Rolled Bevel vs Micro Bevel vs Hollow Grind

[Tony Wilkins]

Started reading the Paul Sellers blog recently and his teachings are a lot different than a lot of the books, videos, blogs, etc that I've been looking at thus far. For example, bench height, chopping mortises, and sharpening.

As far as sharpening, he doesn't seem to have much use for a micro bevel - which is interesting to me since I just got (but haven't used yet) and Veritas MK II honing jig. So can someone walk me through the pros and cons of rolled bevel ala Sellers, micro bevel, and hollow grinding? I'm hoping it's just so many roads leading to the same destination.

TIA,
Tony

PS This is part of a bigger question I asked about on another forum about shifting through the information provided by so many woodworking 'gurus'.

PSS Hopefully not too divisive a topic; that certainly is not what I'm looking for in asking - quite the opposite.

[Sam Stephens]

my response would be to find a method that works for you. many paths lead to sharpness. find one that is fast and effective. i don't spend much time sharpening, as I prefer to just use my sharp tools on wood. search the many posts here to find the endless debates (rather than start a new one)

[Bill Haumann]

In my opinion, at least for normal everyday work, it's really a matter of personal preference.
Freehand sharpening, however, is much faster than putting things in honing jigs, and isn't hard to get the hang of.
I am now using Paul's method on my oilstones and strop, and it does get things sharp fast.
My tools are almost exclusively O1 and similar steel, so that may effect the choice of sharpening media.

[Winton Applegate]

Tony,

So glad you asked. Not that I have any views on sharpening.
Yah right.

A micro bevel allows you to do quick touch ups of an edge without cutting all that metal back on the main bevel. The Varitas allows a roughly one and two degree change in angle.

Lets talk Bevel Up blades for an example.
These repeatable and consistent one or two degree settings are extremely useful to me. For instance I grind (or receive from the blade maker ) the main bevel to suit the softest wood I am likely to work. I have some steep bevel blades from the maker but recommend getting the shallower angle on the main bevel and then setting the Varitas to sharpen at the bevel I need for the wood I am to work, which mostly is very hard wood and I sharpen at say 40º with the little "micro bevel" clicker on the roller set to the least angle setting.

Then, when I have the angle I want I sharpen through all the grits and it goes quick because I am just sharpening a micro bevel.
When I go to sharpen again I probably do the same.

Then after a few sharpenings . . . the original MICRObevel is getting wider so I may click one notch on the roller clicker and suddenly I have a very small area to sharpen that is only one degree, roughly, different.
or
if I am tearing out and need a little steeper angle I can click up one or both notches and get a known and repeatable difference.
When one gets into the steeper bevels it takes more horse power to drive the blade through the wood, especially with the wider finish blades with low or zero camber edges. Adding five degrees for no reason just because we are ever getting roundyer on the bevel that your buddy is promoting is adding significant and unnecessary work to your day.

I write the sharpening angle to the steepest micro bevel on each blade with magic marker. I have stacks of blades for my most used planes so it helps me select the angle I need and often I have several of the same micro bevel angle for the wood I am working at the time. If tear out is an issue.

As far as the other cons see the stropping thread posted today.

If you want to get set up to hollow grind and you do it right and don't heat up your edges that is a very fast and effective way to go.
but
hone a flat facet on the very edge of the blade using the jig
don't
go blindly rounding the edge. That is just rubbing areas of the blade with your expensive stones that is not cutting wood. Only the fraction of a millimeter at the very edge of the blade needs to be polished
and
it needs to be flat. HOLLOW GRINDING THE VERY, TIPPY TIP OF THE CUTTING EDGE CHANGES THE GEOMETRY shallower and is an unpredictable geometry unless you know the radius of your stones (which are always getting smaller) and can do the math and hold your blades at the correct angle to get the geometry for the wood you are working. Also you are using a wet wheel at this point and that is more futzing around.
Power grinding the very edge of the blade is like killing an ant with a missile. Sharpening by rounding the edge rather than using a jig and making a flat facet is like throwing darts in a dark room hoping you will hit the target.

so many roads
many of them leading to another crappier valley over from which you can only look on at the party you hopped to go to.

[Tony Wilkins]

Winton, slight tangent, I believe I remember you not liking the 'ruler trick' sharpening of a back bevel as suggested by lie Nielsen and David Charlesworth. IIRC, why is that?

[Adam Cruea]

Winton, slight tangent, I believe I remember you not liking the 'ruler trick' sharpening of a back bevel as suggested by lie Nielsen and David Charlesworth. IIRC, why is that?

Not that I'm answering for Winton, but my short and sweet is that a blade gets sharp by 2 planes intersecting. The ruler trick back-bevel puts another plane into the mix. That bevel can creep, and, at least on BU planes, your "edge" isn't really your "edge". The edge you've created is actually off the bed of the plane.

I'll go on record and say for beginners, it's a nice little trick. If you have good waterstones (I can't speak for oil stones), it's a moot point. You have a guide, and as long as your stones are flat, there's really no reason for it.

I actually never used one. I never saw the point.

Also, I purchased a MkII guide. I don't micro-bevel and most of my blades are set at 30*. I do tend to hollow-grind my blades, though, so I don't have as much metal to remove with my stones.

Really, if your blades are sharp, that's all that matters. I'll also suggest caution and thought when reading about other people's techniques and tricks. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another. Find your own way with trial and error and enjoy the hobby (or profession).

[don wilwol]

When I first started getting serious about hand planes, my belt sander then a quick hone didn't seem to fit any more. And OK, its evolved, but through all the iterations I've tried, sharp is still sharp. You can use a micro bevel, a back bevel, a secondary bevel, hollow grind, flat grind, buy a $700 tormek, a $60 Ryobi, and it doesn't matter. Sharp is sharp. Simplify my man. That's what Paul Sellers is teaching and I agree. Here is my technique. Hollow grind. I've got both an 8" wheel and a 10" whet wheel. No math required. Move from the wheel (first time only) to a hard oil stone. Oil the stone, set the iron on it, rock the hollow and feel the click front and back to get it perfectly flat. After some practice muscle memory will follow the forward back stroke. Hit the strop to remove the burr, take one or two more passes on the stone. You've saved $80 on the jig, and believe it or not, sharp is still sharp.

[Jim Matthews]

I've used the methods mentioned above, each with some measure of success.

I find the convex bevel method as taught by Mr. Sellers repeatable, effective and faster than the others. No power grinding or polishing is involved.
It's also a good deal less mess to contend with. I don't have a sink in my basement shop - so waterstones were an "upstairs" affair.

This way, I can keep three diamond plates and a strop at my bench.
I now use light machine oil on my diamond plates and it seems to work.

I found plates smaller than 3" wide and 6" long to be fiddly - hard to stay on them.
The Atoma plates are big and stable, but expensive.

There's no rust to clear, and the stones look (and cut) like new after three months.
Perhaps this will be an expensive mistake, but for now it seems to work.

All of my irons are now flattened on the back - no ruler trick.
As I had some bevel-up irons that had a back-bevel, this took some doing.
(I ground back the edge to the limit of the back bevel and re-flattened the back.)

I prefer to do this with the traditional blades that use a cap iron, they're thinner and often softer.
That gets sharp, faster. Some of the current, thicker blades can be difficult to sharpen this way.


...

I can take a dull edge (once the back of the steel has been flattened - and that is laborious) to sharp in about 90 seconds this way.
I was about that fast in setting up my honing gauge when I used Shapton stones and a Veritas greeble.

I would say two things about the convex bevel sharpening method;

First -

You've got to get the stones down around your belt level to maintain a proper honing angle.
If it's too high, the angle will be shallow. If the stone height is too low, it will be too steep.

I try to keep my wrist and elbow aligned, no contortions or my tennis elbow flares again.

Second -


This method takes considerable force to work. You've got to bear down on the iron.
I was surprised at how much force was required to hone and strop this way.

Honing utilizes the natural swing of your arms (describing a shallow arc) but stropping needs to be at a constant angle of attack.
The stropping step is deceptively simple, and subtle rocking of the blade will produce a less keen edge.
I'm still struggling with this.

