matthewwh":i2hbt91t said:
The best thing i have found is 100 micron film on MDF, used dry it is remarkably quick and gives as much flatness as is sensible on a waterstone and a sharp bang on the edge causes the majority of the debris to fall off and you are back to square one.
As a bonus you can use the film to get the tool to a standard where the waterstones are effective (i spent many frustrating hours with sore fingers learning the limitations and advantages of waterstones).
Uhh, are you doing the 'dry flatten' thing with King stones? You are aware that when they are wetted they swell a little, and need to be flattened while wet, right? Most stones do change a little when wet, and flattening dry, well it's kinda pointless. And semblance of flat is gone as soon as the stone gets wet. Kings are not too bad, Chosera are notorious for it.
(I was loathe to mention that to you Matthew, but it is how it is. We must get you off them King things...)
To the OP, some diamond plates do clog, but it's NEVER enough to render the plate useless. It can always be removed, and much easier done while the stuff is still wet. Loading can and will bring the proceedings to a halt. In my experience, DMT are the worst, followed by the 'diamond' pattern ones, then Atoma and finally the Shapton diamond plate (overpriced by about 200%). I use the Atoma because even when it's loaded up to a point where it should stop working, it still works and by that point, the stone is flat again. And they last a long time. I have thousands of flattenings on mine (most of them documented) and it still shows no signs of being worn. They're good.
I've not yet a concrete paver flat enough, and half the stones I have will eat concrete paver blocks, concrete building blocks, concrete footpath, asphalt, bricks, sanding belts and sand paper. Actually, I should say the stones will flatten concrete nicely. The stone, not so much.
I keep forgetting that most of the folks here associate 'waterstone' with King stones and similar soft, older style stones. It's a problem to switch terminology depending on geography, and I'll try to keep it in mind from now on.
The problem is comparing a standard King stone to something ceramic, it's not really comparable in the usual sense. Kind of like comparing the Wright flyer to Concorde. They both fly, and that's where the similarities end.
Hope that helps, and I wish you luck.
Stu.
(Who's used every flattening method known to man, and wish I'd just used a diamond plate or loose grit on glass/steel from the get go. Would have saved me hours of frustration. I like to save others the trouble of trial and error if I can.)