Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Abrasives in Micron Scale: Grand Logarithmic Grit Chart

  1. #1

    Abrasives in Micron Scale: Grand Logarithmic Grit Chart

    Abrasives in Micron Scale: Grand Logarithmic Grit Chart

    I would like to present a new format of grit comparison chart. In the chart I seek to display the information as compactly and intelligibly as possible. Since abrasive particles sizes cover several orders of magnitude a logarithmic scale is most appropriate. A logarithmic scale also has the property of equidistant spacing for any geometric progression, meaning that a theoretically ideal stone series will be uniformly spaced in the chart. Stated another way, two grits that differ by a specific ratio will be a specific distance apart on the vertical axis of the chart whether they are 1.0 and 1.5 micron or 200 and 300 micron.

    I must stop and give tribute to Komitadjie's Grand Unified Grit Chart which was my inspiration for creating this one, and after which mine is named in homage. While I expect the charts to be compared they are independent entities. None of the data from Komitadjie's chart was used in the creation of my own except for the BRKT and Spyderco ceramic approximate values which I included for completeness. All other values I sourced elsewhere, though some sources may be common to both.

    I spent considerable time assembling this chart therefore I am not releasing it into the public domain. I retain control over its distribution and use as detailed in the README and LICENSE files. I ask that it only be shared by linking to the original source: http://myplace.frontier.com/~mr.wizard/GLGC/

    Please see http://myplace.frontier.com/~mr.wizard/GLGC/README.txt for important details about the chart including how to interpret it and what it does and does not represent.

    The chart and README will be updated if and when corrections or improvements are appropriate. Previous versions as well as additional charts may be made available in the /GLGC/ directory.



    I am soliciting feedback on the chart presented above. Any corrections and all suggestions are welcome.

    Please ask any questions you have regarding the chart and its interpretation. Anything that is unclear shall be additionally explained in the README, and potentially modified in later revisions.

    As explained in the README file I chose to limit the range of the chart to keep it compact. A format I considered is to include additional scales to cover the macrogit and submicron ranges. Please see the file "GLGC RC2.png" in the directory linked above. I request feedback on this layout as well.

  2. #2
    Senior Member chinacats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,718
    Thanks Mr Wizard!

    I believe this would be a good addition as a sticky somewhere for easy reference.

    Cheers
    once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    345
    Thanks a lot, this is very useful! It must have been a lot of work.

    And Jim is right, definately worth a sticky.

  4. #4
    One thing I'd like to note is that the very 1st person to ever do a grand unified abrasive chart on any forum was cbwx34 (Curtis). I believe that this all came from his idea and I'd like to see him get some credit for his contribution, even if only here.

  5. #5
    Das HandleMeister apicius9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    3,423
    Very nice work, thanks! Just to better understand - what is the norm for ordinary American sandpaper?

    Stefan

  6. #6
    Where are the stones (abrasives) that we use on Japanese kitchen knives? I ask because there seems to be very little (just Shapton ?? & Naniwa Chosera) here that applies to what the member's here use. There's a LOT missing for this to be of much value to our discussions.

    I'm not trying to poo-poo on your shoes, I can see that you did a lot of work, but this is more aligned for the crowd that relies on guided sharpening devices and the like vs free handing on stones.

  7. #7
    Senior Member chinacats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,718
    I was under the impression that the JIS category was for "normal" synthetics? That said, I can't seem to enlarge it on my phone to read the categories.

    And a big Cheers either way to Curtis fit getting this started.
    once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by chinacats View Post
    I was under the impression that the JIS category was for "normal" synthetics?

    JIS is the Japanese standard but there's more it than that. From what I recall Pam talking about years ago s that there's actually two systems used in Japan to rate grits and from that comes some confusion when talking about or rating abrasives from there.

    If using the chart I see that the Naniwa 10k is rated just above JIS6000?


    The point I was actually referring to above in my previous post is that he's got some maker's info in the chart while leaving out so many others. I would either include them all or leave them all out and stick to the numbers.

  9. #9
    Senior Member chinacats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Martell View Post
    JIS is the Japanese standard but there's more it than that. From what I recall Pam talking about years ago s that there's actually two systems used in Japan to rate grits and from that comes some confusion when talking about or rating abrasives from there.

    If using the chart I see that the Naniwa 10k is rated just above JIS6000?


    The point I was actually referring to above in my previous post is that he's got some maker's info in the chart while leaving out so many others. I would either include them all or leave them all out and stick to the numbers.
    Dave, thanks for the clarification. If there are two basic systems, are they related to composition? Curious how far apart they are by numbers? I guess that is part of why some stones perform so much differently than others, something I hadn't considered but makes perfect sense.

    As to the chart, don't know how difficult it would be, but if you could compare just two at the time like on gator's steel site it may eliminate some of the difficulty in reading?

    Cheers
    once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Martell View Post
    From what I recall Pam talking about years ago s that there's actually two systems used in Japan to rate grits and from that comes some confusion when talking about or rating abrasives from there.

    I should have said that there's two systems to measure abrasives, or least there's older and newer standards used in Japan. I don't know the specifics though, I just recall Pam pointing this out, or at least something to that effect.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •