Talk:Sandpaper

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metalworking Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Woodworking (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Woodworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WoodworkingWikipedia:WikiProject WoodworkingTemplate:WikiProject WoodworkingWoodworking articles

The contents of the Emery cloth page were merged into Sandpaper on 17 December 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Coated abrasive page were merged into Sandpaper on 17 December 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The grit size table seems to come directly from here and is not cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.232.78 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a method to compute the absolute average particle size in µm? Because when I use the definition and devide 1" = 25,4mm by the paper number I get different values. Off course, I get maximum particle size not average. For my work it would be interessting to know how to compute the average particle size.

Historically grit sizes were based on wire screen sizes, so the number might easily translate into the number of wires over a length or area. However the size of the grit that can pass through this is a complex and non-obvious relationship to the wire count. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Abrasive paper" be a more correct title for this article. It gets a similar number of hits on google and is the generic term. Sandpaper refers to abrasive paper that uses sand as the grit although many people use it as the generic term.Zarboki 10:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coated abrasives is even more generic and is the term used by the industry, and you could argued that sanding belts that use cloth as a backing are not paper. Actually, if you do a google search on "abrasive paper" as a phrase (with the quotes), you only get 84,000 hits compared to 2.3 million for sandpaper. Most of the 2 million hits on abrasive paper (without quotes) have the words "abrasive" and "paper" at different places on the page rather than together. Cheers. Luigizanasi 17:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Sandpaper can also be used for skaters to make their skateboards level in the edges![reply]

I'm in favor of sticking with the most commonly used term, whether technically correct or not. Other terms can be covered with redirects. StuRat 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Along similar lines, I question the phrase "real name 'glasspaper'". 'Sandpaper' is most certainly a real name, if not the real name of the product in question, and is an unambiguous label that would be recognized by vast numbers of folks. "Originally called 'glasspaper'", or "more accurately called 'glasspaper'" might be more appropriate. PurpleChez (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a UK thing. There's a tradition, especially in UK school woodworking post-war into the 1970s, that "sandpaper" was an error, not just an alternative. Teachers were regularly obsessive about this and it seems to have been widespread, not just one or two personal foibles. There's also the long-established warning (in the article already) of "glasspaper" being the good stuff and "sandpaper" being a cheap fake.

Despite that, I strongly favour keeping this under sandpaper as a well-understood WP:COMMONNAME. Coated abrasives is more precise as a title, but it's really unhelpful to almost all of our readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought regular Al2O3 was a ceramic.

It is. I've changed it.--64.122.105.220 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what was patented in USA in 1834? Sandpaper/glasspaper was being produced before then. Might this refer to a new process or adhesive? Have also added note on Oakey in UK. Ephebi 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, it apparently was a process for making it (based on the Isaac Fischer article.)Luigizanasi 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone knoe wat that stuff is that cleans the sandpaper? if so can u put it in the page please!!!!

The cleaner is basically a crepe rubber material.

There needs to be a reference of some sort to the statement that 3M invented the waterproof sandpaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikigod2010 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your request in the article. Wizard191 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the term "wetordry" is a registered trademark of 3M. As such, it should include the TM symbol. See their website http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Marine/Home/Products/Catalog/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECIE20S4K7_nid=GS682WVHR8be4CCRDFQ26Jgl for an example of this usage. Oakland24 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS Wikipedia doesn't used trademark symbols. Wizard191 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor asked on the main article page:

"What is sandpaper grade?! I can't find it anywhere on the internet"

(Piano non troppo (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, I would think the sandpaper grade is the same as the sandpaper grit. Wizard191 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have good details on 3M's original Wet & Dry? In particular a patent number for it.

I'm finding some contradictions in just why it was waterproof. It seems that there were other abrasives around at this time that were already on waterproof backings (most metalworking emery cloth is, as it's a cloth backing not paper). I suspect that 3M's innovation wasn't to waterproof the backing, so much as the adhesive used. As these were animal glues (I think mostly rabbit skin, for flexibility) these were the real water limit for other coated papers.

I'm also trying to find a 1930s precursor to Micromesh abrasives, developed for polishing early plastics. This was coated onto moleskin cloth, which gave a similar "floating" effect to modern Micromesh, with similar benefits for fine polishing. I think this stuff was made somewhere in Lancashire (near the cloth weavers). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Plantsurfer, why is an accurate lead "false"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the statement "Grit refers to the average particle diameter and is marked on the reverse of the sheet" is false because the quoted number is typically inversely related to the particle size, and refers not to the particle size per se but to the mesh number of the sieve(s) used to separate the particle grades. Typically 100 grit means it was a cut of particle sizes obtained using a sieve with 100 meshes per inch. Plantsurfer 00:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in what way is that "false"? Especially as you've cut the following sentence:

"Grit refers to the average particle diameter and is marked on the reverse of the sheet. The higher the grit number, the smaller the particle size. The lower the number, the coarser the particles are."

"Refers to" does not imply proportional. It's an inverse correlation (not even a useful relation) and that's made clear in the following sentence.

Nor is it true (or has it been usefully true for half a century) that "100 grit is made with a sieve with 100 meshes per inch". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have the facts at your fingertips, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us? Plantsurfer 01:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you need more text to summarily blank? If you WP:OWN the article, then why should anyone else waste time on it just so that you can revert them? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the internet, I am having difficulty locating grit size information for ultrafine microgrit papers beyond CAMI 1000. Papers in grades 2000, 3000, 5000, 8000, 10000 and 12000 can be found, but size information for the grit particles of these grades seems nonexistent. If someone has access to a reference for these abrasives, please add them to the table. Thank you.47.147.7.207 (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Sandpaper appears to be remarkably similar to this page. Is this page ripped off there, is there ripped off here or are both ripped off somewhere else? Neither lists the other among its references. --86.5.88.131 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history over there shows that it is taken from an old version of this article in 2010. (For the future – Wikipedia mirrors/copying from Wikipedia is very common, and usually they will have something somewhere on the page to mark it as being taken from Wikipedia, this one's was in the page history as it's a wiki.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if there is an official formula for these but they're not random and cracking open excel one can easily derive the exponential equation used (i used excel's autofit)

for CAMI/US: particle diameter = 35733*(CAMI grit)^-1.195 (R² = 0.9899)

for ISO/FEPA: particle diameter = 18510*(ISO grit)^-1.017 (R² = 0.9943)

the imperfect R² is probably due to rounding

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexbugman213 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent merge, in which it was decided that sandpaper is the COMMONNAME for a coated abrasive, it now seems sensible to merge two other stubs to this page: Crocus cloth (a type of coated abrasive used in jewelry-making) and Emery paper (a type of sandpaper with a particular abrasive). The proposal is on the grounds of short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE. Crocus cloth is very very short. And as for Emery paper, Emery cloth is already in sandpaper, so there whould be synergy there. Ponken (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge of both. Joyous! | Talk 04:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am late to this party, but I :Support the merge of both considering that "sandpaper" is the common name for a coated abrasive. We should probably reorganize this page where the merged types of sandpaper are all gathered under a headding. --Found5dollar (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody were comparing the "grit" notation with "x/0" notation for emery paper, here is a short reference: https://cafa-info.org/page/GritSizesForEmery It should be better sourced and included in the main table, though. FDominec (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]