How to remove a sharpening stone from a plastic base

Japanese Knives - by Tokushu Knife
Miura knives
Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Michi said:
I suspect that this would almost certainly not work. Microwaves have a wavelength that specifically matches the dipole moment of water molecules. It's highly unlikely that the glue would happen to match that.

Edit: I guess you could try, but I wouldn't put just the stone into the microwave. Instead, add a bowl of water beside the stone, to make sure that the microwave has enough load. That way, even if neither the stone nor the glue absorb any microwaves, the oven won't get damaged.

Needless to say, I'd do this carefully, in short bursts, so you can figure out whether the stone actually gets hot or not. If it doesn't, nothing is lost; only the water will get hot.
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to attempt doing it in the microwave. Sounds to iffy. And then there's the wife. I like sleeping in my bed
 
Consider that the manufacturer took added expense to mount their stones for a reason. ;)
 
Dave Martell said:
Consider that the manufacturer took added expense to mount their stones for a reason. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes. But maybe not for the sake of the stone, seeing that they've been selling stones without the mount for ages. I suspect it's more because they figure that with a "snazzy" base, they'll sell more of them.
 
My Naniwa 400 Grit came with it's stone glued onto a nice plastic base, with small rubber inserts in it's feet, it stays solid as it the stone was installed in my standard stone holders.

I was at first somewhat unhappy with glued, but today i find it a really nice thing not having to install it in my holder.

Have a Naniwa 800 Grit arriving Tuesday hope it's base is also glued on. :)
 
M1k3 said:
Thanks, will do. The 1k side is fired clay.
[...]
See above response
Click to expand...
I used to share this belief; which I seem to remember being gleaned from internet forum chatter when I first got into sharpening. I've since decided to defer to Cliff Stamp's opinion on the matter. (Proof: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VCo1_fozD0&feature=youtu.be&t=56 -- He explicitly states that it's a resin bond within a minute of the linked time-stamp.)

While I'm entirely willing to amend my beliefs on the matter once more, perhaps you could back up your assertion?

Having now experimented with a fair number of synthetic abrasive stones in the #1000 grit range, I'd say that I find the 1k King to be distinctly duller sounding when tapped than the sintered/baked stones I've tried. This is a slightly ludicrous test, but it's as good as anything else I can think of at the moment.
 
Knife2meatu said:
(Proof: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VCo1_fozD0&feature=youtu.be&t=56 -- He explicitly states that it's a resin bond within a minute of the linked time-stamp.)
Click to expand...
Is it possible that he is mistaken?

I have no idea who is right; one way to find out might be to see how much water the stone absorbs. If it's about one third by volume (roughly one sixth by weight), it's sintered. If it's a lot less than that, it's resin.

Michi.
 
Michi said:
Is it possible that he is mistaken?
Click to expand...
It's certainly possible that he's mistaken.

Looking around earlier to decide how much I cared to argue this point, I've found a number of vendors stating that both sides of the King are abrasives in clay. On the other hand, it wasn't longer ago than last week that I exchanged with someone who was quite convinced the 6k side was resin. But then, I've seen quite official feeling specs on the some websites claiming that the 6k "contains no plastic", which I assume to mean no resin either.

I think I actually have weighed a King 1k with and without water before, for another reason -- I just have no idea where those notes are.
 
Michi said:
I have no idea who is right; one way to find out might be to see how much water the stone absorbs. If it's about one third by volume (roughly one sixth by weight), it's sintered. If it's a lot less than that, it's resin.
Click to expand...
Found said notes; and the water content is ridiculously close to one sixth by weight; 16.9% more precisely.

And while that is tantalizingly close to what you had predicted, is this kind of porosity exclusively the domain of fired stones? I don't have much experience with resin stones, but if the above is true, then it would hold true that a stone which when soaked releases bubbles in similar quantity to a King or Cerax would necessarily not be resinoid.
 
Hmmm… As far as I know, the whole point of resin stones is that they are splash and go. And splash and go stones normally absorb very little water. A resin stone is made by mixing the abrasive into the resin and then letting the whole thing cure. There would be essentially zero air space in the stone; all the space that is not abrasive was filled by the originally liquid resin.

So, if you get one sixth by weight of water into the stone, that's quite a lot. If the King 1000 has about the same density as my average Cerax (pretty much exactly twice the density of water), that's about one third by volume. In other words, one third of the stone is air; I just cannot see that happen for a stone with resin binder.

The 1/6 and ⅓ figure is predicated on the stone having about twice the density of water. Wouldn't be hard to verify by weighing the (dry) stone and working out its volume. If the density is indeed is ~2 g/ml, I'd say it's a safe bet that it's a sintered stone.
 
Michi said:
Hmmm… As far as I know, the whole point of resin stones is that they are splash and go. And splash and go stones normally absorb very little water. A resin stone is made by mixing the abrasive into the resin and then letting the whole thing cure. There would be essentially zero air space in the stone; all the space that is not abrasive was filled by the originally liquid resin.

So, if you get one sixth by weight of water into the stone, that's quite a lot. If the King 1000 has about the same density as my average Cerax (pretty much exactly twice the density of water), that's about one third by volume. In other words, one third of the stone is air; I just cannot see that happen for a stone with resin binder.

The 1/6 and ⅓ figure is predicated on the stone having about twice the density of water. Wouldn't be hard to verify by weighing the (dry) stone and working out its volume. If the density is indeed is ~2 g/ml, I'd say it's a safe bet that it's a sintered stone.
Click to expand...

I know for sure the 6k side is, doesn't bubble underwater. The 1k side I'm pretty sure is clay and bubbles underwater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top