Whilst ruminating in the study (o.k. the bathroom) the other day I concluded the idea of a secondary cutting edge bevel at the outset is nonesense. This habit may have come about from our ancestors starting sharp and then constantly giving the edge a swipe on a stone to keep working, and I will try that now, but start with a sharp primary bevel edge. After all a dull edge is just that , bevels notwithstanding.
All views appreciated.
Replies
I agree.
I see people saying they grind a 23 ½ ° bevel, or they set their jig to obtain this or that hone angle. This is all non-sense. I can’t tell you with any precision what angle my irons are ground or honed at, but they are sharp. As long as the two surfaces meet with the thinnest possible, polished edge, in the least amount of time I’m happy. Many years ago I read in FWW an article about carving, and the author said " I get paid to carve, not sharpen tools" and that stuck with me, so I make sharpening a quick, second nature process.
Rob Millard
Many years ago I read in FWW an article about carving, and the author said " I get paid to carve, not sharpen tools"
Yet another pearl of wisdom from the old FW one is unlikely to see these days given the column inches devoted in any given year to sharpening and the latest sharpening gadgets.
Amen Brother. I put a good hollow grind on my cutting edges to keep honing to a minimum.
Just to throw one final spanner into the works, my experience of the tools students bring to my classes, shows that the main problem people have with sharpening is the preparation of the flat side or back.
The bevel side is easy to achieve, by any of the above methods.
Good flat side prep is far from straightforward, and vital for good sharpening.
Possible subject for a new thread?
Hi David
Excellent idea.
As you know this topic caused me more than a little embarrassment and anguish recently! There is no doubting that the back of a blade influences the front more than one realises.
And here is the question I would like you to comment on: Can your Ruler Trick substitute for the sometimes extensive hand work that is required to flatten the back of a blade?
Regards from Perth
Derek
David,
I'd be curious to know if, when re-honing, just working the back (flat side)of the plane blade, perhaps with a slight back bevel wouldn't be the fastest, greatest bang for the buck. It seems to me removing the 'wire' on the back side...which is very easy and quick ....makes a huge impact on sharpness.
Also, topic wise, watching how set up and tested the position of you plane blade was extremely beneficial...dramatic improvement in performance!
David, how is flattening the back of a plane iron or chisel not straightforward?
In my experience it takes on average three to something like seven minutes to flatten a blade good enough to work-- ten to fifteen minutes if the blade is badly hollowed or convex. Twenty minutes is a long drawn out procedure that may be required on a really bad example of a blade. It just isn't very difficult to flatten a blade and I can't for the life of me understand what some people find so mysterious about the subject.
It's as if magic spells, the burning of incense and the recitation of runic incantations are all a necessary part of the process in the minds of some.
I've always found a bit of 80 grit paper on a flat surface gets a bad blade close. If that doesn't work fast enough a bit of 60 grit or 40 grit will do it. Then something a bit finer and lastly a few swipes on a sharpening stone and it's done and off to the races, so to speak.
On the other hand, perhaps I'm just getting too long in the tooth and refuse to believe in magic anymore, ha, ha-- ha, ha, ha. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
I think you're about to be treated to the 'ruler trick' and the minute back-bevel.
I'm going to have a cocktail and try to sit the rest of this one out, which will be hard to do.
Edited 7/18/2006 7:42 am ET by BossCrunk
Boss, and Sgian,
Make mine a bourbon and water. Richard, you light the incense. I'll lead the incantation, eyes reverently closed, arms raised, palms forward, as we bend from the waist, facing the slowly rotating Tormek altar, lit by the flickering flame cast by a burning sheet of 6000 grit, saturated with camellia oil: "Owa talow dacrap"
Cheers,
Ray
"...facing the slowly rotating Tormek altar..."
Hah, well if we substitute stationary belt sander for the T-machine, and well, fast instead of slow...I'm there. I get sent tools to flatten for people occassionaly. Mystifies me as well as to the problem. [No, I don't stop with the sander.]
But from the discussions on the forums and the shear number of tools I have been sent to flatten, it is an issue which people face with fear and loathing. This, I think, is a large portion of the problem.
David, if all we do is get the regulars to jump in, I too will probably need a beverage. My choice is a G&T, though.
I would enjoy a thread about how does one encourage people to just lighten up. Sharpening isn't a difficult "skill." I even hesitate to actually use the word skill outside of quotes. It is a fundemental activity. Many people have so embued sharpening with mystical properties they start out assuming they don't have the right mojo or don't know the secret handshake. Sharpening, of which flatten a back may be an initial part, is made into a burden, a difficult thing.
Take care, Mike
I've lately taken a shine to honing no further than a plain, fine grit man-made oilstone. I have a black Arkansas and I don't even bother most of the time. But it does look impressive lying there, in all its blackness.I think that the little bit of 'tooth' the fine oilstone leaves behind might actually be a plus more often than not.I'm sure those with a portfolio of micro-photographs of tool edges will have a field day with this post.I will bet I'm in for a lecture from somebody who has never gotten a piece out the door one day, with the mortgage due the next day.
Edited 7/18/2006 11:03 am ET by BossCrunk
Got the photographs of pre and post sharpening and following use...but...
I will bet I'm in for a lecture from somebody who has never gotten a piece out the door one day, with the mortgage due the next day.
Not from me. Been on the verge of sweating bullets too many times. Just hoping the old lady won't nit-pic about some little imperfection before the final payment--which will all but be hand delivered to a creditor.
I think the recurring theme of the thread has been, whatever works for you. The point is the piece, not the shaving.
Take care, Mike
This a strange place and I'm not sure the runes are favourable for poking one's head above the parapet!
A mild statement of observed fact has gathered the predictable range of dissmissive opinion, good humour and a couple of good questions.
Richard's pose as an old hack, is somewhat misleading as I have seen and admired photos of the fine furniture he makes. He is a highly skilled, experienced professional. My target audience are beginners and keen amateurs who wish to raise the standard of their work and enjoy hand tool use.
In thirty years I have only seen one set of realy sharp tools and they belonged to an orthopedic vetinary professor. The vast majority have serious issues with the flat side prep.
Yes the ruler trick speeds up flat side prep, for plane blade, (please never use for bench chisels), The back gets flattened on 800grit only, largely to ensure good chipbreaker fit or good seating for bevel up planes. The ruler trick bevel on polishing stone will cut through the 800g scratches leaving a polish at the cutting edge. (It would not cut through or replace deep manufacturers grinding marks).
If we sharpened the ruler trick bevel, which is only 1/16" or (1.5mm) wide, it would get wider and wider and would need grinding eventually, as metal removal would become too slow. I prefer to remove metal on the bevel side.
Ah! Thankfully David, you you rose to the bait and explained yourself a little further and didn't take offence to my prying.
I do agree with you that a flat back to a chisel or plane iron is important. I've never used the ruler trick you espouse, but I can see how it may help the inexperienced worker-- but as you say, it's definitely not for chisels, especially paring chisels.
I don't bother flattening the whole back of either chisels or plane irons-- just enough to work. For a plane iron anything long enough for the leading edge of the cap iron to bear on fully will do-- this might only be 12- 15 mm (1/2"- 5/8") long, but generally I get about 25 mm to 35 mm (1"- 1-3/8") flat'ish, with just the front 8- 10 mm (~3/8") polished up fairly fine-- maybe about 800 grit. Successive sharpening, done right will gradually take out the coarse abrasive striations left behind by my 60- 120 grit initial flattening with abrasive papers.
For a chisel I aim to flatten something like a 25- 40 mm (1"- 1-1/2") length back from the cutting edge. Paring chisels I try and get maybe 50- 75 mm (2"- 3") flat behind the cutting edge.
One of the most common faults I find with learners during sharpening-- long after the initial flattening of the back has been accomplished-- is the habit of inadvertantly raising the heel of the tool as the wire edge is rubbed off on the tools flat side.
The end result of this fault is to move the cutting edge up and away from the flat plane of the tools back face. In using a chisel with this fault for paring (where the back of the chisel is registered on the surface of the wood) the cutting edge sits up and won't cut flush. On the other hand when I'm presented with a chisel with this fault, and (as you say) being an experienced old fart I simply raise the back of the tool to compensate. Inexperienced woodworkers often can't accomplish this raising the back to suit trick at all successfully. They do it too little and don't cut at all, or too much and gouge the wood.
If this fault is only slight on a plane iron then you can often get away with it because the cap iron (aka chipbreaker) can usually live with a bit of rounding over-- it's effectively what your ruler trick achieves anyway and, I suspect it's essentially what I do, but without the use of the ruler. Slainte. Richard Jones Furniture
david,
I've used something similar to your trick to be able to use an antique pitted plane iron without having to grind away too much of the precious steel laminated onto the business end of the iron. The small back bevel gets you thru the pitting, down to an uninterrupted edge. Otherwise, each pit leaves a tiny gap on the edge.
It's curious that carbon steel seems more susceptible to rust than wrought iron.
Regards,
Ray
Edited 7/19/2006 8:02 am ET by joinerswork
Great stuff, chaps. That's possibly, a non gender specific Devonian term.
Clearly a propitious arrangement of the planets.
Where was the belt grinder when I spent one and a half days trying to flatten a 1970's Stan or Record blade on an India oilstone.....(in 1972)
I think that less than fastidious craftsmen let their oilstones, welsh slate, arkansas, belgium, turkey etc, stones wear hollow. This is not a problem until the day you decide to flatten the said stone. The old recipe was silver sand with water on a york paving stone.
They possibly learnt to lift a paring chisel as described by Richard, and I hapily agree with every point he makes.
Extreme ruler trick type treatment seems an excellent way of rescuing old pitted cast steel plane blades. I have discussed wrought iron with a blacksmith and for some reason it does not rust too badly, don't know the technical reason. Hardened carbon steel does seem to suffer from extremely deep pitting, making one's edge look like gruyere (spelling?) cheese.
I see a depressing number of good, new, blades and tools, suffering from pronounced rounding or belly on the flat side. Usually because the beginner does not appreciate how quickly, soft water stones wear hollow. This softness is both the major advantage and the major curse. New grits constantly exposed, result in fast metal removal, but this is accompanied by the rapid hollowing of the surface, which causes the rounding or belly. Constant reflattening is the watchword and this is easy if messy. I feel the fast removal is worth the flattening hassle, if one has a sink and some space for a sharpening area, but they definitely do not suit every one.
I have devised some specific movements, for blade prep, which more or less ensure that the stones wear slightly convex, not hollow. The principle is to keep the edge of the tool, off the edge of the stone for approx 50% of the honing time. This is combined with heavy force at the heel of the bevel and less at the top/handle end. This helps to flatten and polish a sufficient area at the business end. (See Richard's excellent comments). No incantations or spells required.
A byproduct of this method is that chisel backs get minutely hollow in their length. When you go to polish off the wire edge on the polishing stone, the business end is sure to contact a reasonably flat stone, and the wire edge, is, more or less polished away, consistently.
Phew, time for a large bison grass, flavoured vodka....brought by a lovely Polish student. It is very hot here.
Fortunately, I did realize how quickly waterstones got out of flat, though I'm somewhat shocked that some newbies don't.I actually really like waterstones, though I didn't think I would. I like them even more now that I have a more complete set.Enjoy the beverage, David, sounds like you had a great day.
I've read through this thread several times after seeing reference to the "ruler trick." What have I missed? What is this ruler trick? Is it described in one of the messages?
Rich
David will be along soon, I assume.
I don't use it, so I know I'm going to mess up the description...Basically it is placing one of those thin, say 6", steel rulers flat along one edge of your stone, lay the back of your plane blade upon the ruler with the cutting edge on the far side of the stone and lightly hone. This creates a very small < 1mm back bevel on the iron.
As the back bevel is so small, it has little effect on raising the effective cutting angle, whereas a larger, more substantial back bevel does--which is also useful for knarly grain. But that is a different beast and best done on a spare blade.
Useful for having to avoid flatten a back below any pitting on a vintage tool, as well as ensuring the bevel edge meets the back sharply.
His books describe the process way better than I can, I'm sure. I've also heard very good things about DC's videos.
Take care, Mike
Mike,
Hmm . . So the back bevel, being almost parallel to the back of the plane iron doesn't change the blade geometry to any significant extent?
And the bevel, being very short, takes almost no time to make?
Interesting.
Rich
Rich14,
"And the bevel, being very short, takes almost no time to make?"
Yes, the blade starts about a 1/4" off the stone and moves to about 1/2" on the stone...for about 15 quick strokes.....very fine line appears.
Mike, thank you for excellent description!
The only thing to add, is that I believe the ruler trick massively increases the probability that the wire edge will contact the polishing stone and be honed away. {NB All blades EXCEPT bench chisels, which must be kept flat (or minutely hollow), as this surface guides and registers the cut}.
I noticed problems of conistency in the past, sharp one time but not necessarily the next.
This made me wonder what the probability of the blade being perfectly flat and the stone being perfectly flat , on any particular day was.
It also helped to avoid stiction when we moved to man made japanese waterstones.
Unrelated question. I am having trouble persuading a shapton 320 grit stone to remove A2 fast on the back of a chisel. It seems to glaze? and not produce the slurry which I am used to on King 800. In fact it seems to be removing metal slower than the king 800?
When Thomas has done the final edit, we have two new DVDs coming out, chisel prep and sharpening and chisel use, using single lap dovetail and mortice and tennon as examples.
Ah, method and reason. I'm surprised I got it even half correct as regards method. What I wrote was gleaned from forums where as you know your method is oft debated as to the correct procedure. But what I wrote made logical sense--goes back to a simple explanation is often correct.
I cannot help on the Shapton. I dearly love my Shaptons, but the coarsest I own is an 1k stone. I have never been satisfied with coarse stones as I think they wear way too fast for efficient work. They have always seemed to belly or wear off the edge for such things too fast. If I wanted to flatten by hand, I think I would become a convert to the diamond paste and a cast plate [can you believe that, Alf?]. But the 800 King was always my favorite for below 1k. As I flatten a lot of tools for others, imagine what I would need to charge to have and meet an acceptable shop rate?
My method for flattening a chisel back is as follows. I usually don't spend longer than 5 minutes before the stones, and if one is extremely bad it is perhaps as much as 10.I use a stationary 9 x 48 belt sander and a hand-held one with an 80 grit belt. I begin by quickly making sure the sides of the edge tool are parallel by laying it on my bench and with it against a combination square, draw a line on the far side on the bench, flip the tool over and compare the other side to the line. If they aren't--and especially chisels--I take that into account. This is similar to checking a square for, well, square.
I then actually grind a preliminary bevel. Using a miter gauge on the large belt sander adjusted for any out of parallel issues, I grind a tad off the bevel to blunt it so the very edge is not overheated when flattening.
I then grind the back using the 36 grit belt, look at that blunt end on the tool, grind a little more. Rarely will the tool get so warm I need to dunk it, but do if need be. Then on to the 80 grit belt sander inverted and clamped into the bench vise. Same thing, now just leveling the deeper scratches from the 36 grit. Pop off the 80 grit belt, on with a 100 grit.
From there it is on to the 1k Shapton, followed by the 2k. These are used on all or nearly the entire back. I then use a 4k King on about 1/2 the stone in earnest, but do go over the entire back. The last 1" or so I will use the 8k Shapton. Then sharpen the bevel. Now, I do each step to several at a time, at the end of the day, it is faster.
Are these spot on perfectly and measurably flat? Probably not. Pretty darn good though. With regular and thoughtful maintenance by the owners, they will do nothing but get closer.
From flattening to the bevel being sharpened on an 8k Shapton is maybe 15+ minutes for some of the worse, maybe a grand total of 10 minutes on the average. Has to be. I charge $8 per tool.
From the struggles evident on the forums concerning chisel prep, I suspect the DVD will do well. I'm pretty confident the chisel use one will do well. I'll hoist one tonight in a toast to their success!
Take care, Mike
Mike,
we flatten by hand all the time. We have tried everything - 45 micron water based diamond paste on a steel Kanaban plate works like a charm and it we have to spend more than a minute or so on any blade we deem it defective and yell at the factory. We have done no yelling recently. On older tools with wonky backs works fast too. We never flatten more than the very tip of anything - no reason too - and forged tools are intentially made very slightly hollow anyway - just so it is easy to flatten them at the very tip. (Modern plane irons are supposed to be very slightly hollow also but sometimes you get ones that are dead flat - which is annoying but not worth getting panicked about - it's still pretty easy to do the back - a belly in the back is unacceptable). A tiny bit of paste, a little water, initial heavy pressure, followed by lighter presser - done in a flash. I do not bother to use finer diamond paste grits simply because it saves time not having two plates and cleaning everything. - with water based paste you just rinse the tool and go to the next step which for use is 1000 grit waterstone.
(Oil based base is harder to clean and I am allergic to the solvent)The biggest problem I see in users is lifting the back when flattening and not using consistent pressure at the tip and then over time the back developes a belly.
joel
Joel,
Could you explain what you mean by belly? Talking convex rather than concave?
Tom
Yes - convex.
if your iron has a concavity then when you flatten the back the blade hits the stone at the tip right away or almost right away - which is brilliant. If you have a belly or a convextity not only do you have to remove the convexity before you can hone at the edge, the convextity means that as you sharpen the blade can rock so it's hard to hit the edge part consistently which means it is an error in frustration.
Hi Joel,
I won't even really mess with new chisels. Even my own. I use them as I receive them and over the course of sharpening and removing the wire edge the backs get flat enough.
On the vintage chisels I receive from others, it is a matter of expedience. I received over a dozen chisels in a box yesterday to do. And I should add that what I wrote earlier really doesn't apply to the full length of a chisel with a pronounced concave or convex back. Then it's onlywhat is necessary for the immediate use--and then the time savings is even greater.
The times I gave are only if I can do the entire back through the entire process to 8k. And I winged the times. I have never timed it. But I think it is accurate, even with the minor breaks I take. One of these days I may give the paste a chance, if for no other reason than it is new to me.
I think the real issue goes back to some of the discussion of another thread. That is understanding a tool doesn't need to be measurably perfect. I think it is a societal flaw.
Well, back to work correspondence...Take care, Mike
What make is your 9x48 and have you been happy with it?
Since the house is on fire let us warm ourselves. ~Italian Proverb
Hi dgreen,
I have the Jet at the first link. I have been happy with it--but it is the only one I have owned of this type, so there's a lack of comparitive knowledge.
http://www.wmhtoolgroup.com/shop/index.cfm?navPage=4&iid=12913
I think if I were to purchase another of the size I own, I would get whichever one--Griz, ShopFox, etc--which was the cheapest at the time. And if I get another, smaller one which I am considering for use with a finer grit [saves belt change time], I will probably get an el cheapo. But the Jet is a workhorse and I abuse the heck out of it shaping metal.
Take care, Mike
Thanks for the reply Mike, I was thinking you had a belt that was 9x48. I could really use a belt wider than 6 inches. The Jet you have is a nice machine. I have been thinking of selling my Delta 6x48 with 12" disc since I have a 6x108 sander and a 20" disc, a wider belt would be very useful for me. Gonna have to do some looking around I guess. Thanks again.
Since the house is on fire let us warm ourselves. ~Italian Proverb
Once above 6" wide, I think one needs to go to a horizontal oscillating edge sander. I had always considered getting one when I had the cabinet shop. The Griz uses a belt that is 9" x 138-1/2.
I think this would have been very useful for the shop as I don't like holding the work vertically. Now it's moot as the shop is history.
Of course, I always wanted a 54" wide belt too...
Take care, Mike
I may have to go with something like that, I was hoping for single phase and a shorter belt as I am running out of room but I may be looking for something that does'nt exist.
Since the house is on fire let us warm ourselves. ~Italian Proverb
Very interesting to read about these methods.
Mike, I totally agree, all my previous very coarse waterstones seem to break down too fast, hence the experiment with 320 blue shapton, which seems to have a much harder bond.
Tom, Can't be sure what is happening, it could be the non removal of wire edge or possibly too low a honing angle, causing premature edge failure and chipping? A childs 50X or 100X plastic microscope with light, or other good magnifier is very useful when learning to sharpen
The dark build up on the 12000 stone, is caused by removed metal particles, I find it helpful to clean the surface lightly with the Nagura, when this happens. !2000 is a big step away from your diamond plates, we have always liked 8000 and found this produces a wonderful edge, suitable for the most demanding work.
Joel, having no belt grinder, will try the coarse diamond on steel or cast iron. Very glad to hear that you yell at manufacturers if backs are belied, (Convex). We were taught to avoid them like the plague and send them back. We were also taught to select only the chisels with the hollow backs (Length)
David,
Do you have any pictures (links) of this process? Where does one get a DVD?
Rich
Rich, you can obtain DC's videos from Lie-Nielsen:
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?showall=519
The one he mentions that is new, Precision Preparation of Chisels for Accurate Joinery, says mid-August for a ship date.
Note that Chris Schwarz' two videos at the top of this link are suppose to be very well done as well.
Take care, Mike
Thanks Mike
I have very nearly every video LN sells (except the most recent from David Charlesworth -- yet, nor the more recent Rob Cosman titles, and I'm missing a couple of the VHS-only titles). I find videos a great way to pick up techniques from people one doesn't have the chance to see.Even though each of the authors (Charlesworth, Schwarz, and Cosman) have some points of disagreement, I've learned things from each of them. I'd have to say I like their videos in that order, as well.David's very deliberate style is quite different from my own, so I learn from the difference as well as the thought he's put into the process of using his tools, as well as sharpening them.Schwarz, well, he grew up using hand tools and I find some of the things he doesn't even think to comment on are the ones where I reverse the video and say, "huh." He's also just incredibly fast at some things (I say this not just based on his videos, but also on some of his blog commentary, particularly about the evolution of the creole table).Cosman, well, probably the coolest thing is how he uses his bench to determine the flatness of his board. That's some flat bench. He does discuss sharpening, but not at super-great length. When he discussed the time it took for flattening the back, I figured he'd never seen some of the plane blades I'd received (on new planes no less).My sentimental favorite for LN videos doesn't really discuss sharpening much at all, though. I just loved the Boggs videos, especially the hickory bark one. The day I got it, we had some guests over, and I went to hole up to watch it. By the end, three people were watching the video, entranced.
My favorite is Boggs on spokeshaves and drawer knives, brilliant!
I hate to write this...It'll may get me into a place I don't want to be. And I am just rambling as thoughts come to me. I'm tired, so take the below with a grain of salt.
Woodworking videos and DVDs tend to put me to sleep. So while I probably won't buy any more, I may borrow some from the Guild again just to see what people are talking about.
I have seen bits and pieces of a few of the newer ones, either while visiting a friend, at Woodcraft or another local woodworking store, and they are all well done--just like those I have owned. And I do want to see some completely for which I have relied on people's impressions, such as yourself, in order to recommend them on forums.
But the inactivity of watching a video [even a movie]...well, I will be snoozing in minutes. Instead, I tend to pick a small part of a process and go out and spend time doing it. For instance, I was looking at Wilbur's book on carving architectural molding detail a week or two ago. I found a detail of some molding which was beautiful to me. So I went out to the shop, pulled down some Poplar scrap, ripped it to width and set about making it. A couple wasted pieces later and I had a decent rendition of the molding. More than being satisfied with the end result, it was deciding the sequence of making it, which of the H&Rs and plows to use that was fun for me.
So how does this relate to videos and perhaps semi-related to the thread? I tend to read these threads, hopefully contribute, for the same reason I'll watch a video. To learn how others approach an issue and perhaps learn a new-to-me efficient way to accomplish something.
Most all the topics on videos I have seen--especially sharpening--could be described in a few pages of a pamphlet or small book. But watching them, watching for the unsaid things, is sometimes as valuable as what is spoken. And, I think they can more readily teach confidence printed matter cannot. That to me is one side of the coin for someone learning something new. The other side of that coin is productive experience in just doing.
One of my favorite videos I have borrowed was one of Nora Hall's carving videos. I'm not a slouch when it comes to carving [though I am rusty from lack of time with my tools]. I didn't watch it to learn to carve--that's really just a process of removing wood in a controlled manner. Rather it was to learn to perhaps do so more efficiently, an economy of movements. This is not something she expressly teaches. Watching her unexplained movements does, however.
