybe a bit more protection from contamination.

Razoredge wrote:


I was really not singling you out for any level of criticism. I simply have tried too many times to duplicate others findings... or feelings, to no avail. But then, we all perceive things somewhat differently. That doesn't mean one is correct and another incorrect. But it does mean that discussions about feelings are not easy to have. Of course, if someone asks for an opinion, then that is what they get. I just try to caution people to temper their expectations when subjective answers are what they get in response to a question. Leery may have conveyed more than I intended in this case, maybe cautious would have been a better term to use.

No offence intended, hopefully none taken.

Phil

(BTW, I "think" that I "feel" a difference in my results between using 0.5 micron Mono diamond, 0.5 CrOx, and 0.5 micron CBN on bench strops. I am not sure that I can say any one is better than the other, just different.)

I would think that they would have a good deal of utility for the Chosera stones.
I have dropped different grits on an occasion or two. When I dropped one of the 10K stones and knocked a corner off of it... Well that hurt my feelings. BTW, that was after I used it and was trying to get it into a Ziploc bag...

Not sure why that would be. The idea of Poly diamonds...from what I have read is that they stay "sharp" longer due to the way they break down. CBN is not as hard, but only a few tenths or so less on the MOHS scale. I mentioned this to Ken Schwartz one time... he replied that it was not enough that you would ever notice it.. except maybe on an industrial scale..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

If anything, analytically, the CBN should be a bit slower to abrade, and break down faster...

Maybe that is the key, the particles round off and slow down faster. In theory... with additional time, you may get more of a polish at a finer level then when using the poly diamonds..
All of that being said... my experience has been with CBN and Mono crystalline diamond sprays.
I use a progression that is indicated by strictly rated grit. I simply don't have any test sensitive enough to tell the difference between 0.125 CBN and 0.1 mono diamond. The only poly diamond spray that I have is at 0.025 microns. At that level, I wonder if results are as much wishful thinking as anything.
In any case, I have no CBN at that level to compare.

I would always be leery of those saying that they "think" or "feel" rather than that they have measurable repeatable results.

Maybe I am not enough of a purist or of a spray snob... or just out of touch with my ZEN ...
But it think the reality is, the vast majority of people sharpening would never notice any difference between like rated CBN and Mono or Poly diamonds (of the same reliably measured concentration).

If you want to continue to use your sandpaper to 5000 (I assume this is P5000)..
The next logical progression would be a set of 3K/5K. If you are just going for appearance.
For more utility, as in sharpness, edge refinement, and to get away from the sandpaper, maybe a 1K/3k.
I know that Bob has recommended 800/3K, but that seems a pretty big jump to me. I have not tried it though, so this is conjecture. You do have the ceramics, so going back to the Chosera 1K, after using the Ceramics, for refining the reflectivity of the edge should be sufficient. This should also reduce the amount of work you need to do at 3K.

The thing is, this is difficult, the answer as always could be "it depends". Maybe a set of 5K/10K would work after doing what you already are doing. For myself, I would have to just try it. The 5K/10K will also be the most expensive option. I can tell you that the "mirror" starts to really happen with the 10K Chosera.

I must say though, I use the 1K and 3K stones much more often that I do the 5K/10K. The latter are used only for maybe 20% of the knives that I sharpen. I would probably go with the former if I could buy just one set. You can always add the others down the road if you find your feet still sticking out of the rabbit hole ...


BTW

Keep in mind that P5000 paper is (should be if it is P5000) rated as having 5 micron abrasive. (where did you get P5000 paper??) The 3K Chosera is rated at 4 microns. Beyond that though, and maybe more important in your case (looking for "pretty") the chosera will give you more polish and certainly fewer left over scratches than any abrasive paper in that grit range.

BTW, when I first got my WEPS, I used sand papers and followed them by the 3M lapping films down to sub-micron grit. I got some nice edges, but it was a hassle. If you can get to where you are using just stones, it will make things much easier for you.

Having problems with the space bar... thumb is too slippery ... I am cold too...the dogs don't like me anymore...

