The case for NOT using water on oil stones

[eKretz]

Hiya fellas,

I know there is always bantering and discussion regarding this subject and there are proponents for both methodologies. I have been doing an exhaustive amount of testing of stones for the last year or so in my spare time (bad back, can't work full time, so I have plenty of it), so I wanted to post an example of why some stones are in my opinion optimally used with oil. That isn't to say it's wrong to use water with them, just that they aren't likely doing what you think they are if you use water. Namely, cutting. When using water on many oil stones (Arks included) the mechanism of the honing process changes from abrasion to mostly burnishing. A stone that is coarsely prepped with a rough surface can still do some cutting, but not nearly as efficiently as with oil. A stone that is medium to finely surfaced will do barely any cutting at all on water or water with additives.

Here are three examples of stone surface post honing-test. All tests were identical. Same chisel, same stone, same surface prep (400 Atoma figure eight lapped). The test was 300 4" laps of the chisel on 3 separate honing lubricants with medium pressure. Here are the results:

First, using straight water as lubricant. Note the highly reflective surface - which started as a completely non-reflective matte surface:



Second, using the Smith's Honing Solution and a few drops of water that many proclaim "just as good" as oil if not better. Note again the quite increased reflectivity:



Last, good old oil used as a lubricant. It may not be easy to see, but the reflectivity looks nearly the same as when freshly lapped:



If that's not enough evidence to show that water and other additives such as soap, glycerin or Smith's Honing Solution aren't enough to prevent nearly instant stone glazing and lack of cutting ability, have a look at this:



As I'm sure you have quite easily guessed, these paper towels show the swarf wiped from the stone after the test. From left to right: water, Smith's with a few drops of water added, and oil.

I have provided the data from this test for your consideration; from here you can draw your own conclusions and do what you find works best for you. If that is using water with an oilstone, more power to you if it works for you. Myself, I will continue to use oil on my oilstones and water on my waterstones.

 

[rockviper]

Thanks for this. I've been lately using soapy water on my Ark (which follows my Norton 4/8k) , but based on this, oil might be better.

 

[Gamma]

Polisbing or burnishing is as much a property of the stone as it is the medium used. One branches over to the other but they have always been decidedly different things. The end result, on a hone or a gem, may appear to be the same thing but where burnishing makes the luster pop more. With the hardest arks, after extend but light work, there is a polishing. Hard work on an Ark, IME, yields a different surface that has a similar look but the working surface has a markedly lowered rare of efficacy. Neither surface has, for me, delivered text-book plastic deformation on any razor's edge. Although I do want to say that it's burnishing, Im not convinced it is.
I dont believe that any particulate comes up off a trans ark at any time with any medium. I e owned and used Arks for a very long time, the only real difference I see between water and oil as a honing medium (I used to use oil exclusively on them) is that with water I need a bit less pressure to achieve the same results. Presently, I use water with soap and that mimicks the effect from oil well enough.
An Ark polished through use is usually uneven and less desireable to me, I prefer to keep mine surfaced with 600x w/d and when I feel any unevenness I redress the stone. I have dressed then to 2k on w/d, which did bring ip the polish and it made the stone more reflective, it did not slow the stone down though. To me it seemed to be a waste of time. I can see a work-glazed Ark burnishing, almost exclusively, I just dont understand why anyone would be honing that way. Same for the ice hone. And that could be why I dont see burnishing - Im not seeing that in the photos either though. But pix have been known to lie by omission, so there's that to factor in.

After I dress an Ark with a chisel, I always refinish on 600x w/d. Which is what I did with the Ice hone also.
The Ice hone is similar to Arks - IMO , still different. How its lapped would definitely change how it acts overall, that is a constant for all hones including synths.
I left mine matte to start off with. Given that Im seeing a complete lack of action with only a modicum of polish on the stone, I cant see how giving it a high-polish to start would yield any results at all to start off with, let alone after continued use.
But - stranger things have happened. And still - logic and common sense will always rule the day.
Im going to resurface and I'm going to keep an eye on the subsurface this time around.
But - Im going to stick to working with a matte top.