Ok. Enough rambling. Time to hit the shop for a couple hours before my niece's wedding. An outdoor wedding. Hopefully it won't be over 100F / 38C degrees today. The shop yesterday hit 108F / 42C. Hard to apply shellac at that temp...
Take care, Mike
You actually said it better than I: I watch for ways people approach the work. I also agree that they help teach confidence, which is a difficult subject.I also love the spokeshave video from Boggs -- I've been re-watching bits of it when I've had questions about the shaving horse I'm building, because it's the one he's using in the video and I can see it from additional angles.I'll also add: I found Jeff Miller's chairmaking video horrible as far as advising people how to make chairs. I'm a snob, but I don't consider his chairs well-made. Curves are bandsawn rather than steamed, etc.However, I learned about compass planes from that video, and I learned some cool ideas for how to approach certain problems. So even a video you might not otherwise be interested in can be useful.Good luck with the shop temp. Mine's miserable right now....
"I'm a snob, but I don't consider his chairs well-made. Curves are bandsawn rather than steamed, etc"
That seems a very funny thing to say, deirdre. I'm not sure though if you're saying that curves should be bandsawn in your opinion, or that they should be steamed, or even if you're saying that Mr. Miller bandsaws his curves rather than steam bending them!
I'm not familiar with Mr. Millers work, but I can think of several instances where curved chair parts are better steamed or laminated, than bandsawn out of the solid, and vice versa. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Edited 7/22/2006 3:15 pm by SgianDubh
Sgian, he bandsaws the curves on the legs of his chairs (notably the back leg) rather than steam bending or laminating, both of which would be stronger. In the video, one of the legs he showed had a very small amount of wood supporting the main body of the chair. Frankly, I was pretty horrified.There are certainly curves where bandsaws are appropriate (and yes, this includes chairs), but I'm genuinely not convinced it's a good choice for the given application. In his video, he does discuss steambending as an aside, but it's not a technique he uses (ever, apparently).I have two 150-year-old chairs in the house -- one is together even despite having the seat broken off right in the middle of the leg tenon. The other has never needed any repair.http://flickr.com/photos/muhe-e/172129490/I don't like the profiles on a lot of windsor chairs, but I do appreciate their construction.
Forgive the comment but do not other chair makers specialise in using the bandsaw? I understand one even uses screws!
Yes, most notably Maloof...
Bending and or bent laminations are time consuming, but appropriate for certain periods and styles of chairs...which is why I probably like Maloof's so much <g>.
I do like bent laminations in many types of work. 20th century Modern is the design aesthetic I apprciate most when I build.
Take care, Mike
off to a wedding...
David,
Ive a couple questions floating around which seem related to this latest bit of conversation on raising the backs of plane blades and the way different stones work.
My woodworking career is short. I came to it in january after 3 years of learning how to be a machinist - still am doing that and having fun trying to keep the two worlds straight.
Ive bought a set of Matsumura chisels from Japan woodworker, a Lie-nielsen 60 1/2, 62 and most recently a 4.5. Ive also made a 12" long Krenov style wood plane with a Hock 1.5" blade.
On several occasions after honing these tools Ive gotten what I thought was a hair popping, scary sharp blade, only to discover after minutes of use the very end of the blade is beginning to look, well a bit tattered - for lack of a better word and is not cutting as well as I expected.
Have I learned what your raising the back system is supposed to correct - that in fact Ive not properly eliminated the wire edge?
In pursuit of a better edge Ive bought "into" several alternative sharpening systems. Started with 3M Micron paper glued to 1/4" plate glass. The system which still produces the best looking edge (maybe thats the above problem?) though requires constant fiddling and paper replacing.
Ive bought and used the DMT Dia Sharp diamond plates in 120, 600 & 1200 grits as recommended and demonstrated by Brian Burns a Fort Bragg, CA Luthier. To go along with those and for final polish I have the North Mountain 12000 waterstone from JWW another alternative recommendation from Brian. I also have a 1000/6000 combo water stone from JWW.
I am getting what I think you maybe describing this morning with the word "stiction". Working on flattening the back of the 4.5. Also theres a dark buildup on the stones 1000/6000, 12000 that seems to be a buildup. If I keep puddling water and press lightly the blades will move back and forth. As soon as a apply any downward foce the stone goes dry and the blade sticks.
Mike - 15 minutes? Yikes Ive got a couple hours messing with the back on this thing - easily - help!
Not getting anywhere fast.
Tom
Actually Boss them with vast portfolios of micro edge photos are entitled to air them even if you have seen them.And why is it that you are the only one getting things out the door and paying mortgages ? It can get a lot "worse" than that.
Strangely enough I tend to share your sentiments re "toothy" edges, even though this nothing new. Goodgodman, the next thing is you will be confessing to the use of a diamond plate.
I think that the thrust of this thread is more to do with those folk who have to rectify chisel backs or plane blade backs that have been screwed up to an extent that is beyond fixing by hand on oil stones or rough grits of metalite or other abrasive papers. Why on earth spend the 20minutes mentioned by the Green Man rubbing seven colours of hit out of sandpaper when there could be other quicker more accurate ways ?
So you just picked up an example of your favourite chisel at a sale-back rounded to hell-how would you sort it?Philip Marcou
For the benefit of so called newbies,(cover your eyes the rest of you), flattening the back of a chisel can be a nightmare. So try this.
Buy at a fleamarket for practice a cheap reasonable chisel, the one in the photo was 50pence UK money. Get a cheap mill or two and, starting about one inch from the cutting edge on the back, grind away the steel so you are left with a one inch surface to flatten. Flattening that surface is relatively easy because the rest of the blade is not in the way.
I sharpen from above as the photos' show, using that equipment. I can see what is happening in real time and it is fast and effective and cheap on equipment.
Why not hollow the backs, the Japanese do it and some folks use a mill to relieve plane soles. I leave plane irons to the higher authorities.
I keep hearing about antique chisels with out-of-flat backs (I don't own any 'old' chisels) and it makes me wonder if the old timer's knew what they were doing or if we know what we are doing. What is your theory on how these things either got out of flat or were never flattened? I have seen some that clearly were used, but you're right, the backs were not in good shape. Again, they appear almost unusable but yet were clearly used. Some explain this by saying some neophyte down the line fouled up the back but I'm not so sure.
Are we missing something? Maybe something akin to David Charlesworth's trick with backs but on a grander scale?
One can flatten a back with coarse grit paper laid on about anything - the kitchen counter will work. It's dead flat over a relevant area - the four or five inches or so (or less) that you'll be rubbing the chisel or plane iron back on.
No need for granite surface plates, but I have to admit to owning a piece of glass, about 18" x 18" that I use for rough grinding.
Norton 3X paper, at 60 grit will flatten anything and very very quickly too. If the back is bellied than on a griding wheel it should go just to remove the belly and then back to a flat surface.
Edited 7/19/2006 11:35 am ET by BossCrunk
I doubt that we are missing anything, Boss. I picked on old chisels because it seems that these are the target of gardeners, mechanics, brick layers and the rest.The original professional users probably kept them flat etc just like we want.
As you say the flattening/coditioning can be done effectively on just about anything flat, but glass or granite are good because they are cheap and lend themselves to other uses- I am soon to get a buckshee granite slab from kitchen buider friends-for use in my plane making attempts. But me- all these papers etc drive me mad-in next to no time one is knee deep in half used sand paper, because it only works sort of nicely for such a short time- hence my attachment to a true metal working belt grinder /linisher for sorting metal issues fast-like bringing back grandpa's chisels.
Bench grinders, especially the 8 inch or bigger are nice- but the average woodworm appears to be nervous of them -but that is another bunch of issues.Philip Marcou
I have never given this too much thought as I have not found any problem getting chisel or plane irons flat/smooth on the backs.It is one of those things that I would rather do as quickly as possible preferably by machine. For sure I don't use the "usual" ways, so it will be interesting to see why some folk are hanging up on it. So if a back is not in suitable condition to be finished off on a honing stone of some sort it heads for my belt grinder set up with vertical platten and belt grit to suit-easy as falling off a log.Philip Marcou
The first time I was flattening a plane back (for my Record #4), I was going at it for an hour when I gave up.I think the problem of many newbies, myself included, is simply inappropriate grits. I had too fine a stone, thus it took a lot longer (and was more discouraging) than it should have been.Honestly, it's still not as flat as I'd like, but every time I sharpen it, I spend a bit more time on it. Had I kept flattening without having some time using it in between, I might have just given up. I know my frustration tolerance and I was pretty close to my limit.However, I knew what I had to do and what I needed to do in order to accomplish a flat back, I made a deliberate short-term trade-off to get some fun stuff (planing) done.My chisels, though, those are flat, and they're flatter further back than other people bother with (simply because I really like to feel the mirror bit as I use it, I find that helpful).I just recently got a better series of stones, btw. Of course, these days, I tend to buy blades that are in better shape than my Record is or was.