I believe the microbevel method is so successful because it concentrates force on a much smaller area.
If you lack hand strength, have mobility problems or side weakness - the honing guide and microbevel method is a wonder.


With the convex bevel, you've got lots of steel in contact with each stone.
The exertion required to raise a burr is proportional to the size of the blade
and the hardness of the steel at hand.

In short - if you can get an edge sharp fast with this method,
you'll likely be at it again in short order.

If it took a long time to get the edge sharp,
it might last longer, with proper handling.

Here's the bottom line; it's easy to get feedback on the convex bevel method as you can see the large area being honed develop a scratch pattern
and you can readily feel the burr as it is raised.

[David Weaver]

It all makes little difference, find something and use it as a method. Whatever is consistent, fast, and gets good results.

If the gurus are:
* talking about beginner stuff
* selling tools or pitching tools
* saying their method is the only way

Then you can ignore the gurus. What they should know that would be beneficial to us would be in procedure and design, and by procedure, I mean like getting a drawer front, three sides and a bottom and showing a fast way to do neat work. Not a 1 hour video on it, but how it's done in a shop.

Everybody likes to talk about sharpening and dovetails and other things that will eventually drive you up the wall when you see them, but those are basic blocking and tackling that you could just about fall into doing fine by trial and error.

[Charlie Stanford]

Started reading the Paul Sellers blog recently and his teachings are a lot different than a lot of the books, videos, blogs, etc that I've been looking at thus far. For example, bench height, chopping mortises, and sharpening.

As far as sharpening, he doesn't seem to have much use for a micro bevel - which is interesting to me since I just got (but haven't used yet) and Veritas MK II honing jig. So can someone walk me through the pros and cons of rolled bevel ala Sellers, micro bevel, and hollow grinding? I'm hoping it's just so many roads leading to the same destination.

TIA,
Tony

PS This is part of a bigger question I asked about on another forum about shifting through the information provided by so many woodworking 'gurus'.

PSS Hopefully not too divisive a topic; that certainly is not what I'm looking for in asking - quite the opposite.

Consider flat grinding and honing with an Eclipse style jig. It's reliable, repeatable, and the geometry is above reproach. It produces the definition of a sharp edge, a simple intersection of two planes, no hollows, no tricks, no extra bevels ("micros" or whatever the term du jour happens to be), no round bevel. Simplicity itself. You can get the real thing on EBay for $20 to $30, a clone for less than $15.

[David Weaver]

with an Eclipse style jig

That's good advice. It's the most basic, most controllable (for camber or whatever) and most intuitive way to go. The eclipse is to the veritas jig what a vintage bandsaw is to a tracksaw on some blinged up special high dollar table.

[peter gagliardi]

Lot of words in this thread, so I'll be brief: zero radius is just that zero radius!

[Roger Nair]

This is my first post here, so a brief introduction. I am a lifelong carpenter, with a formal apprenticeship, with 44 years in building. In 1988 I course corrected out of production work and restoration to timber framing. So for about 12 years my main method of mortising, in mostly green oak with hundreds of mortises per house frame, was to drill and chisel by hand. So edge tool maintenance for me was to get sharp quick with minimum steps and have a durable edge. My method surely produced a rolled edge. I would work the bevel on a Makita horizontal wetstone grinder freehand with a 1000 girt platter and hone freehand with a hard felt wheel an a bench grinder using the lightest pressure possible. As I worked along I could feel the loss of edge, I would return to the felt wheel for maybe 10 or 15 seconds and rehone the edge. I would return to the Makita only when the bevel became to steep, that would be a subjective conclusion. I can't say what the angles were, the whole matter was judged by feel and appearance. I am a firm believer in performance in use as the guide to a more ideal state.

[Chris Hachet]

It all makes little difference, find something and use it as a method. Whatever is consistent, fast, and gets good results.

If the gurus are:
* talking about beginner stuff
* selling tools or pitching tools
* saying their method is the only way

Then you can ignore the gurus. What they should know that would be beneficial to us would be in procedure and design, and by procedure, I mean like getting a drawer front, three sides and a bottom and showing a fast way to do neat work. Not a 1 hour video on it, but how it's done in a shop.