 

[Brooksie967]

I always looked at burnishing as metal on metal. I can see a stone that is loaded with metal swarf burnishing but a freshly lapped and clean stone?

an example of this would be the burnishing needles used in japanese sword polishing.

 

[eKretz]

Burnishing is polishing by the mechanism of plastic deformation. Definitely does not need to be metal on metal. Pretty much anytime metal gets shiny without material removal, that's burnishing. Arks burnish on water for sure when the stone surface is finely polished. I've done the same test with Arks many many times. Even polished to a high mirror my Ark will pull some swarf with enough laps on oil. Not on water or honing solution though, just shines up the steel but no swarf is produced. Basically the exact same thing that happened in this test but much less swarf on the oil example and none at all on water.

 

[Alum of Potash]

Thanks for posting your results and for your thoughtful commentary. I don't have anything scientific to add; but sometimes it seems as if water raises the grain of the stone from my experience. And I don't always like that. With one exception for testing purposes, I only use oil on my oil-stones, actually preferring to use oil to water. Kind of like you show, I smear some oil across the surface and when it turns black with swarf like a car engine needing an oil change, that's when I change the oil on it.

Also, with oil, I like the delayed reaction time of the oil's trace on the stone and on the blade. After a pass, I can hold the blade up and really study where the oil is on the bevel/blade, or the trace on the stone. With water, this is all happening so quickly in real time, whereas with oil it's like a snapshot (and one is using much less oil than water).

Only disadvantage that oil has IMO is that I cannot touch or feel the edge with my thumb while I am wearing nitrile gloves. I have a pretty good routine down, and actually find using oil to be neater than using water, although the convenience of a touch-up with a water-stone over the bathroom sink certainly can't be beat in a pinch...

I'd also be curious to hear your impressions after using other oils. For example, with a small Ark that I use for testing purposes, I've experimented with vegetable oils and found that they can vary with regard to swarf generation, sort of like you said with the water to Smith's to good ol' honing oil progression. Grapeseed oil, for example, never generates swarf, whereas apricot kernel oil can generate a little, and jojoba oil can generate quite a bit.

 

[Gamma]

As long as the choice of honing medium's viscosity or slipperiness is similar to what Im comparing it to, I find no cutting difference in the stone. A change in pressure might be needed though.
Its like shaving with thick lather vs wetter slicker lather. Sorta.

 

[Gamma]

As for the title - the main reason Arks are 'oil' stones is that the oil carries the swarf in suspension better and as a honing medium it's less likely to clog the stone. This practice holds true for me for the softer stones - I've not seen a Trans/SB Ark clog from swarf yet. In fact, my white hard Ark never clogged either. Softer hard Arks, Soft Arks, and Washita would be prone to clogging but aggressive lapping would resolve that I think.
Water lets the swarf float down into the stone and then it evaporates.The oil will gum up eventually but a rinse in Kero would normally resolve that.
So - that's why they're oil stones. As for getting water-wet - people have been using them for a really long time with water.
I've met pleny of woodworkers that use the harder stones with water exclusively. Me - personally - I don't like plain water on an Ark. I hate the feedback on plain water. But other than the feedback it works just fine, it's just not my cuppa tea. Oddly - there are old instructions from Pike that suggest using water with Lily White Washitas.

Oil - well, I hate using oil. Nothing worse than having an oil soaked stone hanging around. I use oil on a few of my Carbos and I'm trying to locate a tin can for one to keep its leaky oozing mess contained.

One of these days I'll try that synth honing solution but when I get bored, a little glycerine water works just fine. most recently though, I've moved from Dawn/water to Vintage Williams/water. Just happened to have a crusty old shave stick out one day and I gave it a spin. I had to dilute my first 'mix' 3-4x before the mix was right but after that I was good-to-go.

I've gotten glazing or whatever it is from all types of solutions though. Dry too - tried that with knives back long ago. Wasn't a good experiment.