Whilst ruminating in the study (o.k. the bathroom) the other day I concluded the idea of a secondary cutting edge bevel at the outset is nonesense.
Seems to me if it is nonsense at the outset, it's nonsense later on.
This habit may have come about from our ancestors starting sharp and then constantly giving the edge a swipe on a stone to keep working, and I will try that now, but start with a sharp primary bevel edge. After all a dull edge is just that , bevels notwithstanding.
But we all know they--our woodworking predecessors--were backwards folk when it came to understanding sharpening, good work notwithstanding. Imagine all that time wasted could have been put to productive work time!
Ok, enough sarcasm. I really have little opinion, except how it affects my own work habits. I do think many, many people overthink sharpening. Myself included insofar as a field of study goes. On thick blades--new maker's planes, old woodies, firmer chisels and the like--I tend to use a single bevel. That is easier for me when I pop out a blade to hone 'n' go, or freshen a chisel. For me the registration of the full bevel is easier to hone.
But I do cheat at times, especially with thinner blades which during the course of work are damaged enough it would take more time and energy to regrind than I desire to expend. So then I do quickly produce a secondary bevel.
On paring chisels I do intentionally produce a secondary bevel. Which after it grows substantially I'll regrind and then hone. And a bit of nonsense: I intentionally hone a secondary from the outset. Why? because I grind such a shallow bevel, the edge is too weak for many of the woods I work. A shallow secondary bevel strengthens the edge without fully compromising the benefits of a shallow primary bevel.
Take care, Mike
You all are forgetting the main point of a secondary bevel angle: instead of honing perhaps a quarter inch or more of hard tool steel, you are honing only perhaps 1/16". With that in mind, the balance of your comment have validity. If you want to quickly hone and get back to work, a secondary bevel can aid that cause.
I would take exception to the comment that the angle does not matter. Obviously their are optimal angles for each tool depending on the wood you are working with. Whether you choose to ignore that fact is up to you. This and many other factors influence the quality of the finished product, the most important being the person who is using the tool.
You all are forgetting the main point of a secondary bevel angle...
Nope. Not forgetting anything. Just choose not to on most edges is all.
I would take exception to the comment that the angle does not matter.
Gotta admit I don't see that explicitly written.
Obviously their are optimal angles for each tool depending on the wood you are working with. Whether you choose to ignore that fact is up to you.
"Angles," plural, being the key. There's a range of acceptable angles. If we are talking BD planes, the bedding is the main issue to consider. But that range of usable and or "acceptable" bevel angles is relatively large. Go to low and the edge retention is a prime consideration. Go too high and chip clearance, fiber springback and wear bevels affect the ability to plane for a longer period.
With my paring chisels, which I use far more than my firmers, a low angle is necessary irregardless of the wood--to me. The very small secondary bevel is there to strengthen the edge without completely sacrificing the efficacies of a low primary bevel.
Rob said: I see people saying they grind a 23 ½ ° bevel, or they set their jig to obtain this or that hone angle. This is all non-sense. I can’t tell you with any precision what angle my irons are ground or honed at, but they are sharp.
Well, if one chooses to use a honing guide, one needs to choose a honing angle. It can be as simple as that. My only problem comes if someone says the best/only angle to sharpen at is X degrees. Other than that, what's it matter?
I think, Rob, because it sounds like you primarily hand sharpen as I do, we are less concerned about the angle as a precise means to an end. I know for myself that by eye, a bevel needs to be between X and Y degrees--but if I grind a fresh bevel due to damaged edge, I do pick what I believe is appropriate for the tool. So in that instance, I do need to pick a bevel angle. It just doesn't remain that for the honing life of the tool. But, I don't really care as long as the tool does what it ought. And they do.
Take care, Mike
Mike,
My 9th grade geometry teacher told us that the hypotenuse of a 30-60-90 triangle is twice as long as its base. That translates into the bevel of a 30* cutting edge being twice as long as the blade's thickness. Easy to eyeball as they say and get, "close enough for gov't work".
Regards,
Ray
Sorry, I agree the angle matters. I meant if the edge is not sharp the angle is immaterial.
I grind on a 16 inch horisontal oil fed slow stone with an in -situ tool holder which can be set at any angle, and can be set to allow for the crowning of cutting edges, so sharpening is easy. Now I just got to get better at woodworking.
Re: Secondary (aka "micro") bevels
On quality chisels you don't need them. One can argue that a secondary bevel is useful on a mortise chisel beause it puts more meat behind the edge but I think this is bunk.
If you hone the primary accurately you'll only have to regrind if an edge is chipped or damaged in some way. Honing secondaries guarantees the need for primary re-grinds as the secondary grows too large. Therefore, any supposed 'time savings' in honings is eaten up by the more frequent regrindings that are necessary later.
There is no time saved in using secondary bevels. A chisel with a secondary bevel does not cut better, in fact, old timers thought just the opposite (see Planecraft).
This has got to be the most civil discussion on sharpening blades that I have read for yonks!
I would support everything that Mike has said. And in saying this I will also argue that there are indeed a few guidelines (rather than "rules") to keep in mind, especially where secondary bevels are involved. Of course, these are my guidelines - your own may differ.
One reason to use a microbevel (secondary bevel) is to save effort when grinding or honing thick and hard steel. While the reviews I have written about BU planes would give the impression that everything I do is microbevelled and that microbevelling needs to be done with precision, that was to meet the need for consistency when comparing planes. In reality, while BU planes are affected greatly by the bevel angle, there is still some leeway. The reason I use a honing guide for BU blades is that I need to be in the ballpark for these angles (e.g. to plane endgrain with a low cutting angle or smooth gnarly and interlinked hardwood) and it is damned hard to do this freehand. When using a honing guide it is just as easy to use the same setting each time (in fact, this makes the process quicker since you are re-honing the same/established microbevel).
With bench (25-30 degree) and paring (20 degree) chisels and most BD plane blades I do not use a microbevel since I prefer to freehand these bevels flat. Why? Mostly because I just like doing so, not because it is quicker, which in the end it is not since inevitably the bevels are rounded and need to be reground. However, BD blades are relatively unaffected by bevel angle since the cutting angle is taken from the bed/frog, as Mike notes, so they have a wider margin of error with regard to the bevel angle.
The "truth" is that we are really always honing a secondary bevel when freehanding since the rounding process is just this, except that it is graduated into the primary bevel. What I am saying it that a long flat is hard to hold on the media, and we inevitable rock it until their is a new edge. So, instead of regrinding to eliminate a secondary (micro) bevel, we are regrinding a flat from a round.
The exception to the no-microbevel rule for chisels is when the edge needs to be strengthened, as in the case of a mortice chisel. I have mine ground at 30 degrees with a 5 degree microbevel. Others prefer this to be a 25 degree primary with a 10 degree secondary. This serves to preserve the skinnier profile, which is better for penetration, while toughening up the business end.
Regards from Perth
Derek
One reason to use a microbevel (secondary bevel) is to save effort when grinding or honing thick and hard steel.
I'm hard-pressed to understand how a microbevel saves time when regrinding the primary bevel since the whole point of the re-grind is to remove a microbevel that's gotten too large and then to completely restore the primary so that a new, smaller micro can be honed.
If one maintains only one bevel then regrinds are unnecessary unless the edge is chipped or other mishap occurs. That's the whole point. See Planecraft.
Edited 7/14/2006 8:02 am ET by BossCrunk
Derek: One reason to use a microbevel (secondary bevel) is to save effort when grinding or honing thick and hard steel.