Everybody likes to talk about sharpening and dovetails and other things that will eventually drive you up the wall when you see them, but those are basic blocking and tackling that you could just about fall into doing fine by trial and error.Exactly...I pretty much just go with a straight 30 degree bevel or a slight hollow grind, either way works for me. the more tricks and Guru's advice I try to use. the duller my tools seem to get. Like Mr. Mathews, I use diamond stones at the bench...works pretty good. I have just started playing with water stones.

[Andrew Hughes]

Welcome to the sawmill creek Roger,Execellant first post I can see the truth in your words,Working in timber framing your chisels are step up from my cabinet chisels.I too would use a Makita if my tools were 1 inch or better.Someday I would like to work on some big timbers.Not much of that going on round here.But at least I not making trinkets dudads and small boxes.Maybe small boxes I still like small boxes. Andrew

[Roger Nair]

So as you may imagine timber framing requires chisel use in a full variety of manners from very heavy mallet strikes, wasting out wood, paring out hollows, paring end grain, chamferring edges and cutting leads in tenons, so on and on. I feel the rolled edge has performed well for me in all the various tasks. I assume a strict microbevel regime would give similar performance but at a higher cost of maintenance time. I have not pursued using sharpening guides because I feel the very much longer, wider and heavier framing chisels would be unwieldy with sharpening guides. I have in use modern Barr's and Henry Taylor's plus a number of vintage chisels. For my own use with heavy framing chisel, I would avoid low angle hollow grinding for fear of weakness during heavy mallet work, but would consider hollow grind for slicks and paring chisels. So I conclude there is a place for all the various techniques, it is mostly a matter of gear up.

[Jim Matthews]

I am a firm believer in performance in use as the guide to a more ideal state.

Amen, Reverend.
It's an important reminder that tradesman aren't paid to sharpen their tools.

Output matters. Methods that slow production can't be justified.

[Mark Roderick]

1. Every one of these posts is accurate and there are many ways to get sharp edges. However, do what David Weaver tells you to do, and use the equipment he tells you to use. His knowledge is second to none and it is much easier to follow the advice of one expert than to try to sift among many.

2. The method he and Charles Sandford recommend works perfectly and is perfect for someone just starting out. It also happens to be the Lie Nielsen way. Buy their sharpening video to see it in action. If you have questions, come back here and ask David.

3. You are likely to adopt new ways in the future. Then, like everyone else here, you will be the one giving conflicting advice to beginners!

[Charlie Stanford]

1. Every one of these posts is accurate and there are many ways to get sharp edges. However, do what David Weaver tells you to do, and use the equipment he tells you to use. His knowledge is second to none and it is much easier to follow the advice of one expert than to try to sift among many.

2. The method he and Charles Sandford recommend works perfectly and is perfect for someone just starting out. It also happens to be the Lie Nielsen way. Buy their sharpening video to see it in action. If you have questions, come back here and ask David.

3. You are likely to adopt new ways in the future. Then, like everyone else here, you will be the one giving conflicting advice to beginners!

The bearings in my old Craftsman grinder are about gone. For the last couple of weeks I've been slapping cutters in the Eclipse. Frankly, my edges are better. I'm in no hurry to replace the grinder. Planecraft talks about using the "one bevel" method of honing (using a Record jig of course) resulting in a sweeter cutting iron. Seems like it to me. Jim Kingshott used a jig of his own design and making. Good enough for him, good enough for me for sure.

[David Weaver]

The only catch to the single bevel is for folks floating around with 3/16" very hard irons or irons with a lot of wear resistance. If you use a grinder and a diamond stone, you'll fall in love with the biggest muji continental smoother. If you used standard bench waterstones and no grinder, you'd curse the thing until you were hoarse. If you use vintage or softer and esp. thinner irons, then there's not a whole lot of time difference by hand or not.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

This is my first post here...

And a great post at that!

Not perfection, but something that works and is fast.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I prefer to NOT use a micro-bevel for one reason only.... I find it difficult to do free hand and I am usually in a hurry. As such, I prefer a hollow grind. To micro-bevel, I end up using a jig and I have not set anything to allow me to very very fast drop something into the jig so that the angle is perfect. I really probably should do that.

Now, that said, my Lee Valley PM-V11 chisels came with a micro-bevel, and they are really sharp from the factory. I have not found it in myself to slap them on my Tormek to add a hollow-grind just so I can free hand them.

[David Weaver]

I am a firm believer in performance in use as the guide to a more ideal state.

Stealing charlie's line.....can't argue with success!

[Winton Applegate]

Tony,

Sorry I almost missed answering your question to me.
How do I get e-mail notices when people post a comment to one of my comments ?
Anyway I am late responding because SWMBO makes me go to work. Work is really cutting into my forum time. If I don't go to work she will make me sleep on the deck on that old rug (she might even take me back to the pound). In any case I wouldn't have an internet connection. It's best I keep going to work. She's not fooling around.

Why don't I like the ruler trick ?
Here are some answers; most of them are real and honest. I will let you figure out which ones are

Why don't I like the ruler trick

I didn't think of it. ? :)

The normally demonstrated version where the ruler is stuck in a fixed position on the stone and the blade slid side ways across the stone, perpendicular to the ruler is errrrr . . . I mean . . ., less than successful because it rounds the area being honed and so causes the actual cutting edge to be lifted out of the wood by the rounded area behind it. Or rather the cutting edge can not penetrate the wood as far as it would if the polished area were flat. Remember those circular saw ripping blades with the flat depth stop things so it was impossible to over feed the plank through the saw ? Like that.


The RIGHT WAY to go about this ruler trick thing is to double back tape the thin metal shim to the blade. Just use shim stock that you can get in lengths or a roll. Cheeper than rulers. Why do this ? Because then the polished area is a flat facet just like the back would be if left flat on the stone and flattened that way. No rounding with the stick on method. Is it practical ? Probably not what with the glue from the tape coming off on the blade etc.


The ruler trick is wrong for bevel up plane blades when used in ultra low bed angle planes such as 12º bed. It would be OK in a miter plane at 20º bed angle or more.
The rounding still limits depth of cut and then the blade acts "dull" sooner because the blade is riding on the roundy part rather than the blade edge but at least it cuts.
Some top plane makers say a bevel up low angle plane does not have enough clearance angle at 12º and anything that reduces that even further is self defeating.
(I do pretty well with low angle bevel up planes with 12º clearance but I keep it in mind I might have more fun with more clearance angle).


wearing trenches in the stone in small areas; I can't ruler trick over the whole surface so there is bound to be some localized wear. At least with my softer Nortons. I have not tried it with the Shaptons and have no reason to.


Finally just about the time I am getting all into ruler tricking and things are flowing and I am in the ZONE and all . . .
. . . the ruler slips off the stone and messes up my trip.


I just argue that I don't like the rule trick because Derek likes it and I want to him off. OK I will give you a clue here THIS IS NOT AT ALL TRUE; but it was fun to type.

Adam,
Should I add "In my view" or just pound the table like I have the last word from on high ? Well you know me . . .
No there is no problem with the ruler bevel and the blade seat on the plane. The ruler bevel is not really long enough to cause a problem there. A bevel down plane blade is supported much further back than the bevel up which is one reason I am not a big fan of bevel down planes for planing the super hard woods even though the chip breaker to blade edge micro futzing can make it not tear out.

PS: glad to see Charles is back (even if I have to duck occasionally).

[Kees Heiden]

The normally demonstrated version where the ruler is stuck in a fixed position on the stone and the blade slid side ways across the stone, perpendicular to the ruler is crap, errrrr . . . I mean . . ., less than successful because it rounds the area being honed and so causes the actual cutting edge to be lifted out of the wood by the rounded area behind it. Or rather the cutting edge can not penetrate the wood as far as it would if the polished area were flat. Remember those circular saw ripping blades with the flat depth stop things so it was impossible to over feed the plank through the saw ? Like that.

I call: Bullocks! :p
We're talking about 1 degree backbevel or so. Round or flat makes no difference in the clearance angle.

But I'm with you in regards to backbevels. I hate them. Each time I sharpen I have to think about if this blade has the backbevel or not. It just disturbs my work rythm.