 

[eKretz]

I'mI'm going to have to disagree that Arks work just the same on water as on oil. In every test I've done they cut faster on oil, and keep cutting faster. There's enough of a difference to make a significant difference in the stroke count to clean up scratches from a coarser stone. Using water the stone can still cut but only when dressed pretty coarsely or freshly lapped when finer. They also slow down/glaze/wear in - whatever you want to call it - much quicker when using water. A Washita is able to cut even easier on water due to its more open structure, but it too cuts faster and stays "sharper" if you will, longer when used with oil.

Regarding the mess, I give my Arks and similar stones a quick wipedown at the end of the honing session and never have any type of oil oozing or staining. I don't use SiC stones, they may be different as they are far more porous by nature.

 

[Gamma]

Do note that I'm not asking for or looking for anyone to agree or disagree with me here.
I'm simply stating the facts as I've experienced them.

What I know after owning and using maybe 30-40 Arks across 35 or so years is my reality.
Your reality doesn't line up with mine. There's probably a reason, or several, for that. I can surmise what the reasons might be. But what those reasons are, are irrelevant for the most part. Someone elses agreement or lack thereof has no bearing or impact on what I've experienced and probably will continue to experience as long as I'm using the same stones the same way I have been.

FWIW - I'm only talking about the hardest of Arks at this point. I've owned soft Arks and used them with water and oil and water/soap; they all cut the same regardless but they did sorta clog with water and water/soap. I have a bench stone Washita coming - not sure what I'm going to do there, probably succumb to using oil on it just so I don't clog it.
The stones I've owned in the past - generally speaking, have all cut equally well no matter what lubricant I put on them. Pressure changes have to be made of course - thicker liquids don't allow the same amount of contact as a thinner one; e.g. - box store mineral oil is too thick and the cutting action wasn't worth spit at that point. Tree spirit oil was better. A good soap/water mix mimicks the use of oil well enough for me on the harder stones. But the mix has to be right.
Like with the Ice hone - I had to seriously dilute my lather to get the stone to work.
The initial 5 passes yielded nothing. Then - bam, the surface was in the zone and it worked fine. Water alone on that stone was too annoying for me to deal with.

 

[Gamma]

While personal experience isn't neccessarily factual - it certainly can be.
And two facts that seemingly contradict each other might both be facts.
It's a wicked world like that.

 

[eKretz]

SureSure, we are both just relating our experiences, I don't have a problem with that. It's why I said above if people want to use water, go right ahead, it doesn't bother me. If it works for you go for it. I only presented the evidence of what actually happened in that test. The stone above is a Levant stone. I have done the same test with Arks and many other types of stone. Certain stones - again, in my experience - do not cut anywhere near as well on water as on oil. This has been borne out for me time and again in my testing - the stones glaze and take a high polish on water - at which point cutting severely slows or stops, but on oil cut like the Dickens and don't glaze hardly at all or take much if any polish. Some stones to a higher extent than others. BTW I too have tried many ratios of soap and Smith's solution to water - from straight dish soap to a drop in a bottle of water and anywhere in between. The same for Smith's. The test above was pretty much straight Smith's (a puddle about an inch in diameter) with just a few drops of water. Smith's works better than water, but not by much.

 

[davew]

I can only give my opinion as a fan of oilstones, but I've bought many and tried them from time to time with water before they get oiled. I just don't get the same feeling of "rightness" with use with waterstones. With oil, the results are very predictable and the pressures used to get those results are the same.

I use oilstones for tools more often than I use them for razors (in fact, I use them for tools almost exclusively now), but that's mostly because I don't hone razors more than about once every 150-300 shaves. For tools, the difference between water and oil is greater because you do more heavy work and remove more metal.

If I'm going to intentionally burnish something, and I want to use water, I usually use jasper (I can't really tell which way jasper is better - water or oil, but it doesn't take long before it's cutting finer than an arkansas stone).

 

[Gamma]

What kind of Jasper?

 

[HunterBlades]

Yes what kind! I plan on finding the stash of jasper at my pops house and slabbing some up for testing. Amoung other stones.

Also how is smiths honing solution without water added? Equal to oil? Not sure what to order for my new ark. I have been using gun oil on my stones but it is kind of thick and not cheap I think.

