Talk:Sharpening stone

How are artificial diamond stones made?

How are sharpening stones made. Add a paragraph someone.--68.94.165.196 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging Diamond plate and Whetstone (tool) to Sharpening stone

I put up the merge notices as they are all used for the same thing and this article has a good start on other types of stones. What do you all think? Luigizanasi 01:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose to be technically accurate, a diamond plate is not really a stone per se. However, if you think there's value in merging them, perhaps there might some common information that can be shared, I don't have a problem with it. No problem with whetstone as the way I understand it, the term is synonymous with oilstone. SilentC 22:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Merged. Zeimusu | Talk page 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of diamond plate related, I guess. Should it be mentioned that diamond is not for use in automatic applications for cutting/sharpening steel, like dremel tools and other abrasive/cutting processes? At the colder temperatures of hand sharpening it's fine, but as soon as you put it on a machine, the temperatures involved cause the diamond to react with and dissolve into the steel workpeice. - Toastydeath 04:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Diamond plate talk page

Image of Diamond plate requested. -Dr Haggis - Talk 20:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Added images of Diamond Plate and Waterstones. SilentC 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

the info on Japanese waterstones seems to be copied from external link

I don't know if this is plagiarism or not. Maybe this should be checked out

Check the copyright box above - third yellow box from the top. SilentC 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too - it looks like a word for word copy of the other site, but who knows which came first?

It looks like a word for word copy, because that is what it is - although some changes have been made since. It was contributed to Wikipedia by the author of the external link. That's why we have this big yellow notice at the top of the page:

"The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from [1]. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License, and evidence of this has been lodged with the Wikimedia PR department."

So hopefully we can all sleep easy tonight knowing that. SilentC 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Section Full of Error

The section is full of errors. For example: Belgian Coticule stones are not the best of the natural stones. Coticule stones come in qualities but the gold standard for natural honing stones is German green hones - which are no longer on the market. Arkansas stones are completely different than Charney Forest stones - the latter being a honing slate. (you can argue that some of the Japanese stones are much better but that I don't know about). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathison2006 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Other type of Diamond Plate

I searched for Diamond Plate because that's what I'm used to calling the metal sheets with diamond-shaped studs (Google Images) that are used on a lot of vehicles and in industrial areas for grip. Is there another name for these plates, and if so should we put a disambiguation message at the top of Sharpening stone? -- Mike Blackney 07:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Another name for that which is used here in Australia is checker plate (or sometimes chequer plate). Good point, not sure what the generic term for this stuff is. It really needs an article though to have a disambiguation link. SilentC 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In the catalogs I've seen them called diamond stones, diamond whetstones, diamond honing stones, and diamond bench stones. 2nr Tom 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

After spending several hours researching diamond honing/sharpening stone catalogs and FAQs, Wiki is the first and only place I've seen the misleading term; "diamond plate" used. Google here for example. The term also excludes the similar technology of "diamond rods" used to hone serrated knife edges and so forth. Suggest removing this inaccurate, rarely used term that actually means something else.
--69.110.90.145 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Use of Water and Oil Questioned

I disagree with the statement that "Lubrication aids the cutting action and carries away swarf" (under Whetstones and Oilstones). A dry stone will work more efficiently when it isn't lubricated. Also it has been proven that a superior edge can be gotten without oil and water because the slurry of loosened abrasive particles can damage an edge that is being sharpened by this method (see "The Razor Edge Book of Sharpening" by John Juranitch, p22, 1985, Warner Books, NY). Juranitch discovered this in his own practice of sharpening knives for meat packing plants and proved it with an electron microscope. The knives "that had been sharpened in oil had small chips knocked out of the cutting edge; the dry-sharpened blades did not." 2nr Tom 08:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

--69.151.63.187 (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) The lubricant keeps it from clogging up.

Oilstones

Most whetstones are lubricated by using various types of oils and water.
It is not particularly for the benefit of the iron but for the stone.
An iron being honed on a stone or other abrasive device creates particles of iron and abrasive which clog the pores of the stone and thus 'slows' down the process.
Perhaps a single iron being honed on a clean dry stone may produce a good edge but the condition of the stone will not be fit for another session without extensive and perhaps difficult cleaning.
Using a light oil provides a fast edge which is rabidly absorbed into the stone, and heavier oils are slower cutting but provides a more durable surface to suspend the debris.
Water is just another type of lubricant but requires the stone to be held in a special made water trough as a reservoir.

Geoff (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be both conflicting and missing info on water vs. oil at large. For example one supplier's FAQ said that one of their synthetic water stones and a synthetic oil stone both used the same abrasive, only the binder differed...but NOTHING more. (Huh? Can one type of binder fall apart?) Other FAQs seem to imply that in general, either oil or water may be used, while others seemingly merely obey the "wisdom" implied in the naming conventions: oil stone or water stone. Because of this confusion these questions should be emphasized and finalized if possible. (There seems to be agreement that diamond stones can be used dry or with water (and presumably with oil).)
Finally, the article seems to use "water stone" and "Japanese water stone" and "Japanese" interchangeably. This reasoning should be 1) explained better, and 2) the (newly popular?) non-Japanese (all-synthetic?) water stones acknowledged.
--69.110.90.145 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

There is a big difference between oilstones and waterstones, and it isn't about the lubricant used.