[Bruce Page]

How do I get e-mail notices when people post a comment to one of my comments ?


Winton, you can subscribe to any thread by clicking on the “Thread Tools” drop down at the top of the page.

[David Weaver]

Back bevels work well when done like the ruler trick. There is no lifting out of materials or any such thing, and if one is using a particularly hard iron, they're a good way to save time.

Guaranteed most of the people on this forum, probably all, would get sharper and more uniform edges using a microbevel on the bevel side and the ruler trick on the flat side of the iron. Most people who have trouble with the ruler trick probably haven't done it correctly.

I don't usually do it, I just spend more time polishing the back on things that need to be really sharp, consciously, because I'm too lazy to keep track of the ruler. I used it religiously when I was a beginner, though, and it never failed to produce a superbly sharp edge in very little time.

There is no rounding of an edge. There is half a degree or so added to the bevel angle, but when you see a worn edge, the effect of common wear even shortly after beginning to wear an edge is far more drastic and actually creates clearance problems whereas the ruler does not.

[Derek Cohen]

I just argue that I don't like the rule trick because Derek likes it and I want to tick him off. OK I will give you a clue here THIS IS NOT AT ALL TRUE; but it was fun to type.

:D :D :D


Only used for BU planes, Winton. Not for BD. It's about protection against a wear bevel, not about ease of sharpening.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pedro Reyes]

... I am a firm believer in performance in use as the guide to a more ideal state.

Thanks for sharing, I am a hobbyist, so I (unfortunately) have the time to obsess about mirror backs, microscope inspected edges etc, as we do about the perfect angles on a dovetail and marking with the sharpest knife out there (nothing wrong)... but every time I listen (or read, or watch) a true craftsman, they have your approach... I got some pigstickers from England, all of them had rounded bevels FWIW.

everytime I watch one of those videos from some (non sensationalized) craftsman, they are in many ways the opposite of what we see here, they don't seem obsessed with perfect tools, but rather great results, some of those japanese craftsmen seem like they eyeball everything, they use methods which could be criticized here, yet their results are amazing... nice reminder to "obsess" on the right things.

/p

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks for sharing, I am a hobbyist, so I (unfortunately) have the time to obsess about mirror backs, microscope inspected edges etc, as we do about the perfect angles on a dovetail and marking with the sharpest knife out there (nothing wrong)... but every time I listen (or read, or watch) a true craftsman, they have your approach... I got some pigstickers from England, all of them had rounded bevels FWIW.

everytime I watch one of those videos from some (non sensationalized) craftsman, they are in many ways the opposite of what we see here, they don't seem obsessed with perfect tools, but rather great results, some of those japanese craftsmen seem like they eyeball everything, they use methods which could be criticized here, yet their results are amazing... nice reminder to "obsess" on the right things.

/p

My curiosity on the pigstickers is piqued. The way the rounded bevel tends to clear the mortise is by pushing the chunks of wood into a void as the mallet strikes. It may be that a slight round to the bevel facilitates this better than a flat or hollow ground bevel.

As for Japanese craftsmen there is also a difference in life philosophy, religion and spiritualism that effects the way work is done. With a belief that everything has a spirit and working wood releases some of the spirit within the wood... The work is done with a pulling motion to draw the escaping spirit into the worker. After many years of doing work in this manner, the intellectual reasons why it is done this way may have been missed by some and it simply comes down to, "this is the way we have always done this work."

This could be nothing more than a load of whatever, but that is what I have noticed or have seen written.

jtk

[Pedro Reyes]

My curiosity on the pigstickers is piqued. The way the rounded bevel tends to clear the mortise is by pushing the chunks of wood into a void as the mallet strikes. It may be that a slight round to the bevel facilitates this better than a flat or hollow ground bevel.



Jim,

Pure speculation on my end, but I suspect that the rounded (convex) bevels on those chisels is the result of frequent sharpening freehand, likely on the job site, more so than a desired feature, I may be wrong. It is not an exaggerated curve, just off from flat. Being on the convex instead of the concave side also supports the "better edge retention". Levering against the bevel, would also seem to be better with a convex bevel.