 

[eKretz]

Smith's honing solution is nigh on useless if you ask me. The water added doesn't really make much of a difference. Tiny bit perhaps, but not much. I tried it straight with no water in this test also, just didn't bother including the results since they were basically identical to the test with a few drops of water added to the Smith's.

You don't need much oil on an Ark, or any fine oil stone really. I have a 3 oz. can I've been using for years and it's still about half full. I use about 5 - 6 drops of honing oil for honing, (I use an oil called Tap Magic, leftover from my days as a machinist - mainly because I like the smell of it and also because it works good, lol) then use plain mineral oil to clean the stone when done.

 

[Gamma]

Can't comment on Smiths solution - I think there's at least 2 versions. Several people have said they like it alot. I just haven't felt a pressing need to try it. If I step on them in the wild I think I'll pick some up just to check them out. If I use oil on a stone I have thin mineral oil, works fine. I have several other oils too, been wondering about whether Kroil would be ok also.
I only use oil on a couple of stones so it's not major quest to find the 'best' one.

 

[eKretz]

The 2 versions are completely different I believe. One is an oil type mix and one is a water soluble mix of some sort. The one tested here was the water soluble one that some people rave about.

 

[alx gilmore]

Eric

We were talking yesterday about the importance of the flushing of the swarf, and how the act of swarf removal probably prevents the stone from loading with ground up steel and reconstituted stone particles that might create a burnishing surface to even the best of stones.

For Arkansas stones here are the 3 choices I see.

#1. A dry stone. This would encourage loading of swarf into the pores of the stone, cutting action ceases quickly.
#2. Water. This could work if flushed readily, but steel does sink in water, possible swarf loading.
#3. Oil. How thick or thin might help of hamper the swarf issue. Seems thin might lead to stone pore loading.

Maybe it is not this simple, or I might be off track. I am operating on the assumption that we are taking finishing Ark's here that do not self slurry, or other stones that do not self slurry. Lapping a stone after it loads with swarf/steel is the easy solution although the actual lapping process is a drag. But if just water is OK and the loaded swarf on the stone is OK, then in this case then why not just use spit, it works. The idea is to float away the swarf in a media, this is why using a Arkansas dry is mostly off the table. and why tradition suggests oil.

Alex

 

[eKretz]

Hi Alex, yes that was a good discussion. I am going to do some further testing to add to this thread soon. Further exploration of thick vs. thin oil is something I am very keen to test. I will probably stick to the same oil I have already used to eliminate that as a variable, and will thin it with either mineral spirits or lighter fluid. I will also add a dry test and a spit test to the mix.

After further thought on the subject, I think pretty much every stone that is considered an oil stone is hard enough not to self-slurry - excepting perhaps some loosely bound synthetic aluminum oxide and silicon carbide stones. All of the natural oil stones I have ever used are hard enough not to self-slurry, and I think that's one of the reasons they are oil stones. When water is used the abrasive particles glaze over rapidly and stop cutting almost immediately in many cases. Oil in almost every case prevents this and also does of course help float/flush away particles of steel better. I am thinking the stones have a much higher coefficient of friction with the steel on water than on oil and this is one of the factors in the rapid glazing of the stones on water.

As per our discussion, it may be a possibility that some of the stone's binder gets pulled out of the matrix and jammed into the stone's pores as well, which could prevent the abrasive particles from getting a bite also. I don't think the abrasive particles therefore are being pulled out because then I believe we'd see a slurry type effect and swarf being generated, which doesn't happen. Another thing I'm very keen to try is to use the stone with water until it is glazed, then switch to oil and use a bit of pressure to see if the stone will unclog and start cutting again, or if the abrasive particles are truly dulled. I believe I'm leaning more towards the glazing/dulling theory than towards the binder or swarf packing into the pores of the stone theory. I'm pretty sure that they are being dulled and that doing this will not get the stone cutting at the same rate again. I will also be doing this test on a couple different stones - one will definitely be a Washita since they are white and it will be very easy to see if swarf is packing into the pores of the stone any more or less than with oil or other lubricant.

P.S. Thank you for the excellent conversation, I enjoyed it.