Work Sharp Tool Sharpener vs Veritas® Mk.II Power Sharpening System

[paul cottingham]

See above. Any opinions?

[Jim Koepke]

It would be rare to find a person that has both systems.

I have the Veritas® Mk.II Power Sharpening System and like it.

I have found that it does not get as much use once all my blades are in good condition. Most of the time they just get a quick honing on the 4000 and 8000 stone to get put back to work.

If you do get the Mk.II, you may want to get a few extra tool holders. I ended up with five. The tools get hot when they are being honed. Five seems to be a good number to go through to allow for cooling during a sharpening session.

I have heard of some complaints about uneven sharpening because the outside of the platter is moving faster than the inside. This has not been a problem for me. But I also use both sides of the platter to avoid this.

I seldom buy any mint condition tools. The Mk.II is great for flattening the back of pitted or improperly ground blades.

I also bought extra platters since I do not usually want a micro bevel. If you are also not a user of micro bevels, you may also want to put the coarsest abrasive on the opposite side of the lightest abrasive and the two in between grits on the other plater to balance out the slight change due to thickness of the abrasives. NOTE, the Mk.II comes with two thicknesses of platter. If you do not want a micro bevel, you need to get two platters of the same thickness.

My biggest complaint is the bolt to hold the plates on may have been better if it had a left hand thread.

My satisfaction with the Mk.II Power Sharpening System and the service I have received from Lee Valley has me looking at their site when ever I am considering buying new tools.

My Mk.II has even been used to sharpen axes and shovels.

jim

[Barry Vabeach]

Paul, though some of the concepts are similar, the execution is totally different. The worksharp excels at putting a sharp edge on chisels very quickly with little set up time. The below table blade holder maxs out at 2 inches, so it doesn't work for plane blades and you would have to buy the wide blade table, IIRC, you then would sharpen from on top of the table. Also the below table holder gets set at specific preset angles. The Lee Valley doesn't use a single blade holder in a fixed position, so you can set any angle you want to sharpen to , and it automatically puts on a microbevel at the finer grits ( you sharpen from above the table, and the platters with the finer grits are thinner than the other grits, so the micro bevel happens without any change by you.) IIRC, the LV has a greater selection of grits, and they last a long time - the Work sharp appears to use ordinary sandpaper. With any rotating platter, you can develop issues in trying to get the edge perfectly straight and it is easy to get a camber, or a skew, even if you aren't trying for one. As Jim says, the powered sharpeners get used to get a blade sharp from a rough condition - usually you can just hone the edge a few times to keep it in shape before you have to go back to the powered sharpener. If you get a lot of rough blades, or you make you own blades, either would be of help, especially in flattening the back of the blades.

[Jim Koepke]

The Lee Valley doesn't use a single blade holder in a fixed position, so you can set any angle you want to sharpen to , and it automatically puts on a microbevel at the finer grits ( you sharpen from above the table, and the platters with the finer grits are thinner than the other grits, so the micro bevel happens without any change by you.)

Even if one tries to overcome the "automatic" micro bevel feature of the Mk.II System, just putting the initial bevel on the blade with the coarse grit will alter the blade a little. It takes a little fiddling to get the feel for overcoming the micro bevel. It can be done.

I have actually gone from the second coarsest grit straight to a 4000 then 8000 stone with good results.

jim

[Doug Shepard]

...The below table blade holder maxs out at 2 inches, so it doesn't work for plane blades and you would have to buy the wide blade table...

The vast majority of my plane blades are <= 2" and the Worksharp works just fine on those. I've since bought the wide blade holder but haven't tried it out yet on the wider blades like on the jointer, etc. I still switch to paper/glass plate sharpening for some things though. For some reson I just cant bring myself to use the Worksharp on the irons in my Brese planes.

[Jack Camillo]

I also have the Mk II Power Sharpening System. I've had it for a couple years now and couldn't be happier. I love it to death and cheerish it and would never think to use it for big ole axes and shovels for fear of damaging it (Jim, what are you thinking!?). Haven't tried the worksharp for comparison, but can't imagine that it is the same caliber of equipment. I could be wrong.

