I had wanted to add this to my original post, but for some reason, I can not edit my own posts... Maybe a mod can merge the posts? Maybe I can move it up later if I get that ability back.
Here is the data from Komitadjie combined with the data I had presented earlier. The graph does not reflect Spyderco or DMT since neither has a way of being quantified (and besides, DMT uses microns for their ratings to begin with). The important thing to remember is that how far left/right you are on the graph is irrelevant, it's the micron rating that should matter. A 3 micron edge (JIS 4,000; FEPA-F 1,200; Trizact 3; American Standard 8,000) should be a 3 micron edge all the way across. Now we know this isn't necessarily true, but this is how the data falls out.
I just found that WEPS (wicked edge) uses ANSI, so those should be the same, and WEPS should be removed from the graph... but who has the time? Maybe later.
What other graphs would we find useful? This question extends beyond the micron graph, and to other things. I have a couple things in mind, but am having trouble getting them on paper...
Thanks for the graph. I have been using a rough estimation formula and this graph is great!
I know I am a pain but I love CBN!
I get how the graph works, but what is the purpose again?
I sure don't follow the Trizact and NORax data. For the Trizact, 200-grit is 200u, and 3-grit is 2u...(?).
All your Dorkos are belong to me!
I am with you on the Trizact and NORaX, neither seem to be widely used, or particularly well thought out, but as long as I had the data available, I figured I would throw it in.
It may be useful to have a table of different manufacturers of stones/pastes/films and the scale that they use. That way when referencing the chart everyone knows they are on the same page.
Got it! Thanks! Is there a way to perhaps make it less congested? (sorry to bug you so much) I think the chart has an interesting approach, and compliments Komit's chart nicely.
As for the congestion, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe by turning each series into a best fit line, and eliminating the ones that don't make sense/aren't used much (Trizact, NORaX, WEPS [especially since WEPS is just using the ANSI scale anyway]) it may help reduce the clutter. If there are some that are grouped really tightly, just call them the same, give them one line and call them all out... I will get around to it, just maybe not today.
Well, I finally got around to it! Here is the latest graph. I took a lot of the clutter out by showing ONLY the trendline, and lumping together lines that were very close to each other.
American Standard / FEPA-P were right on top of each other
JIS / Shapton / Chosera were all very close (makes sense, Shapton and Chosera use the JIS scale...)
ANSI / CAMI were very close
FEPA-F / EP-Stock were very close
That's quite a range between these scales. At 10,000 grit, particle size ranges from ~0.13u to 2u! At 1,000 grit, 3u to ~20u....
All your Dorkos are belong to me!
It kind of makes "grit" seem pointless without stating which scale you are using, doesn't it?
It would be nice to get a list of hone manufacturers and list them under one of the four grit rating systems above. That way, when someone is buying one King, one Norton, and one Shapton, they will have a better idea where everything falls.
Along with the binder being part of the story - the friability of the abrasive, and the density of the abrasive in the binder also play into the results.
Aluminum oxide, diamonds, and quartz all cut and polish differently. Diamonds can be poly or mono crystalline - more differences to contend with.
Also - a 1k stone has abrasive particles with a 'mean' dimension that corresponds to the 'grit' or JIS rating... but not all the particles will be that size; some will be larger, others smaller... this too adds to the personality of the stone.
Some natural stones - the abrasve particles break down continuously, and in that process they create a polishing slurry on which the bevel rides.. scratches get polished out from this slurry-wash and the edge takes on another dimension yet again.
The particle size of a translucent Arkansas stone is roughly 10 microns... JIS 1.5k... comparing grit here is futile also.
I've been known to post here/there about following a Norton 8k with a Naniwa 8k.. the Naniwa 8k is a finer stone than the Norton... I would rate the Norton 8k to be nearly the same as Naniwa SS 5k - this is based on performance, not grit assignments. I have no idea what the 'grit' or JIS rating is for either.
The SS 8k did improve the Norton 8k edge in all regards for me.
Last edited by Gamma; 10-05-2011 at 08:17 PM.
JIS 5K ~ 3 microns
American Standard 8K ~ 3 microns
JIS 8K ~ 1.7 microns
American Standard 12K ~ 1.7 microns
So yes, going from Norton 8K to Naniwa 8K is like going to a 12K American Standard Stone. This is based on micron ratings, not grit assessments. The point of this chart is that you get a finer finish with a smaller micron rating. Thus you can pick out stones that make more sense together. (Buying a Naniwa 5K to bridge the gap between a Norton 1K and Norton 8K would be kind of futile, as would buying a Norton 8K to bridge the gap between a Naniwa 5K and 12K.) The thought is that if you can convert everything back to microns, you can start to intuitively see what stone will leave a finer edge.
Norton is rated on the Japanese scale FWIW....
You might find this thread enlighting.
I am not sure what is supposed to be enlightening in the thread you link to. I see a lot of people saying that mixing the Nortons and Naniwas doesn't work for one reason or another, but the combos that I see not working suggest different grit systems. They also argue subjective matters like how the razor feels after honing (actually, I say subjective, but it is the real end goal, isn't it?). The only thing I see that didn't fit was the Spyderco Ultra Fine example. (Correct me if I missed something)
Spyderco Ultra Fine is a VERY special case. They use a ceramic (Hardness 9) and Al2O3 (synthetic ruby, also Hardness 9). The Al2O3 is quite large, 7-15 microns (average 10 microns, thus the 2,000 grit American Standard rating that Spyderco will quote). This unique combination means that when it is lapped flat, those large particles are also lapped flat, meaning they work differently than any other hone I have seen referenced. They cut and then abrade the surface of the steel being sharpened, and really don't compare to traditional whetstones. If it seems like I am pulling this out of my shoe, check out THIS thread. You can see a picture of the UF's surface, and see just how it cuts (also see how a 5K and 10K water stone cuts). This thread is the entire reason I considered getting a natural finishing stone (and keeping it cheap, I got a Chinese Natural!).
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be difficult. If there is something I am missing let me know. I really try to take in all the evidence, and not pass judgement. It seems that hones (along with many other things) are not as easy as they could be. This graph is trying to help new members figure out how things work, and attempts to cut down on the hours of reading a person has to do to figure out where things fit into the grand scheme of things.
Very nice! Thanks for making that up! I just ordered lapping film in various grades from 45u down to 0.3u and this will be my first foray into honing with lapping film. I just wanted a rough idea of what stone equivelant I had in each grade of paper. This post clears it up nicely.
Banned for Life from "Over There"... TWICE!
Awesome! I have been wondering about this!
Sorry for the late bump, just wanted to say - nice graph; EP-stock is close to FEPA-F because Edge Pro stones come from Boride Abrasives, who uses FEPA-F; and Norton does not appear to use JIS. Here is a pdf with a 2004 copyright that shows the error http://www.nortonconsumer.com/upload...ms%20Flyer.pdf Any Norton employee looking at that would see that the column says JIS and say as much in an email (which I have not seen, so do not know exacty what it says), but anyone who knows the difference knows that 4K JIS is 3 micron and 8K JIS is 1.2, +/-. Either there a a couple of big errors in placement of the stones, or this old American abrasives company is using the American standard for mesh grit rating. One way or another, they should have fixed it after seven years, or taken down the link.