Spyderco ceramic hones

[captaincaed]

Medium: water (398 - 117): ?g / 281 g water displaced = too absorbent, need to let it dry
Fine: water (473 - 120): 484g / 353 g water displaced = 1.37 g / ml
UF: water (439 - 105): 457g / 335 g water displaced = 1.31 g / ml

So I don’t see evidence that the UF is denser than the Fine. Seems within the range of random scatter. I’ll check the Medium when it dries out. For context, being off by 0.05 g/ml is the difference of mis-measuring water displacement by 1g, the finest my scale goes, and that number floats around as you try to measure, so being off by that much is human error.

 

[Mr Kooby Shemayrew]

Are your F and UF the same color?

I believe the Spyderco stones have had a few revisions over the years.

Something is off with your numbers. Specific gravity should be in the area of 2.3 to 3.0-ish for those stones.

 

[captaincaed]

Yep, both Fine and UF are snow white. The Medium is dark grey.

 

[JPO]

I have the mini version. I.e. the Double stuff.
If someone is able to flatten a full sized stone they deserve a medal

The fine side have been flattened to some extent using a fine diamond plate. There are still some local low spots remaining.
It has also been used hard with knifes. So, the surface is starting to develop some reflective areas.
The stone loads up fast in use, and is a pain to clean.
My main focus was to get the edges rounded enough to be able to test it with a razor.
I am not sure how and when I would use it.
Maybe I could use it dry, and maybe just do a few stokes before a shave to see if it bumped up the edge a little.

 

[captaincaed]

Ok I think I goofed the math. The calculation is submerged mass divided by suspended mass?

Medium : 398/117=3.40g/ml
Fine : 473/120 = 3.94g/ml
UF : 439/105 = 4.18g/ml

 

[Gamma]

That actually sort of aligns with what that random post on the internet was claiming.

 

[Mr Kooby Shemayrew]

The stone loads up fast in use, and is a pain to clean.


View attachment 1741213

Yep. Load up and cleaning is a problem. I’ve found that Bar Keepers Friend with some form of scratch pad works well for cleaning. Anything else is basically a nightmare.

If anyone has any suggestions for preventing load up and other cleaning options, they would be appreciated.

I wonder if oil or glycerin would help?

 

[sexy beast]

Yep. Load up and cleaning is a problem. I’ve found that Bar Keepers Friend with some form of scratch pad works well for cleaning. Anything else is basically a nightmare.

If anyone has any suggestions for preventing load up and other cleaning options, they would be appreciated.

I wonder if oil or glycerin would help?

You might want to try dawn dish soap and water. I use it on my Arkansas and coticules most of time.

 

[thp001]

Yep. Load up and cleaning is a problem. I’ve found that Bar Keepers Friend with some form of scratch pad works well for cleaning. Anything else is basically a nightmare.

If anyone has any suggestions for preventing load up and other cleaning options, they would be appreciated.

I wonder if oil or glycerin would help?

All abrasives perform better and last longer using some kind of lubricant. Ceramics load very easily when used dry, I don’t want the edge of my razor riding over embedded swarf. The advice from Spyderco and other ceramic makers (Idahone, Norton) to use these types of abrasives dry had never made any sense to me.

 

[Gamma]

I've always used BKF to clean ceramics, works well.
If I do a lot of work on one dry it might have to be cleaned several times.
Same for a water stone that needs to be lapped to clear embedded swarf.

As a lubricant on ceramics and diamond plates I've used mineral oil and glycerine, soapy water, windex. Seems like every 'sharpener' out there needs to have their own special sauce for these things, most of all of it seems to work pretty similarly to me. Right now I only have one ceramic here but I do have several diamond plates... soap/water cleans up easy so that's a go-to for me. Windex and glycerine are never handy but I would use them if they were out on the counter. Oils are a last resort usually.

 

[captaincaed]

Ok I managed to get one of these suckers flat. RIP 2 diamond plates. At least most of it is flat. As much as I care to do. Lapped to 2k finish with SiC powder and it is sloooow. I haven't had much time to play with it but I'll take some photos tomorrow, and I think I may need to lap it a bit coarser since it may not be cutting enough to matter.

 

[Gamma]

I wonder what they lap them with at the factory.... and how they do it.

 

[Tanuki]

Yep. Load up and cleaning is a problem. I’ve found that Bar Keepers Friend with some form of scratch pad works well for cleaning. Anything else is basically a nightmare.

If anyone has any suggestions for preventing load up and other cleaning options, they would be appreciated.

I wonder if oil or glycerin would help?

I picked up a medium and a fine Spyderco 8x2 today, used. They are in wooden boxes, old school. Original Krud Kutter did a very good clean up job, much better than Dawn Ultra. I regularly use Krud Kutter as a honing fluid with diamond plates. I will be trying it with the Spyderco hones.

I might try some abrasive cleansers tomorrow, after a little knife sharpening.

 

[Legion]

I picked up a medium and a fine Spyderco 8x2 today, used. They are in wooden boxes, old school. Original Krud Kutter did a very good clean up job, much better than Dawn Ultra. I regularly use Krud Kutter as a honing fluid with diamond plates. I will be trying it with the Spyderco hones.

I might try some abrasive cleansers tomorrow, after a little knife sharpening.
View attachment 1748700

For the sharpmaker, which I assume use the same stuff for the hones, they recommend a scrubbing powder like barkeepers friend or Ajax to clean them up.

 

[Tanuki]

For the sharpmaker, which I assume use the same stuff for the hones, they recommend a scrubbing powder like barkeepers friend or Ajax to clean them up.

I have both and will try them out, tomorrow I hope.

 

[captaincaed]

I owed it to posterity to do these measurements properly, and in context.

I wasn’t square on the SG measurement method before. Archimedes did not give me a passing grade, but at least I can get things right in detention.

Here are the new measurements, in context with other Arks, against which we might judge them. All done at 61 F if anyone wants to be more precise about density (all water volume is assumed to be 1ml per 1g for these calculations).

In order of appearance:

Stone	Mass (g)	Water mass (g ~ml)	Density (g/ml)
Ark - butterscotch	352	132	2.67
Ark - long black	636	238	2.67
Ark - short black	844	320	2.64
Ark - trans	523	198	2.64
Ark - holstein	624	237	2.63
Washita - pink	123	54	2.28
Washita - unlabelled	552	244	2.26
Washita - #1	548	250	2.20
Washita - Lily White soft (1)	589	295	2.00
Washita - Lily White soft (2)	444	200	2.22
Spyderco - UF	457	122	3.75
Spyderco - F	479	130	3.68

Conclusion:
The SG difference between the two Spyderco stone equates to a 2g measurement error. I submit this is well within my own human error (especially considering my track record). I have no compelling evidence to doubt the product insert, and I submit these stones are the same, only with alternate surface preparation.

 

[Legion]

I owed it to posterity to do these measurements properly, and in context.

I wasn’t square on the SG measurement method before. Archimedes did not give me a passing grade, but at least I can get things right in detention.

Here are the new measurements, in context with other Arks, against which we might judge them. All done at 61 F if anyone wants to be more precise about density (all water volume is assumed to be 1ml per 1g for these calculations).

In order of appearance:

Stone	Mass (g)	Water mass (g ~ml)	Density (g/ml)
Ark - butterscotch	352	132	2.67
Ark - long black	636	238	2.67
Ark - short black	844	320	2.64
Ark - trans	523	198	2.64
Ark - holstein	624	237	2.63
Washita - pink	123	54	2.28
Washita - unlabelled	552	244	2.26
Washita - #1	548	250	2.20
Washita - Lily White soft (1)	589	295	2.00
Washita - Lily White soft (2)	444	200	2.22
Spyderco - UF	457	122	3.75
Spyderco - F	479	130	3.68

View attachment 1759638

Conclusion:
The SG difference between the two Spyderco stone equates to a 2g measurement error. I submit this is well within my own human error (especially considering my track record). I have no compelling evidence to doubt the product insert, and I submit these stones are the same, only with alternate surface preparation.

You were doing so well until you wrote 61 F.

C-

 

[captaincaed]

I don't follow. I'm sorry I'm not trying to be obtuse but if it's a gag I missed it.

 

[Legion]

I don't follow. I'm sorry I'm not trying to be obtuse but if it's a gag I missed it.

I believe what you meant was 16 C.

"C-. Has potential, needs to concentrate and stop talking at the back of the class."

You were doing so well on the metric, we were clapping! Then...

 

[captaincaed]

Ah! I've earned double detention! Too many beers and being distracted by YouTube. Fido ate my work, I attest it's true.

I blame the American engineer who only knew how to program my thermapen in freedom units. In my defense, Fahrenheit's gradations, if not the boundaries of his scale, are finer than the SI alternative. In every sense of the word.