[Michael Panis]

I love my Mk II. As you'd expect from Veritas, it's a well thought out, well manufactured machine.

That said, I have one or two items on my wish-list.
1. I'm not crazy about how the tool holder clamps narrow chisels since the chisel is under one clamp and far away from the other. It doesn't cause problems as long as you clamp them carefully.
2. I wish the platform was a little larger so I could make jigs for holding things other than chisels and plane blades (although I won't be sharpening an axe anytime soon!)

But I don't think the worksharp is any better.

My concern with the worksharp (completely unconfirmed) is that the chisel always touches down at the same point on the disk. I'd think any unevenness on the platter would get transferred to the chisel (much like a nick in a planer blade transfers to the workpiece). With the MkII, you slide the chisel across the platter, so any small variations get smoothed out.

Jim -- I believe the right-handed threaded bolt was chosen on purpose. It ensures that if you bump your chisel into the bolt, the bolt will unlatch rather than jam and cause more problems.

[Jim Koepke]

Jim -- I believe the right-handed threaded bolt was chosen on purpose. It ensures that if you bump your chisel into the bolt, the bolt will unlatch rather than jam and cause more problems.

You are probably correct. I do use it after the power is off and the disk has slowed, the bolt is grabbed and unscrewed using the platter's momentum.

I have a lot of sharp blades because of it being such a great worker.

With a little care, axes, hatchets and shovels are easy to do. Though I have taken to doing shovels different most of the time since the bevel seems better on the inside most of the time.

jim

[Mark Roderick]

My two cents.

I once owned the Veritas product but sent it back because I think both these systems have a fundamental flaw based on geometry. Because you're using a spinning disc, the outside of the disc is moving at a significantly faster speed than the inside. It doesn't matter when you're sharpening a quarter-inch chisel, but it matters a lot when you're sharpening the iron of a jointer plane. You're removing MUCH more metal on the outside of the blade, and anything you do to compensate for his geometrical fact (e.g., pressing harder on the inside) makes it impossible to obtain complete repeatability.

Thus, I'd stay away from both of them.

[Steve Clardy]

I haven't had that issue with my MKll machine.
Plane blades come out square. [As long as you put them in the holder square]
Same amount of metal comes off of both sides.

[Jim Koepke]

My two cents.

I once owned the Veritas product but sent it back because I think both these systems have a fundamental flaw based on geometry. Because you're using a spinning disc, the outside of the disc is moving at a significantly faster speed than the inside. It doesn't matter when you're sharpening a quarter-inch chisel, but it matters a lot when you're sharpening the iron of a jointer plane. You're removing MUCH more metal on the outside of the blade, and anything you do to compensate for his geometrical fact (e.g., pressing harder on the inside) makes it impossible to obtain complete repeatability.

Thus, I'd stay away from both of them.

This is most curios. Like Steve, I have not had this "problem." It seems if the blade on the outside of the disk was losing more metal, it would also lose contact with the disk until the metal being removed from the blade again equalized across the width.

I think it is kind of like sharpening by hand, in the end it is not the stone or the equipment keeping the blade square, it is the person working with the stones, grinder, equipment etc. that keeps things square.

Geometry is an interesting thing. If the blade is slightly skewed, it will skew the edge. If the spinning disk is causing a skewing of the blade, then an adjustment of the blade's relationship to the disk can eliminate the skew factor. I would hope the makers of the equipment discovered these anomalies during the design phase and took care of them.

I have probably sharpened more blades than the average user on my Mk.II and have not seen this problem. For the record, I have a few dozen planes and more chisels. Among my planes are a few Stanley #45s that have a lot of straight blades for rabbets that do not have any lateral adjustment. If they are not square, it is impossible to use them.

jim

[Jim Kirkpatrick]

the outside of the disc is moving at a significantly faster speed than the inside.


Strike that. Reverse it.
W. Wonka

[Mark Roderick]

All I can say is that the circumference of a disc is 2 x pi x r, where r is the radius.

This means that if you're sharpening a 2" plane blade, the abrasive is touching the metal on the outside of the blade at TWICE the speed as the abrasive is touching the metal on the inside of the blade.

If you're saying that varying the speed at which an abrasive touches the metal doesn't change the rate at which metal is removed, all I can say is "Congratulations!"

Yes, if the blade were held PERFECTLY rigid, it wouldn't matter. But on a wide plane blade I don't think you have perfect rigidity.

But seriously, whatever works for you is the right answer. If you're getting perfectly square edges on wide plane blades, I think it means you've learned to subtly compensate for the geometric flaw - and that means it's working for you, which is all that matters.

[Don Naples]

All

Yes, if the blade were held PERFECTLY rigid, it wouldn't matter. But on a wide plane blade I don't think you have perfect rigidity.

But seriously, whatever works for you is the right answer. If you're getting perfectly square edges on wide plane blades, I think it means you've learned to subtly compensate for the geometric flaw - and that means it's working for you, which is all that matters.

Mark: I assume from your "think" statements you have not used this sharpening system or one like it. The Lap-Sharp also uses rotating abrasive discs (though it is bi-directional) and also does not have a problem keeping a square edge on a wide plane iron. Your comment about rigidity is correct. By keeping the plane iron rigid, the outer part of the tool will reduce the abrading process while the inner portion catches up, leaving a straight edge.

[Mark Roderick]

No, I did own the Veritas product. However, I returned it because of the problem of uneven wear, caused by the geometry problem I've described.

I figured the problem could be overcome by learning to compensate in one way or another, but I didn't want to have to learn to compensate. Since then I've used a Tormek for rough grinding for most blades, then hone by hand on waterstones.

This is no criticism of Lee Valley, certainly, nor is it criticism of those who have learned to use the Veritas or LapSharp products successfully. It's just an observation based on geometry (and my own experience) and perhaps a caution to anyone considering those products versus other sharpening methods.

[Johnny Kleso]

I made a Sharpening System I call my MKIII

You can check it out here..
http://home.comcast.net/~rexmill/sharpening/MKIII/MKIII.html

Or www.rexmill.com (http://www.rexmill.com) and browse to the MkIII page

If you don't have a bench grinder I would buy one of those first if you use old tools vs new tools..

If you have a wood lathe and a face plate you can make a jig for that to sharpen blades on a slow tuning face plate

[John Gornall]

Increasing the speed of an abrasive, if it has adequate power, could increase the amount of metal removed but only if the feed rate is increased. In the case of the Lee Valley MKII sharpener the feed rate of the blade at the outside edge and the inside edge remains the same and so the amount of metal removed is equal. The feed rate for both edges of the blade is controlled by the removal rate of the inside edge where the cutting speed is lowest.

To get an uneven grind because the outside edge is grinding faster would require the blade to tip out of parallel to the grinding disc. The blade in it's holder doesn't tip.

An old tool engineer.

[Mark Roderick]

"In the case of the Lee Valley MKII sharpener the feed rate of the blade at the outside edge and the inside edge remains the same and so the amount of metal removed is equal."

No, that's not correct. The feed rate of the blade DOES differ at the inside and outside edges because of the geometry.

Your other point, that the difference in feed rate makes no difference if the blade is held perfectly rigid, is completely correct.

But the main point, I think, is that even though the feed rate is different and even though no blade holder is perfectly rigid, if you use the machines regularly you learn to compensate for the small differences and thereby get the edge you're looking for.

Tools don't have to be perfect to be useable. My "tablesaw" is actually a bench-top Delta I inherited from my grandfather and have outfitted with a shop-built, sturdy base and a Biesmeyer fence. If you checked the flatness of its table or the wobble of its blade the way they do in magazines they'd probably be so far out of whack you'd think you couldn't use it, the way a bumblebee isn't supposed to be able to fly.

But I use it with great results because I've learned to compensate. For example, I touch every edge with a Lie-Nielsen jointer plane.

If you buy one of the disc-sharpening tools, you're going to have to be aware that the geometry will, if not compensated for, produce uneven wear. That means you're going to have to at least "help" the tool holder maintain rigidity, and with wide blades perhaps press a bit harder on the inside edge. This doesn't make the tools unacceptable, it's just something buyers should know about - there's a learning curve on every tool.

[Ben West]

Mark,

Your theory that the outer edge of the wheel will remove more steel would work IF the edge being sharpened wasn't held consistently parallel with the spinning disk. Since the Veritas tool holder does accomplish this task (within reasonable tolerances anyway -- you're right that no blade holder is perfectly rigid), the amount of material removed is constant across the entire edge regardless of wheel speed. One might be able to remove more material of the right-hand end of the edge if he applied a lot of pressure on that corner and abnormally distorted the blade or the tool holder. With an even hand, though, material removal will be the same across the edge's width.

This is consistent with almost everyone's reviews of these units. If the geometry of the spinning disk consistently caused problems, almost everyone would have significant problems getting straight and square results. However, just the opposite is the case: almost everyone reports great results when using this machine without compensating for the wheel speed issue.

[Jim Kountz]

These "technical" threads never fail to amuse me. Both systems are proven reliable machines and excel at their jobs yet there is some scientific, mathematically based reasons given for why they wont or dont work. Amazing.

[Kevin Blunt]

These "technical" threads never fail to amuse me. Both systems are proven reliable machines and excel at their jobs yet there is some scientific, mathematically based reasons given for why they wont or dont work. Amazing.


Well Said!

[Jack Camillo]

These "technical" threads never fail to amuse me. Both systems are proven reliable machines and excel at their jobs yet there is some scientific, mathematically based reasons given for why they wont or dont work. Amazing.

Lol. I normally don't use that thing (lol), but here, it's true.

[Jim Koepke]

If the geometry of the spinning disk consistently caused problems, almost everyone would have significant problems getting straight and square results. However, just the opposite is the case: almost everyone reports great results when using this machine without compensating for the wheel speed issue.

I had almost forgotten about this thread.

With a little further thought, my only reasonable conclusion is that Mark may have received a unit with an improperly made support system component or blade holder. If the support bar was slightly leaning or not aligned properly to the frame, then this may have caused his problem. The platter could also have had a problem that slipped through quality control.

Mechanical design problems caused by geometry can be solved with compensatory geometric methods.

I was impressed by my first blade sharpened using the Mk. II.

My decision to purchase was made after reading an article reviewing power sharpening systems in FWW. The Mk. II power sharpening system received top marks. I am not sure if the Work Sharp was on the market at that time.

When a topic like this comes up, it is great because not only do we get feed back from others, it causes me to think more about what is happening when the tool is being used. A blade was being sharpened on my Mk. II last night. When the machine was switched to the finer grit plates, a common occurrence was noticed. Because of the slight differences is the thicknesses of the abrasive paper, the blade is given a micro bevel. When looking at this last night, it was noted as being even from side to side. If I was compensating, then it was something I was doing before the machine came into my shop. Just now thinking about this while typing this post, the way to compensate for the micro bevel would be to make some disks of paper to shim the platter up to hone the whole bevel.

Of course, since the micro bevel works, why bother?

Just rambling and random thoughts.

jim

[John Gornall]

On the Mark II there is nothing to compensate for - the blade edge is parrallel to the disc and remains so during sharpening.

[Jack Camillo]

I was convinced (already assured of the quality of Veritas-made products) and decided to purchase based on a demostration at a woodworking show a couple years ago. Now that I've had one, I'm still convinced.

[Maurice Ungaro]

It would be rare to find a person that has both systems.

Hehe...well..I now have a Makita wet sharpener, a Worksharp, AND a Mk II. I'm selling one. Guess which one....