Messages

Thanks Rick and Jan - all great ideas I will be trying out. And I thought buying a Tormek would be the end of my sharpening woes!

You control the shape of the grindstone with the truing tool. The fine side of the stone grader will conform to this shape. Jeff Farris used to tell us that having the fine side concave makes it work better. I agree.

I've been thinking about this Herman and am not sure I agree (except in one specific instance -  I do agree with this if the grader is dished evenly across it's whole length i.e. a constant "u" shaped concave dish in it that conforms to the shape of the grind wheel).

However, in moving my grader back and forth (sideways - as many Tormek videos show) across the grindstone my stone grader has developed a non uniform dish shape - the concave area is oval shaped in plain view i.e. the dished area does not extend fully to the ends and gradually tapers off. This means there is a concave shaped dish across the length of the stone as well as across the width - which, in turn, means there is a curved shape across the width of the grindstone which will be imparted to the grindstone over time. In fact, now that I am looking for it, I can see that my grindstones are not uniformly flat across the width and has a slight curve/camber to it. I think I am going to try to flatten the fine side of the stone grader with an old (read disposable!) diamond stone I have - I imagine it will be slow progress considering the hardness of the stone grader...

I've tried to add a pic to illustrate what I mean (hope it works!). The plan view shows the dished area (oval in shape). The end view shows what you are saying - the wheel conforms to the shape of the dish (or vice versa) - as long a the dished area extends far enough along the stone and is uniform. The side view shows the problem (I think!) - when the dished area doesn't extend the full length of the grader and tapers off, the dished shape will affect the "flatness" of the grindstone across its width (shown by the arrows).

Any comments would be appreciated...

Thanks all for your replies - I will look into that Nagura stone Rich. BTW, does it matter what grit the Nagura is?

Herman: I asked a rep once and, although he wasn't positive, he thought it was JIS. I don't think Tormek would introduce their own rating for grits when there are so many already (JIS, FEPA P, FEPA F, AINSI, etc.). Just curious I guess - the Japanese systems tends to be smaller numbers for the same grit size e.g. J2000 = P2500.

I'm not sure if this topic is being followed still but...

I've always used the stone grader and found it works great - allows some serious metal removal at the coarse end when (occasionally) needed and provides a reasonable finish at the fine end. Now I just use my Japanese stone for repeat honing (chisels and plane blades) as the quickest and easiest solution, until the blade needs a new bevel ground, (or has been damaged!). I have two questions though for those more experienced...

1. Over time the fine side of my stone grader has become dished - is it still useable or should I replace it? (I'm concerned it might change the shape of the wheel, although I haven't been able to ascertain the veracity of this.)

2. I've read two opposing views: that the stone grader should NOT be used on the Japanese stone, and that it CAN be used on the Japanese to remove the inevitable black marks/glazing. Any opinions on this would be appreciated (if no, what do people do to occasionally clean up the black marks.

Cheers...John

Thanks Jan - so I shouldn't expect to be able to get a polished finish with the Sigma?

Thanks for your reply Rich. The "dullness" is in the secondary bevels as shown in your diagram. The concave section polished on the Tormek SJ is much more polished than I can get the secondary bevels on the 10,000 grit stone (even after a fairly long attempt). At first I thought it might be a difference in grit systems (i.e. the 10,000 grit Waterstone may actually be a coarser grit than the 4,000 grit JS, if they were referenced to different grit systems), but my understanding now I that both grits are referenced to JIS (Japan system). I'm just not sure why a 10,000 grit Waterstone seems to be much less polished than the 4,000 grit JS - cudos to Tormek, I guess!

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum, not a beginner with the Tormek system, but not an expert by any means. I've been reading this topic with interest and have my own dilemma you may be able to help with.

I recently bought a 10,000 grit Japanese (ceramic - Sigma Power Select II) Waterstone, partly for that extra "zing" I sometimes need for gnarly woods and also to do final polishing on the backs of plane blades.

I understand that the Tormek Japanese Waterstone's 4,000 grit designation is based on the JIS (Japanese system) - am I right? However, I find that going from the Tormek JS to the 10,000 grit (JIS) stone produces a LESS polished face i.e. I seem to be going backwards. Am I missing something here? Anyone have any ideas why?