BC: I'm hard-pressed to understand how a microbevel saves time when regrinding the primary bevel since the whole point of the re-grind is to remove a microbevel that's gotten too large and then to completely restore the primary so that a new, smaller micro can be honed.
I am not sure what is hard to understand about this. The microbevel is not removed until it is no longer a microbevel and is reaching the proportion of a primary bevel - that is, it is now too large to be still economical (in terms of time and effort) to hone. The microbevel will last through several honings. Since a microbevel is much smaller in area than the primary bevel, it takes much less time to hone.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I take issue with your statement that it saves time when grinding. The whole primary is restored during a re-grind and whether or not a microbevel exists has nothing to do with this. Any time you save in honing a micro is lost because you have to REGRIND THE PRIMARY when the micro becomes too large. If you never create the micro in the first place then you never have to re-grind the primary.Again, you are not saving time because you are having to regrind primaries and fairly frequently I might add if you use your hand tools a lot.This whole issue is laid out quite elegantly, and logically, in Planecraft.
Edited 7/14/2006 1:01 pm ET by BossCrunk
BC: Any time you save in honing a micro is lost because you have to REGRIND THE PRIMARY when the micro becomes too large. If you never create the micro in the first place then you never have to re-grind the primary.
Again, you are not saving time because you are having to regrind primaries and fairly frequently I might add if you use your hand tools a lot.
From a pure time standpoint, and if one has a sharpening station always at the ready...I too think a micro is ultimately faster, Planecraft's opinion notwithstanding.
Even using a Tormek to reestablish a primary, I don't spend longer than 30 seconds at the wheel should I need to use a grinder.
As well, hollow grinding and then even honing flat on the toe and heel of the hollow grind on stones, is essentially creating a secondary bevel as the primary is curved and the edge is reshaped at a higher angle.
I suppose the debate over the whole issue of primary alone vs. secondary vs. hollow grinding vs. ??? is mildly entertaining and educational, and there are obviously proponents of each--and more--ways to sharpen and hone. But there isn't going to be a meeting of the minds. No one is going to convince the other.
The goal is a sharp edge which produces the intended result. Does it really matter how one gets there?
Take care, Mike
Mike,
You are an object lesson in how to combine WW experience, tradition and logic in a balanced and useful posting. For what it's worth, I hereby award you my "Brightest Poster of the Day" award. :-)
Of course, you were nearly pipped by Ray and Derek but they lacked your elegance by just a micro-point.
Lataxe, having a good time reading this one.
I take issue with your statement that it saves time when grinding. The whole primary is restored during a re-grind and whether or not a microbevel exists has nothing to do with this.
Any time you save in honing a micro is lost because you have to REGRIND THE PRIMARY when the micro becomes too large. If you never create the micro in the first place then you never have to re-grind the primary.
It is a matter of timing. I dislike having to stop and rehone a primary bevel when I am working. So a microbevel can be a timesaver if it allows you to delay rehoning the primary until much later.
Grinding or honing a large primary is time consuming. In practice, I work with primary bevels on my chisels and maintain an edge by honing on a leather strop when the edge begins to go. In practice I work with micro bevels on my BU planes. When the edge needs to be refreshed, the blade is popped into a honing guide, run on a King 1200 waterstone until I feel the wire edge, then swapped to a 8000 King. A quick wipe with David Charlesworth's "Ruler Trick" and it is back to work. This pitstop takes about 3 or 4 minutes at most.
The drawing below will illustrate the amount of steel that must be removed before the primary is reground. Which point would you end at?
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 7/14/2006 2:09 pm ET by derekcohen
"There is much to said in favour of the method of honing which is employed by many experienced craftsmen, in which the whole of the surface of the 25* bevel is honed to a keen edge, thus using one bevel instead of two. For fine finishing work this method gives a very pleasing and satisfying cut, and in fact with most timbers the cut is better than with two bevels."Planecraft; C.& J. Hampton Ltd.; Sheffield England; 1959Good enough for me.
"There is much to said in favour of the method of honing which is employed by many experienced craftsmen, in which the whole of the surface of the 25* bevel is honed to a keen edge, thus using one bevel instead of two. For fine finishing work this method gives a very pleasing and satisfying cut, and in fact with most timbers the cut is better than with two bevels."
Planecraft; C.& J. Hampton Ltd.; Sheffield England; 1959
Hi BC
I have not read Planecraft, which I know is waaaay overdue since it is a bible for many. Is that quote refering to the honing of chisel or plane blades, or both?
I must say that I think it is bollocks. Not because it would not work, but because it is offered in such a rigid manner. While I am sure that there is nothing new under the sun, and that most (all?) we know and do today was known and done yesterday, the advice of Planecraft in this instance reflects a very limited outlook. The bottom line is that it matters not how one achieves a bevel - the wood cannot tell the difference between the various honing strategies, whether hollow ground, flat ground or microbeveled. A bevel is a bevel is a bevel.
Where matters become more important, let's say in a BD plane blade or a bench chisel, is whether the steel can hold the edge at 25 degrees, and then one must decide whether 30 degrees might be better. So to be categorical about the bevel being 25 degrees is nonsense.
There is also the issue whether one ever really has a single bevel. To do so using a honing guide is hard work. The honing guide will maintain the bevel flat on the medium, and thus will ensure that the area to be honed is the maximum possible. On the other hand, when one hones a flat bevel freehand it is my belief (as I mentioned earlier) that one will rock the blade and increase the honing angle. This is very similar to honing a secondary bevel. Eventually one will need to regrind the bevel to restore the original bevel angle. And in this it is again similar to re-grinding after a secondary has widened to an uneconomical width. How do I know this? Only through my experience and observations in freehand honing of BD plane blades and paring and bench chisels (again, as I noted earlier on). So I am open to challenges of this interpretation.
For reference, I now grind primary bevels on a belt sander or a 220 grit waterstone but have many years experience of hollow grinding on a high speed grinder. I also have a slow speed wet grinder. I use 800, 1200 and 8000 King waterstones. My guides are either LV Honing Guide Mk II, which I use for honing micro/secondary bevels, or my hands. I have read and experimented with so many methods, and they all work. Sometimes I find a groove and stick with one. Sometimes I change to make life a little more interesting. But ultimately they all work and the wood cannot tell one method from another.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
"On the other hand, when one hones a flat bevel freehand it is my belief (as I mentioned earlier) that one will rock the blade and increase the honing angle".
That is exactly what happens, and what I meant by people "taking liberties". I have observed it in skilled factory gentlemen ,set in their ways and fluent in PlaneCraft, 1959 .It got so bad that some chisels began to look like engineers scrapers. I actually measured some honing angles and found them to be around 40 degrees and more. Ofcourse these gentlemen were all honing at 30 degrees-as prescribed. We gave them Eclipse honing guides,new oil stones and had the chisels re-ground. Everybody was happy-old habits don't always die hard.
Philip Marcou
Edited 7/15/2006 6:40 pm by philip
Hello all; long-time lurker, first-time poster under this moniker. More fool me to come out of hiding on a sharpening issue...However, rather than give an erroneous impression about Planecraft, it might be worth mentioning that the majority of the sharpening advice therein is to grind a primary bevel of 25 degrees and then hone a secondary bevel at 30 degs - pretty standard advice in British woodworking texts. In my 1950 edition the comment on not using a secondary bevel is phrased thus:"There are some highly skilled workers who for extra fine work prefer to hone the whole grinding bevel, i.e., without using a second bevel. They attain in this manner a very keen edge. The thin Tungsten steel cutters of Record Planes are eminently suitable for this method of sharpening, which calls for highly skilled and patient honing"It appears to be more in the nature of covering the options, rather than advocating it for the average Planecraft reader. But the later addition may be quite different.Cheers, Alf
It's easy to maintain one bevel. In fact it's far easier to maintain one bevel than to try to hone at the same bevel angle of a secondary that's a scant 64th of an inch wide. The easiest way to get three or four bevels on an edge is to try to maintain two.Put oil on the stone, when you register the edge in a slight pool of oil you will feel, and hear the bevel make a 'click' and which is your cue that you've registered the iron to the stone correctly. Maintaining this registration is an acquired skill, but not that big a deal.I tripped across Planecraft after migrating to one bevel. Granted, I was happy to have confirmation from a book I'd heard a lot about, I decided to maintain only one bevel more or less 'on my own.'
Edited 7/16/2006 8:09 am ET by BossCrunk
"'There is much to said in favour of the method of honing which is employed by many experienced craftsmen, in which the whole of the surface of the 25* bevel is honed to a keen edge, thus using one bevel instead of two. For fine finishing work this method gives a very pleasing and satisfying cut, and in fact with most timbers the cut is better than with two bevels.'
Planecraft; C.& J. Hampton Ltd.; Sheffield England; 1959
Good enough for me."
Then for you this advice, which is not the only advice from that era, is good enough. And while you evidently adhere to it and believe in it, what if it is not good enough for others?
For instance, BC, if I sharpened my BD planes at 25 degrees and did not add a secondary, my planing session in Lyptus, Jatoba, Ebony, Teak, Bubinga, Cocobolo ad infintum, would be very short lived. The edge will simply break down too quickly.
One of the issues in this discussion I think you fail to grasp, is being adament about a given bevel angle being the only and the best for everyone. In that sense, you do not allow for others' experience and situation. So what you are in effect saying is it is not only good enough for you, but for everyone else as well.
I cannot imagine you actually mean that, but that is how you are coming across to me in this discussion.
Take care, Mike
I had an eye opener on different angles when a couple of people (including you, Mike) were talking about not only having a normal-bedded set of hollows and rounds, but a york pitch one as well.I sharpen at 27 degrees normally, and when I add a secondary bevel, it's usually 1-2 degrees.I find that 27 lasts longer than 25. I think a lot of the older advice, such as that in Planecraft, was really designed for the bulk of traditional hand tool use -- softwoods.As a total teak aside, Mike, how do you find it for planing? After hickory, it seems like a real pleasure, and it didn't dull blades as quickly as I expected.
Hi Deirdre,
I find Teak a variable--at least what is sold as Teak in the US. Tectona Grandis from Burma is about the most abrasive and the most even in hue. Wonderful stuff, just spendy.
That said, it is wonderful to use and love planing the stuff. With a higher bevel angle, of course <g>...
I have made a few pieces for clients in the past. But the piece I love the most is a lowly bench in our shower. It has held up wonderfully over the years and is a nice place to just sit and relax with hot water splashing about. Most likely it is that experience which taints my feeling it is the piece I like most.
Take care, have a great weekend.
Mike
Mike, I want to say that you have put that in a most eloquent and polite way.
You know, it has ocurred to me that if Boss Crumpet is not of at least a split personality then he is a clever fellow in that he may just be having a little "secretary bird" who writes those all too rare pieces that we have seen with his name attached (;)
As for your implicit comments on those timbers I can certainly vouch for the Jatoba and especially the Burmese Teak which can be an absolute killer ( of single bevels of inapropriate angle).
Talking of "good enough"- for some reason I remember a story about an employee of Rolls Royce, who presented his finished sump plug to the supervisor , saying it was good enough- he was sacked.Philip Marcou
Thank you for the kind words, Philip.
Yes, if what I meant was an acceptance of mediocrity, I should be sacked! And that reminds me of a workman--actually the owner of a crew--who worked on the remodal of our home. At one point during the installation of a support beam for a section of wall we removed, we were discussing the out of plumb beam. His remark was "Can't see it from my house..." Guess what I did?
I have varying levels of "finish" to which I take edge tools. For instance, my paring chisels I hone to 8k grit unless I am merely paring hidden aspects of construction. My scrub to 2k grit. And while actual work periods, I leave a 2k Shapton on my bench and between mortises, or planing tasks of everything but the smoothers, merely use that single stone. The compromise I am willing to live with between the speed of honing and the finish it achieves is acceptable.
My morning routine while drinking coffee is to sharpen the previous day's tools to their full glory--at least, as far as I am willing to take them.
Take care, Mike
On balance, I've had the most success with simply grinding and honing one bevel - not necessarily one ANGLE for every iron, but one bevel per cutting edge. The angle is up to the user.This methodology is borne of having a complete hand tool operation. I don't have the luxury of frustration and giving in to the electric jointer and planer. I've planed every single one of the species you mentioned with a single-bevel iron and all I can say is the work got done. Will you have to touch up more often when planing Teak? Of course, but I end up just touching up, not re-grinding as the secondary grows.All things taken into consideration, grinding and honing one bevel works best, IMO.I am absolutely allowing for others' experience. I am simply presenting my own. If anything, my debate draws people out of the woodwork, so to speak, to present their experience.
Edited 7/16/2006 8:00 am ET by BossCrunk
Hi BC,
I think it was the 25 degree statement that was the biggest deal. It does have draw backs in tougher timber. It also has pluses. Wear bevels, the rounding of an edge, which also occur on the bevel side have a thinner cross section on a 25 degree bevel. Which is the plus. The negative is they do grow faster.
Sharpening is a series of trade-offs. Once one decides which trade-offs are to their liking, they become a pattern and hence a routine. Once routine is established it is, well, comfortable. That is when sharpening is assured. Changing a routine that is successful is a threatening experience.
It would be difficult for me to maintain a secondary with any degree of accuracy without a guide. But if one has already selected to use a guide as part of the sharpening experience, a secondary is no big deal--even without a guide. My grandfather used secondary bevels honed fairly accurately by hand and I do when it is expedient. And in fact, to one as accomplished as yourself had you incorporated secondaries as part of your routine, I think you also would not only find them easy but be an advocate. We advocate that which we find success in doing.
In my woodworking history I have come mostly full-circle. I primarily was a hand-tool shop up until I grew larger. My sons began working for me and the nature of much of the work changed. So there were the powered moulders, planers, jointers et al. But not so anymore. Back full circle.
But my routine in sharpening has not changed a lot. Oh, the medium on which I sharpen has. But the manner in which I sharpen has been routine for many years. I have experiemented with bevel angles as well. By this time in my life, my routine--that which I believe is best for me [which is a slightly floating target anyway]--is fairly set.
I do allow for the habits and routines of others to be better for them. In my role as a teacher, I have sought to not impress my ways upon others. I do use them to at least point people towards a sharp edge. But should what they begin to incorporate or to become "natural" for them--primary, secondary, guided, no guide, sandpaper, ceramics, oil stones, powered grinder or waterstones, whatever, that is what I help them to better utilize in their own sharpening life.
The goal is to simply get a sharp edge in order to work wood. I could care less about that routine/medium/method as long as it doesn't prevent them from creating a routine which in turn doesn't discourage them from that goal.
Take care, Mike
Mike, I'm absolutely fine with primary bevels at varying degrees. I just don't add a secondary to the primary bevel. If I implied that everybody should get married to 25* then I apologize, but I don't think that I did. It's really easy to feel a primary bevel when it clicks on an oilstone. So I just hone that. Why the heck not? I think a primary bevel is more than capable of doing all the heavy lifting.I might, and I stress might, add a secondary on a mortise chisel in very intransigent stock. I'm less reticent about vigorously advocating a methodology that tends toward the simple side of the spectrum. I'm for less tools, less jigs, being creative with the tools you have, less hassle, less need for space, less noise, less dust, less pomp and circumstance, less electron microscopy of tool edges and 15,000 grit stones, (help me fill in more).In almost any circumstance, if there is a direct way to do something, a way that results in serviceability without extra steps, then I presume that's the route to take unless I rebut that with hands-on experience in my own shop. Edited 7/16/2006 1:56 pm ET by BossCrunk
Edited 7/16/2006 1:58 pm ET by BossCrunk
Pretty good post, BC.
Have a great Sunday...Mike
Thank you. You too.
All,
Am I the only one here to hollow grind bevels? A hollow grind is easier to hone, as the bevel is resting on the front edge and the rear heel when you lay it on the stone. No tendency to round over the bevel. No need to hone a secondary bevel, as you are only removing a small bit of metal when you resharpen. As the hollow gets smaller, and the flats approach one another, just regrind the hollow; no need to grind all the way out to the edge, just to within a 1/16" or 1/32" of it, then hone again. You aren't removing any steel at the edge with the wheel.
Regards,
Ray Pine
Quite right on the grinding front and I cannot hollow grind, so have the choice of secs. or no secs. For you it would be a chore to do without.
Hey Ray,
I of course end up with a hollow grind whenever I feel the need to use one of the grinders--Tormek or higher speed. For me the goal being a simply sharp edge, once the hollow grind is gone, I don't care to restablish it unless it is a by product of reshaping the bevel.
In the classes on sharpening I have taught, even experienced woodworkers can dub-over an edge, flat bevel or hollow ground. Neither is easier per se to hone, neither is harder. At least at the theory level. Some find one easier, some the other for whatever reason. I don't particularily find one to have an advantage over the other except when there is edge damage. Even then that's moot as I most likely will just add a secondary and keep working. Within certain parameters, I don't care what the bevel angle is unless it is a BU plane or my paring chisels.
Take care, Mike
Ray you are not the only one to use hollow grinds. I do them now and again-for no particular reason really. They seem to appeal for a bit then I go off them-mainly because it is not long before the hollow is honed out. I suspect they are better on friendly woods like Cherry.Mostly I do a micro bevel and use a guide- I feel that this minimises re-grinding and saves time and steel, and honing the whole bevel with a gude takes too long-ofcourse free hand one takes liberties....
I am failing to understand why some folk take such stubborn stances over this sort of thing-one does what suits ones methods, equipment, timber and mentality eg if one is not too concerned with exact angles or rounding over then one hones free hand. If one is a bevel up fan then micro bevels will feature on plane blades and a honing guide will be used.
As I said, one is influenced by many factors, knowingly or not.As a matter of interest, I would like to give someone like Boss Crumpet a heap of "nice" timber like Wenge or Burmese Teak to have to use exclusively- we would then see how quickly he would change his habits.
Philip Marcou
Ray,
No, you are not alone. I grind on a hand-cranked grinder with a small diameter stone. This gives me a pretty deep hollow grind, so it takes almost no time to hone a good edge, and I can restore that edge a few times before I have to re-grind. In keeping with my make it quick approach, I re-grind the if it takes more than a few strokes to establish a new edge. The only tool I flat grind are skew chisels for the lathe.
Rob Millard
No you're not. Anyone who grinds on the rim of a wheel is grinding hollow. But very slightly!
On a 250mm diameter stone, a 10mm long bevel at 30 degrees tangential will produce an edge that is 2.3 degrees more acute, unless I've screwed up the maths. As soon as you hone this on a flat stone it pops on a 30 degree micro bevel.
David,
You are a naughty boy, starting this thread with such an air of innocent enquiry. :-)
Still, it's always an education to watch the various WW Brights versus Religiosos reveal their mental processes (although "process" is perhaps not the right word for some of the bald utterances to be found).
Now then, whislt you were sat upon the throne, allowing your thoughts to rise up from the depths, as it were, what other conclusions of various Categorical Imperatives were revealed? I think we should be told.
Lataxe, a meme-hound.
Now your too clever by half my friend, ah'm just tossing pebbles in the pond of life. On day I might dip a toe.
Mufti,
Just a thought for your Library time.....
A butcher starts out with a sharp blade....and puts a steel to the knife frequently as he works to remove the 'rolled' edge...applying both a micro and back bevel to the blade in the process. After a week the knife gets sent out to be resharpened. I think this is pertinent to plane blades rather than chisels.
Now as a truely life long vegetarian I live and learn. I have no axe to grind (oh dear) but as a child did sharpen knives every saturday on the doorstep. No question of secondary bevels then.
Didn't they teach you in scouts not to grind an axe? THEY MUST BE SHARPENED WITH A FILE IN A SPECIAL JIG MADE FROM A LOG AND A SHORT WOODEN STAKE then a stone.
Sorry - I have been looking for a didactic opportunity right through this well mannerred thread.
Patto,
The tone of your last post sounds like you have an axe to grind. Heh heh. I taught axe-yard etiquette for years to tenderfoot scouts, and frequently found it necessary to grind out (too deep to file!)the gaps they put in the edges by chopping rocks in the ground while "splitting kindling"- we all know they just like seeing the sparks fly off the edge.
My youngest son was on the competition team in forestry school- those axes had been more than just filed and stoned! Frightening, the competitors had to wear steel shinguards when chopping.
C heers,
Ray Pine
Patto, bravo! ::applauds::
No need to apologise, jump in, the waters warm. As a schoolboy I was told to "get in and flap about, just don't pee in the pool." Always seemed like good advice to me.
Can you do me a drawing?
Hi mufti,
>get in and flap about, just don't pee in the pool<
You're probably about a day late and a dollar short on giving out that advice.
Ed
Metod,
Dogma is a requirement for a geometry teacher, fer sure. (Her dogma was more powerful than my karma!) And yes, she pointed out the relationship between a 30-60-90 and a 60-60-60 triangle. I just gave you the Reader's Digest condensed version.
I hope the IRS never rings my doorbell.
Cheers,
Ray
I conclude that the idea of sharpening all your tools with only a single bevel is, at the outset, nonsense. Anyone operating in this manner is very wasteful of good steel and their own time. Anyone attempting such an inefficient methodology is clearly quite inexperienced.
You are right. I am so inexperienced I used to start with the secondary bevel.
Who cares anyway? So long as the damn thing gets sharp fast and it cuts as it should the rest of it is all just differences in technique.
For what it's worth I teach my learners to use a grindstone for a grinding angle followed by a sharpening angle-- same as primary and secondary bevel.
If this nitpicking and anal debate goes on much longer I'll be forced to dig out my infamous tract, 'A Lesson in Sharpening,' again, ha, ha--- ha, ha, ha. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Brother Richard,
<<Who cares anyway? So long as the damn thing gets sharp fast and it cuts as it should the rest of it is all just differences in technique.>>
Can we get an "Amen?"
Cheers!Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen!
James
Personally, very fond of hollow grind, followed by two bevels, both with a honing guide.............................
Quick and easy! (The majority of hard steel being always removed by the fastest coarsest means).
Fabulous result.
No doubt anathema to many.
David Charlesworth
Just for the record, I never said why use secondary bevels, just why bother on the first use after a grind. I cannot believe I started this.
Have you tried the next stage?
"Just for the record, I never said why use secondary bevels, just why bother on the first use after a grind. I cannot believe I started this.
Have you tried the next stage?"
Your intuition is correct, Mufti. Just keep honing the bevel produced when you did your regrind. Don't reset your jig, just move to progressively finer stones and you will be done.
Any assertion that a secondary DRAMATICALLY affects the longevity of an edge is vastly overblown, IMO. The most important factor in edge retention is the expectation of the user. Think about that. Form realistic expectations and your shop time will be far more enjoyable.
The thought of staying hunched over the workbench for hours on end with an edge that just won't die is ghastly. Am I the only person here who needs to stand up straight every now and then? I need an edge to go off a little and need a touch-up. It's part of the rhythm of hand tool woodworking. Part of the day's rhythm in the shop. When the edge gets a little tired, I might walk in the house to see what Jennifer is up to. Or pet the dog. Or sweep up the shavings to prevent a slip. Something else beside planing.
You will save time overall by eliminating the re-grinds necessary when a secondary bevel grows too large. Use this time to make your day go better.
Maybe if I could master tilting my wrist exactly one or two degrees and holding a 32nd of an inch of steel at this angle during honing (no mean feat) I'd be more apt to embrace a secondary bevel. Until then, I'll just keep plopping the primary down and working it to a serviceable edge.
Edited 7/16/2006 10:49 am ET by BossCrunk
I am learning a lot from all these posts, as I am sure we all are , the main lesson being there are many ways to **** a cat. (We have two and I am fond of them). To me you make sense, do what works.
The second quote is a ref to my suggestion for planing difficult stock, it worked for me so thought I would pass it on. The next stage.
For the record I am hobby only tho I do things for folks at cost, my "shop" is a 14foot square shed plus a small UK garage with heavy old machines. I do have fun!
Best wishes, David
If you're having fun that's all that matters.
Aww c'mon, Sgian. There are new players so this debate has resurfaced..., just as it will in 6 months and 6 months after that. Perhaps this time they will resolve it, Hah, hah, ha...,Let em play,Lee
Sgian, ever the practical one. ;)I do a hollow grind (Tormek) then hone on waterstones. Generally, I consider a microbevel a PITA, so I don't bother with it the first time, but after the honed surface gets larger, I do.How's that for contradictory? :)
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled