I see why silicon carbide stones never got used that much..

[D_W]

I got the previously mentioned group of 8 stones (which included 5 bench stones), as well as a carborundum 118, which is a fine stone, but not quite as fine as the 118S.

The coarse stones do that they do in norton crystolon, they cut fast and leave deep scratches.

I figured that maybe the finer side of the combination hones or the 118 would prove to be usable, and I guess they are, but they are still friable, oil goes right through them, the swarf that includes grit is like sand and even on the 118, the little contaminating grit gets everywhere, and then it's on your strop, etc.

Washita is far better. India, too. You could use the carborundum stones if you had to and you had some metal polish to clean up their work, but no great reason to. The gets-all-over-the-place grit coming off of the stones is the biggest disappointment, though - it doesn't happen with india stones.

 

[ED65]

...oil goes right through them...

Filled? Or were they dry when you got them and you just oiled heavily before use?

A basic SiC combination stone is at the heart of the oilstone side of my sharpening stuff. It's a coarse, open-textured stone, I expected that it would be a sponge so first thing I did was soak it in a mix of white spirit and liquid paraffin for a couple of days until it wouldn't absorb any more (should have used petroleum jelly but I hadn't found that out then).

This is the only stone I've ever bought new and I don't regret it as it cuts really well. It is more friable than I'd like but I was slapdash about spreading wear and using it gave me a much-needed incentive to be better about that.

I haven't found the grit-gets-everywhere thing a problem, but I'm a bit OCD about wiping the blade clean before moving to a finer grit and I always keep strops well away from stones.

 

[swagman]

Trialled 150 grit sic powder to flatten the reverse side of the Norton Crystolon Honing Stone. (1/16" hollow down full length of stone). 15 min work.

Stewie;

 

[swagman]

Listen to what DW says on Norton Crystolon stones at 20.00 min into the video . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G85B6iVCyMo

 

[D_W]

Listen to what DW says on Norton Crystolon stones at 20.00 min into the video . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G85B6iVCyMo

they are still the best bevel grinding stone that I'm aware of. It's the middle and finer stones that seem to be available really cheaply and unused, and I see why now.

The loose sharp shards of grit that go everywhere combined with the deep grooves for grinding, no problem when you're just grinding a bevel - you can wipe it off. The rest of the steps, it's just less convenient than other stones. No big surprise, I guess.

I have found some old ones that are still friable, though, but I'd still just buy a new one for bevel work.

 

[essexalan]

Seems to be a fixation with using oil on SiC when it just clogs up the stone. Use water, lots of it, and the stone will keep on cutting. I move straight on to a Sigma 400 after resettiing the bevel and have no problems with contamination. Even the finest Crystolon is probably too coarse for my needs.

 

[D_W]

Oil is the correct medium for the stone. A light or medium mineral oil doesn't clog.

The use of water leads to vendors selling things like coarse powder to unclog the stones.

 

[ED65]

 

[swagman]

All of my oil stones have now been flattened using 150 grit sic, this was followed by a good rinse and wipe down using a mix of household detergent and warm water to remove any contaminants. The stones were then treated to a good soaking of Dan's Honing Oil.



I also worked the sole of my Stanley #4 for 15 min using the 150 grit. The critical areas are totally flat. I will be ordering some 60 grit sic to flatten the remaining soles on my Stanley bench planes. (No LV or LN bench planes in my workshop.)



Stewie;

 

[Phil Pascoe]

People say this is unnecessary with planes, but I had a nice 5 1/2 Record flattened by a machine shop some years ago and I swear to this day it feels different to anything else I use, and they're all flat enough.

 

[swagman]

People say this is unnecessary with planes, but I had a nice 5 1/2 Record flattened by a machine shop some years ago and I swear to this day it feels different to anything else I use, and they're all flat enough.

Phillip; before I started working the sole of the No.4 , the hollow stretched from the front toe - to just shy of the heel. Not ideal.

Stewie;

 

[woodbrains]

People say this is unnecessary with planes, but I had a nice 5 1/2 Record flattened by a machine shop some years ago and I swear to this day it feels different to anything else I use, and they're all flat enough.

Hello,

Which people say it is unnecessary? Those who have never done it out of ignorance or laziness,perhaps. Those who have used a plane with a truly flat sole never say it is unnecessary, as you have discovered.

Mike.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

My Record was no where near as bad as Stewie's to start with, and I suspect it's still perfect (though I've neither needed nor even thought to test it ) as I'd used it for twenty years before I had it done. Unfortunately it must have caused the machine shop a problem in some way as they wouldn't do any more for me. I've read numerous people say so long as they're only hollow from the heel to the mouth and from the mouth to the toe they're fine ... but as you say I would beg to differ.
Sorry. OP, a bit of thread creep.

 

[swagman]

People say this is unnecessary with planes, but I had a nice 5 1/2 Record flattened by a machine shop some years ago and I swear to this day it feels different to anything else I use, and they're all flat enough.