/p

[David Weaver]

It can be difficult to get an idea of how a chisel, etc, was used professionally, regardless of the origin. Warren Mickley (and I'll paraphrase) mentioned a while ago that the tools he has found that were either lost or put away shortly after new are maintained often much differently and much more precisely than a lot of the same tools that have been used hard and put away. There's no guarantee that the last person who used the tools knew what they were doing, and often the last user is someone who doesn't and who uses the tools until they've gotten them into a condition that they can't really be used.

To get an idea of how tools were set up, we would probably have to find a tool box that was known to last be used by a master, and not be used or fiddled with since, or find period literature with the tools in use. If you ask warren what the right way is to set up a mortise chisel, I'm pretty sure I recall him saying that it is with a single flat bevel, and he works wood by hand professionally.

[Jim Neeley]

I agree with you, David. Further, I think some fall into the trap of hating the idea of the ruler trick based on the concept of not having a flat back rather than the magnitude of the impact. To make my point I'll share the way I use it and a few quick calcs on the magnitude of the "error", assuming you start with a well machined chisel and not a banana-shaped imitation thereof.

My choice of plane blades are the Lie-Nielsen and Veritas which come flat but unpolished. There are no doubt many other makers who also provide such products.

I use a 4" wide 1000 grit diamond (coarse, 14.7 micrometer) stone and my ruler is 001" thich and 3/8" wide. I grind a back-bevel of 1/16" to 1/8". As a result of this, the tip of my blade is (mathematically) out of plane by 0.00015" to 0.0003" (yes, that is 15 to 30 one-hundred-thou). I then take it to my (2.76" wide) 16k & 30k Shaptons and remove just enough to get rid of the previous scratches.

Even assuming that the scratches in the steel were 1/2 the diameter of the 1000 giamond grit, those scratches would be only 0.00025".

Adding the two together your maximum "out of plane" amount would only be about half a thou.

If I could get my resulting work to within half a *hundredth* it would be amazing and even then my tool would be 10X as accurate as I was.

This reminds me of the old off-color story of the engineer and the physicist stuck on a desert island. With lots of time on their hands, their conversation turns to, well, women. The engineer asks the physicist:

"Imagine you awake and see a woman at the other end of the beach and you start running towards each other and every 10 seconds you cut the distance between you in half. What do you think of that?"

The physicist replies: "That's horrible, to be so close but never get there. What do you think of that?"

The engineer replies "I may not get there, but I'll get close enough!!"

Can you tell I'm an egineer? <g>

Jim

[Winton Applegate]

Bruce,

Thread Tools Drop Down
Thank You.
It would help if I would take the time to look through all the things like that here.
I have been too busy "talkin'".

[Winton Applegate]

I must be tired. I am tired but
Where is the decimal point on your ruler thickness spec ?
Are you really intending to say your ruler is .001" ? One one thousandth of an inch thick ?

Well stand back bubba, while I whip this out.
Mine's bigger :
.02" two one hundredths of an inch thick. See photos.

Plug that in your spread sheet and smoke it.

Am I the only sharpening snob here that thinks going from a (he sniffed as he said it with his nose in the air, eyes all a flutter) harumph . . . 1000 diamond stone.
scratchy, scratchy, scratchy, . . . scratch, . . . scratch to a . . .
excuse me . . .
16,000 Shapton in one fell swoop is bordering on useless.?
I bet I could see the trenches left n the metal from across the room. Maybe your intent is a mini "toothing" blade and I missed that.

What is the point of the 30,000 ? That is for like surgical instruments.
Is it really, really true that you can hear angels sing when you use it ?
I do want one. Can I have yours ?

PS: A couple of times I have considered doing the math but without coming up with relatively meaningless numbers I know the actual results while planing the HARDER wood.
Have you actually used blades sharpened this way in the wood I suggested and compared it to the results of the flat facet and flat back alternative ?
. . . or are you just playing poker ? The latter I think.

Don't take my swaggering too seriously but really
I think you can have a better time planing with a little more attention to the finer points.
Who knows . . . you may even be able to get that

if I could get my resulting work to within half a *hundredth* it would be amazing

to work out for you.
To be an everyday ocurrance as it is for me.

