Another puzzler..

[BlacknTan]

For me at least..

If the coticule layers are all roughly the same at 30-40% garnet, why do stones perform as individuals, and why do different layers perform differently, and it seems, somewhat predictably?
Is it the binder that contains the garnets, and the garnets different sizes and shapes?

And further, is it advisable, or desirable to have a slurry stone from the same layer as the hone? If a different layer slurry stone were used, I assume the softer stone, whether the hone or slurry stone would give up it's garnets first?? So the slurry could possibly be more akin to the slurry stone than the hone itself?

Would the stone then perform more akin to a softer slurry stone than the hone itself, assuming the hone is from a different, and perhaps harder layer?

Am I making sense? And does this whole idea have any merit? Or am I just chasing ghosts?

 

[jeness]

I was thinking about the slurry stone too. My slurry stone is much softer then my La Verte, and I was assuming that this could cause problems.

 

[Guest]

Thats correct my friends the coticules are quite different and creating slarry you dont know
if contains more garnets from the stone than the slarry stone.The goal is to saccessfull a great
edge enjoying a cool shave ,if you use microscopes you just chasing ghosts.
Marry Christmas
Emmanuel

 

[wdwrx]

I've got two different types of slurry stones, one from La Veinette, and one from Le Verte. I find that using the Le Verte slurry stone to raise slurry on my Le Verte stone is almost an exercise in futility,but the resulting slurry has a very fine feeling, as opposed to the more abrasive sense of the Le Veinette slurry, which quickly and easily creates a slurry on any stone.

But I think the logic is that it's the water finish that lends it's qualities to the edge, not the slurry, so any differences in the finishing stone are those you experience.

I seem to be finding that as my edges improve, I'm less and less able to differentiate between edges done on different stones. It seems to be the journey to that edge that offers the biggest variable. But keep in mind, I've only got experience with two different veins.

 

[Woodash]

If the coticule layers are all roughly the same at 30-40% garnet, why do stones perform as individuals, and why do different layers perform differently, and it seems, somewhat predictably?
Is it the binder that contains the garnets, and the garnets different sizes and shapes?

And further, is it advisable, or desirable to have a slurry stone from the same layer as the hone? If a different layer slurry stone were used, I assume the softer stone, whether the hone or slurry stone would give up it's garnets first?? So the slurry could possibly be more akin to the slurry stone than the hone itself?

Would the stone than pertform for akin to a softer slurry stone than the hone itself, assuming the hone is from a different, and perhaps harder layer?

Am I making sense? And does this whole idea have any merit? Or am I just chasing ghosts?

Chasing Ghosts? Not really, but the garnet content actually does vary quite a lot and for some - perhaps many - coticule, the content is lower than you might think. The major factors that I believe affect differences in hones include:

1) Abundance of garnets in the hone (quantity available for slurry)

2) Abundance of garnets in slurry, or rate of release of garnets to slurry, which depends on:

3) Type and amount of cementing agents in the stone - e.g., other materials (‘bystander’ minerals) in the stone that affect how strongly the garnets are bound in the bulk rock. For example, sandstone would be just a pile of sand without silica, carbonate, or iron oxide cements holding it together as a rock. In the coticules, these bystander phases are primarily micas, chlorites, quartz, and minor kaolinite. Slightly different in the BBWs.

4) Size and morphology of garnet grains – the size of the garnets and degree of crystallinity (or the ‘quality/angularity’’ of the crystal facets) affect the aggressiveness/cutting power of cutting as well as the width and depth and width of scratches.

5) Orientation of mica in the rock. I think finishing characteristics will be related to mica content and orientation.

I will defer to the experts regarding which slurry stone to use, but as mentioned above, using a different stone will affect the slurry that you raise. How much depends....
It's the same question applied to the slurry stone: garnet content, cements and release rate, size/morphology, etc. My guess is that it's not that big of a deal, but strictly speaking, you're honing on slightly different material than what the hone itself would provide. Whether that makes a difference, I don't know.

 

[Bart]

Steve was pretty thorough in his answer, not much I can add. Except for the short answer: Garnet content within Coticules varies more than you think. That alone is enough to explain a difference in cutting speed.

As to the influence of the slurry stone: some of us experimented a bit to find out certain advantages connected to the choice of the slurry stone. No one has been able to come up with something. That at least indicates that the differences are insignificant. I am personally convinced that someone who struggles with getting perfect edges of a Coticule, can find any help in changing his slurry stone.

Without addressing the original poster, we all know this human tendency to blame it on the tool when our results are not as good as we think (or know) they can be. We've all been there one time or another. "Maybe I need to put oil on my stone", "Maybe I need to change the slurry stone", "Maybe I need to use distilled water", etc... are all incarnations of that tendency. I am not saying that such trials are without any meaning. But these will never be shortcuts for the normal learning curve. Everyone can learn to how to swim. Some learn it in a couple of days, others need a year. The swimsuit and the softness of the water in the swimming pool won't change a lot. But at the Olympic level, both are factors that are accounted.

Here's an older post of mine about slurry and slurry stones, that might be worth reading:
http://www.coticule.be/the-cafeteria/message/8404.html

Kind regards,
Bart.