Hello,

Which people say it is unnecessary? Those who have never done it out of ignorance or laziness,perhaps. Those who have used a plane with a truly flat sole never say it is unnecessary, as you have discovered.

Mike.

Mike; I have no doubt those who don't agree will voice their opinion shortly. :roll:

Stewie;

 

[woodbrains]

My Record was no where near as bad as Stewie's to start with, and I suspect it's still perfect (though I've neither needed nor even thought to test it ) as I'd used it for twenty years before I had it done. Unfortunately it must have caused the machine shop a problem in some way as they wouldn't do any more for me. I've read numerous people say so long as they're only hollow from the heel to the mouth and from the mouth to the toe they're fine ... but as you say I would beg to differ.
Sorry. OP, a bit of thread creep.

Hello,

Of course there are areas on a planes sole that are acceptable being hollow. But how do we know if this is the case, unless we start the flatting process and reveal where the coplanar areas and hollow areas are. Then when you've started.....

In my experience, I've not had a Stanley or Record plane that has ever been truly flat, or had hollows in the acceptable areas, that haven't been worked on. Some were very nearly there, but many were incredibly undulating, requiring a fair amount of correcting. I once had a Record 05 1/2 that was so bad, by the time I got it flat, the reduced thickness part of the sole where the frog sits got so thin the plane was a scrapper. But it was uselessly out of flat to start with. It became a parts donor.

Mike.

 

[ED65]

Which people say it is unnecessary? Those who have never done it out of ignorance or laziness,perhaps.

Not to derail this thread (especially since this is a subject worthy of its own thread) there is a third option that immediately springs to mind: those who were lucky enough to buy planes that were flat enough so they've never needed to.

Those who have used a plane with a truly flat sole never say it is unnecessary, as you have discovered.

I know of at least one woodworking guru, who has used every plane going including ones most of us could only dream of holding, and he says the standard to meet on many or most planes is "Does that look flat to you?"

Now he could be accused of being ignorant or lazy, but it would take some balls to make that accusation (homer)

 

[D_W]

People say this is unnecessary with planes, but I had a nice 5 1/2 Record flattened by a machine shop some years ago and I swear to this day it feels different to anything else I use, and they're all flat enough.

Hello,

Which people say it is unnecessary? Those who have never done it out of ignorance or laziness,perhaps. Those who have used a plane with a truly flat sole never say it is unnecessary, as you have discovered.

Mike.

It's not necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything. Mastering (or even getting a reasonable handle on ) the use of the double iron makes it even less important. Things that matter are problems like twist, low nose and toe (that's definitely a legitimate problem) and cases where the casting is bulged behind the mouth but not ahead of it).

Perfectly flat planes are nice to use, especially for beginners, but they really don't amount to much in the context of completing actual work compared to any plane that is functioning reasonably well.

That said, I always lap smoothers on PSA glass because it takes 10 minutes and it removes any question about whether or not any of the issues I mentioned above exist. After that 10 minutes, I never do anything to the sole again unless it hits a nail or staple, or needs a burr filed off of the edge of a casting.

If this was a necessary procedure, we'd seen it written about at length in old texts.

I would personally prefer a plane that has been lapped such that the toe and heel are a bit high, not perfectly flat. That's a bias in favor of a user controlling a plane. On something like a smoother, if you lap by hand and remove any low toes and heels, if you stop right away, the casting should be flat to a spec of almost perfection. If you keep lapping, the heel and toe will gradually get higher as you are always wearing the toe and heel a little faster than the center unless you are deliberately lapping with the ends overhanging something (which is pointless).

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"If this was a necessary procedure, we'd seen it written about at length in old texts"
Maybe old steel planes were flatter so it didn't arise?
(he runs for cover ... )

 

[woodbrains]

I know of at least one woodworking guru, who has used every plane going including ones most of us could only dream of holding, and he says the standard to meet on many or most planes is "Does that look flat to you?"

Now he could be accused of being ignorant or lazy, but it would take some balls to make that accusation (homer)

Hello,

Who would that be? I suspect he is talking for effect, or he is an silly person; no one can look at a plane and tell if it is flat enough.
What is certain, if there is a lack of flatness in specific important areas, the plane is useless, and it is not possible to see the difference from a plane that is good. i.e. A dead flat one, or one with hollows in the right places.

Mike.

 

[rafezetter]

All of my oil stones have now been flattened using 150 grit sic, this was followed by a good rinse and wipe down using a mix of household detergent and warm water to remove any contaminants. The stones were then treated to a good soaking of Dan's Honing Oil.



I also worked the sole of my Stanley #4 for 15 min using the 150 grit. The critical areas are totally flat. I will be ordering some 60 grit sic to flatten the remaining soles on my Stanley bench planes. (No LV or LN bench planes in my workshop.)



Stewie;

What are you using for the flatting surface? I would have thought glass too unreliable with grit that harsh to stay truly flat.