Eamon said:



Of course, no offense taken. Just curious though, have you tried going from the 800 chosera to the 1200/1600 ceramics and directly comparing the results using just the 1K Chosera? They do say that everyone has an opinion on most subjects. I tend to pay more attention to those opinions that are based on good experimental data.

I think that had you done this comparison (which I have done on may occasions...as in a bunch ), you would see some very clear differences. The ceramic stones from WEPS have their place in certain progressions, and I use mine all of the time, but their effect on steel is quite different.. It simply is not possible to get the same effect with the ceramics as with the Chosera stones.

I would buy that you can get equivalent levels of sharpness, or maybe suitability for some cutting task... but not overall finish and scratch patterns!

Just my opinion...


Phil

Mark,
I mounted the extension in the stock vise and just left it there for the duration of the tests. In fact, it is still clamped securely into my stock vise.. I haven't moved it. Once it is clamped into the stock jaws, the rest of mounting and unmounting, or moving, of the blade is done with the screws on the extension.

Mark,
Tom knows these stones, I am not sure that you will find much better advice. Geo has been using the stones for awhile and seems to have come to the same conclusions that I have. Eamon made his decision and seems to be happy with his set. My personal experience tells me that, If I had to have just 4 grits, it would have to be the 800/1000 and the 3K/5K (though the 2K/5K would be be almost indistinguishable for most sharpeners).
If you can do it, even if it takes a while, I would try to get the whole set. I use the 400/600 set quite a bit. I also use my 10K on around 25% of the knives that I sharpen. It took me at least a year to buy the entire progression, but I am happy that I did. If you plan to do that, I would consider buying them mounted the way that clay sells them. This follows the logical progression through the grits and results in fewer paddle changes.

BTW the "Chosera 800/2K or 3K combo, and a 5K/10K" sounds intriguing, but I really like the 1K stone...
It would give you the best polish on the top end though... and keep your two polishers on the same handle.

Decisions, decisions...

First, clamping and unclamping is virtually identical to what we do with the current configuration. It is no harder than that. The only difference is that the extension has a fixed shoulder for setting the depth of the spine in the clamp. But it still uses the same two screw system. Clamp snug with the top screw and add additional clamping force as required with the bottom screw.

I clamped up a 210 mm Gyoto last night. I was easily able to get to 10 degrees. I can give it a shot at 9 tonight. I think it will do it. The lowest achievable angle is dependent on how much the blade extends from the top of the extension clamp.

If you can get the angle that you need, I don't see why you could not do the wide single bevel. As with any knife, just match the angle and go. Removing the burr from the flat side.... well that is something you would have to figure out. This new extension, as it is in the configuration that I have, will not get to a low enough angle to allow you to sharpen nearly as flat to the non-beveled side as you may want to do to keep the original configuration (pure single bevel). I suppose that you could do that part by hand.

Clay Said:


I have been thinking about the shelf that you mention. I think it has a definite benefit, but also some liabilities. Im sure that the depth key with two positions, or the option to not use it at all was likely concieved to address these liabilities. The single setting cannot be optimal for every blade, though it does give a depth that can be used for repeatability if the blade is shaped and dimensioned to allow its use.. For certain situations, such as the cleaver that I was playing with, it may not allow enough of the jaws to be available to angle a given blade enough to level it relative to the base, and still grip the blade sufficiently. Of course, with narrower blades, it is too deep to use at all. The scribing of the jaws, as in the current vise, can be used to work around this.

The FFG blade thing was interesting for me. Even with the blade clamped tight, I could move the edge back and forth substantially with pressure from the stones. Abit of chamois solved that nicely, not a big deal for me, as I already routinely use the same process for FFG blades in the stock jaws.

It is hard to design so that all eventualities are covered perfectly. I find that the current design, with longer rods, would cover the most common situations pretty well. Even in the days when I worked as a Systems Safety guy in Aerospace, some potential issues were either so improbable, or so expensive to fix, or both, that we just documented them, threw a caution in the procedures, or by a switch or valve, and flew it...

You know, I thought the same thing .. but it was last night when I was fully awake. I simply could not visualize what was being described... still can't, and I read the post about 8 times...



cbwx34 wrote: