Sperm whale oil is so illegal it's not funny.
The case for NOT using water on oil stones
- Thread starter eKretz
- Start date
Dan's is oil I'm pretty sure. Smells like 50/50 kero/mimeral oil.
The Smith's is red it seems like a water glycol type mix.
Dan's honing oil certainly seems petrochemical (I almost always wear nitrile gloves in handling it). I have an MSDS on it, but cannot attach it here. There, it says its "napthenic oil 99.7 to 99.92%." That is a pretty general description, apparently, but yeah, it could well be a fancy way of saying "kerosene-mineral oil blend."
Smith's honing solution is not an oil; it says so on the bottle. I've heard others speak of its solvent cutting action, on the stone as well as on the knife. For this reason, and because it's not an oil, I've stayed away from it. However, following John's remarks, I tried some on a small Dan's hard Arkansas last night, with a razor that has some microchips. Switching back and forth from it to Dan's honing oil, I couldn't see much difference in swarf generation. With the softer stones like this (Dan's hard is actually a "soft" stone), Smith's seems alright, as it sort of blends with or brings out the grain of the stone, but I don't think I would want to use it on a translucent or black hard stone.
Smith's honing solution is not an oil; it says so on the bottle. I've heard others speak of its solvent cutting action, on the stone as well as on the knife. For this reason, and because it's not an oil, I've stayed away from it. However, following John's remarks, I tried some on a small Dan's hard Arkansas last night, with a razor that has some microchips. Switching back and forth from it to Dan's honing oil, I couldn't see much difference in swarf generation. With the softer stones like this (Dan's hard is actually a "soft" stone), Smith's seems alright, as it sort of blends with or brings out the grain of the stone, but I don't think I would want to use it on a translucent or black hard stone.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #44
It has been a while since I tried testing on an Ark that was more coarsely dressed, but I don't have any softs, only a couple blacks, translucents and Washitas. I have never had one that won't pull any swarf with oil though. As I recall, in past tests the Smith's seemed to work OK on a more coarsely dressed stone, but still not as well as oil.
I think the Dan's hard are the soft stones of old. I have a Smith's soft stone that I got when I was in the Navy 35 years ago or so; according to Dan's S.G. rating it's a hard.
blushing:my name is John and I check the S,G. of my Arkansas hones) But, that hone really generates some swarf with Smith's honing solution.Off-topic, but could you describe your specific gravity test? I don't think the new standards are set by Dan's (one of the reasons why a streaked "hard" of old is now called "true hard" by them). I believe the other Arkansas whetstone manufacturers (Hall's, Natural Whetstones) also follow these standards as mandated at the State or Federal level.
Last edited:
It's pretty rough but gets you in the ballpark. I measure in inches with a Starrett rule convert the fraction to a decimal, then convert to cm by multiplying by 2.54 [(2.54 cm = 1 inch) Ex. 1 3/4" = 1.75" 1.75 x 2.54 = 4.44 cm or 44.4mm] So, measure length, convert; width, convert; thickness, convert. Multiply those 3 together; this gives you the cm3 (cubic cm).
1 cubic cm of water =1 gram.
S.G is the ratio of the actual mass of the object to the volume (cubic cm)of the object. I weigh the stone on my cheesy kitchen scale that has a gram function and divide the weight (mass?) by the cm3 of the stone.
I hope this makes sense.
And remember 28.35 grams of prevention is worth 454 grams of cure.
1 cubic cm of water =1 gram.
S.G is the ratio of the actual mass of the object to the volume (cubic cm)of the object. I weigh the stone on my cheesy kitchen scale that has a gram function and divide the weight (mass?) by the cm3 of the stone.
I hope this makes sense.
And remember 28.35 grams of prevention is worth 454 grams of cure.
That is one of the easiest ways I've read. I'll try it, measuring the smaller dimensions with a caliper and a cheesy Empire steel rule for the longest dimension as needed. Thanks, the s.g. test has always eluded me.
One thing that comes to mind is how the test may be affected by the presence of oil or swarf from prior use. But I suppose that this would be fairly superficial.
Last edited:
Yeah it's ballparky at best.
This might be easier to remember. Sorry I'm not a mathematician.
stone weight gm / stone volume cm3 = s.g
This might be easier to remember. Sorry I'm not a mathematician.
stone weight gm / stone volume cm3 = s.g
Sounds good. I'll use my metric caliper then. ;-)
So I bought an old tin of 3-in-1 just for spit and giggles.
Might be a good option for the axe hone when traveling. The can is convenient, has the pull-up valve top.
I need a box for that stone too. The original cardboard one turned into greasy confetti on arrival.
This Carborundum - the one for the axes - loads up bad unless I use oil.
Cuts well no matter what I use, but the swarf gets pretty intense when I'm taking out a chip or something like that.
Might be a good option for the axe hone when traveling. The can is convenient, has the pull-up valve top.
I need a box for that stone too. The original cardboard one turned into greasy confetti on arrival.
This Carborundum - the one for the axes - loads up bad unless I use oil.
Cuts well no matter what I use, but the swarf gets pretty intense when I'm taking out a chip or something like that.
- Thread starter
- #52
Another quick test today with a Washita. I used a freshly 400 Atoma lapped stone and at one end used Smith's red solution, at the other oil. 300 laps each about 3" in length on a chisel. Here is the swarf wipe from both:
Smith's at left, oil at right. Generated about twice as much swarf with oil. Felt much better as far as feedback also. Both lubricants left about identical amounts of steel swarf embedded in the stone after wiping with paper towel to the point it looked a little grayish instead of white, and the Smith's side glazed just a fair amount, enough to see an increased reflectivity, oil side not at all.
Smith's at left, oil at right. Generated about twice as much swarf with oil. Felt much better as far as feedback also. Both lubricants left about identical amounts of steel swarf embedded in the stone after wiping with paper towel to the point it looked a little grayish instead of white, and the Smith's side glazed just a fair amount, enough to see an increased reflectivity, oil side not at all.
Last edited:
I've been playing around a lot lately with a new hard/old soft Ark for bevel setting. I've been using lard oil mainly, and I must say that I'm finding it better than the Smiths honing solution. The thing is as that I redressed my hones with 320 W/D SIC after using Smiths almost exclusively for a while. I think that the Smiths causes faster glazing/swarf loading. I'm finding that with oil on the redressed hones it is cutting better and longer. And, (this is unscientific and just my observation) I think the edge is better (keener?); it looks less saw-toothy when looking at the bevel.
The lard oil seems to work as well as the Dan's oil and without the kero/paraffin odor.
The lard oil seems to work as well as the Dan's oil and without the kero/paraffin odor.
Oil definitely helps avoid micro chipping imo jayber crow.cheers -cam-
If one looks into the industrial literature on lubricants in grinding/abrasive industries oil is superior to water by a significant factor. One of the important aspects of using lubricants, apart from carrying away swarf, cooling, etc. is that it reduces wear on your abrasives which can give significant cost savings from not having to constantly dress/replace abrasives as well as improved surface finish by not having material from the thing you are grinding galling and adhering to the abrasive surface. These superior characteristics of oils are still present all the way down to the level of hand grinding/sharpening. However for razor honing, particularly in the finishing stages, one can probably get away with water based mediums because the surface areas as well as desired material to be removed are so small. This will still prematurely wear your abrasive in the case of a non friable hone such as an Arkansas stone than if you’d used oil but if you keep the surface of the stone well dressed with thoughtful lapping/conditioning it probably isn’t a huge deal. Honing a wide surface area tool which requires higher honing pressures such as a chisel or plane blade, or working on razors where significant material needs to be removed is where the benefits of oil will become more and more evident as so clearly demonstrated here. I’ve used about every honing fluid I can think of and have no problem using oils but for some they just can’t get past some aspect of it. I’ve found references to using glycerin on Arkansas stones back into the 1880s so there is precedent for alternative honing fluids.
one word ... Diesel
Smells great too!
Smells great too!
I've been know to use the juice from my vape to lubricate whetstones. It's thick and water soluble so a little drop and spritz of water and it's like thin mineral oil
Mineral oil/trans fluid/Diesel fluid
60/20/20
60/20/20
Steve56
Ask me about shaving naked!
The Japanese sometimes use a synthetic, water-soluble machine tool coolant/lubricant, Duraron I believe. Nasty stuff on a JNat, changes colors, and can’t easily be removed with water.
I do wonder if some of the difference in visible swarf is simply due to "run off". When I use water on any hone it tends to drip down the sides of the hone considerably more so than with oil hence more swarf is suspended per unit volume of oil than with water.