An oilstone is used with a lubricant. The stone is firm and flat, and this lubricant cools, lubricates and carries away waste from the workpiece. The lubricant is often oil, but water is commonly used too. A stone like this, used with water, is often called a whetstone (from "whetting", not from "wet").

A waterstone is quite different. The abrasive here is not the rigid stone, but rather a slurry of loose abrasive powder on the surface of the stone. This is usually produced by some initial working up of the surface of the stone, so as to make an autogeneous slurry from its own friable surface. This is done with the workpiece, or with a separate nagura stone. These stones are usually used with water, but can be used with light mineral oils too. The process also has similarities with honing, where a non autogeneous slurry (i.e. a powder abrasive added to a honing plate) is used.

Most oilstones can be used perfectly well with water. Very few waterstones are usable with oils, and then only with very light and non-oxidising oils. A waterstone used mistakenly with oil usually requires re-surfacing afterwards to repair it.

All stones lose their flatness over time, but this is much quicker with waterstones, owing to the production of the slurry, and so these have an obvious flattening process as part of their regular use. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nailed it! Good contrasting! Thanks! I hope you'll put that in the article, it could be the best in existence!
--69.110.90.145 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Scarsity of natural sharpening stones

The coticule website states they have enough reserves for at least another 100 years. This seems to contradict the first section about natural scharpening stone scarcity. The prices for their stones don't seem be so high either. [[1]]

Arkansas and Japanese stones are both rare and expensive now, but this depends on their grade. It's the hardest Arkansas and the sword polishing (not sharpening) stones that are becoming the most scarce. The quarries are still there and full of the lower-grade stone, but the limited areas for the high-grade are working out. Coticule are much less scarce, but they've never had quite the same esoteric high-quality grades and so particular outcrops have never been as crucial. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant Arkansas and Washita stones? They may well be available still but the new DMT Diamond and Ceramic stones are far more durable, stay flat and probably much faster?

Japanese stones are very good but need far too much preparation and maintenance.
Geoff (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless Arkansas has recently developed a sword-making tradition, I meant Japanese. Most Japanese stones are synthetic and pretty cheap, their natural stones are becoming rare and expensive, depending on grade. The low-grade Japanese stones (comparable to the coticules) are perhaps even rarer (but not sought after) as the quarries have been abandoned, owing to the low cost of the synthetics. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Knife blades are sometimes a measure for identification of stone types as shown in the web link below for the mineral hardness test. Are stones harder than knife blades usable for sharpening, if they can be used safely? http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/Minerals/hardness.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregs650 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Doubts about double sided coticule/BBW

I have never come accross one, and as far as I know there is only one facility making these whetstones, and what they say about it is this: "So we use black Brazilian or Portuguese natural schist as a base to glue the Coticule plates on. This way we have a sturdy whetstone that can handle several shocks!"

From here: http://www.straightrazorplace.com/forums/honing/27854-so-how-exactly-coticule-stones-we-all-love-so-much-produced.html

78.23.200.79 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are naturally occurring Coticule/BBW combination stones and there man made Coticule/BBW combination stones where a BBW layer was cemented to a Coticule layer. The use of schist is a practice that began with Ardennes-Coticule when Maurice Celis realized BBW possessed sharpening properties of its own.

Just a note I have both naturally occurring Coticule/BBW combination stones and man made combination stones in my collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.114.2 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Disadvantages of Oil stones

They need vast amount of oil because of absorption.

No 'Alternatives' section

Sandpaper should be mentioned as gaining popularity.--70.240.145.32 (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Waterstone image caption

Two Japanese waterstones

(from my talk:) Andy Dingley (talk)

About the waterstone pic there... I am not sure why you undid my change, " It is a box for the whetstone, not another waterstone". The pic does show a waterstone with a wooden casing, instead of two waterstones. Yogomove (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:Sharpening stone#Waterstone image caption Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasons why it's two waterstones, not one in a box

• Japanese waterstones aren't stored in boxes, they're stored underwater in a "pond" (a large bucket, kept full of water)
• This is two stones: On the left is a King brand 6000 grit, with its distinctive pale green colour (for the 6000 stone) and King's style of attached plastic base. The stone behind on the right is the "workhorse" stone, a thicker and double-sided 1200 (somewhere between 800-1200 grit) in the usual terracotta brown for stones of this grade.
• If you look closely, the 1200 behind has "1200" and a King logo printed on it, as is usual for stones.
• The stones are used in graded pairs like this, at least for woodworking. You don't get far sharpening directly on a 6000.
• The photo at Commons was originally captioned "two stones". Why does an editor years later know better than the photographer? Sometimes they do, there are caption mistakes at Commons, but it's not that common for something so obvious.
• Finally, "A Japanese waterstones, with its wooden casing" is ungrammatical. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My ignorance. Thank you. Yogomove (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)