[David Barnett]

Well stand back bubba, while I whip this out. Mine's bigger

I just had a Blazing Saddles moment.


Am I the only sharpening snob here that thinks going from a (he sniffed as he said it with his nose in the air, eyes all a flutter) harumph . . . 1000 diamond stone.
scratchy, scratchy, scratchy, . . . scratch, . . . scratch to a . . .
excuse me . . .
16,000 Shapton in one fell swoop is bordering on useless.?

Makes sense to me. I routinely go from 600 grit poly diamond to 14,000 grit paste. Works.

[David Weaver]

I also go from medium to fine, about that interval, on just about everything.

[Roger Nair]

I'd like to thank everyone for the kind welcome and gentle words because I know how we all can be very demanding when working in our own ways.

[Roger Nair]

I agree with you, David. Further, I think some fall into the trap of hating the idea of the ruler trick based on the concept of not having a flat back rather than the magnitude of the impact. To make my point I'll share the way I use it and a few quick calcs on the magnitude of the "error", assuming you start with a well machined chisel and not a banana-shaped imitation thereof.

I got to reply, from a timber framers pov, that I love my vintage laminated framing chisels with the convex back for several reasons. The set up of the chisel is simple, I only concern myself with flattening the back about 3 inches in from the tip. The convex back creates clearance for the socket and handle which allows the chisel to be used freely as a paring chisel or even to be configured as a slick with the addition of a long handle. There is a tendency for straight back chisels to dig in towards the back while making deep mortises, the convex back chisel seems to be somewhat self correcting in that regard, by introducing a counter force to the tip with each mallet strike. Plus the older chisels taper in width from tip to heel, that taper will help mitigate jamming in deep cuts. Taken as a whole, the vintage chisel has more subtlety of design than the ever so straight modern ideal. So honestly I'm a little lost when the discussion gets into the effect of such minor deviations.

[Winton Applegate]

Blazing Saddles moment
Ha, ha,
you got it partner.

600 grit poly diamond to 14,000 grit paste. Works.
ohhhhhh, no, no, no
Blasphemous temptations !
This is Satan's work !
I won't let my self hear this; la, la, la, la . . .
here I went to Shaptons so I could fill in between the 4000 Norton and the 80000.
This is crazy talk, crazy talk I tell ya'

PS: when I saw the youtube where he goes to town for thirty strokes on the strop I had two thoughts :
Why would I want to cramp up my hands like that when I could be using a jig ? ( I often sharpen six wide blades at a time)
and
For the same number of strokes I could take six strokes each over five more stones (which would be excessive) and have a better edge.

[Chris Griggs]

Makes sense to me. I routinely go from 600 grit poly diamond to 14,000 grit paste. Works.

+1 I currently go 800 grit to 8k and I'd have no qualms with going bigger than that. I'm a big fan of big leaps. Works fine. Particularly if to use hollow grinds or micro bevels.

[Chris Hachet]

I prefer to NOT use a micro-bevel for one reason only.... I find it difficult to do free hand and I am usually in a hurry. As such, I prefer a hollow grind. To micro-bevel, I end up using a jig and I have not set anything to allow me to very very fast drop something into the jig so that the angle is perfect. I really probably should do that.

Now, that said, my Lee Valley PM-V11 chisels came with a micro-bevel, and they are really sharp from the factory. I have not found it in myself to slap them on my Tormek to add a hollow-grind just so I can free hand them.I am ginding the hollow grind really helpful, and am planning on getting a Tormek

[Charlie Stanford]

I am ginding the hollow grind really helpful, and am planning on getting a Tormek

If you have plain Jane Stanley/Record irons you might find that the hollow produced by large diameter wheels is less useful, and less longer lasting, than the hollow produced by smaller diameter wheels. You need to be able to refresh the hollow without going all the way to the cutter's edge. Large wheels make this a little harder to do, at least for me. I'm no virtuoso grinder operator though -- just sump'n I've noticed over the years using different equipment in a few different places.

[David Weaver]

For anyone who doesn't burn edges on a regular basis, I don't see a virtue in a tormek over any powered 6 or 8 inch grinder with decent rests.

I personally would rather have any decent (foreign or domestic) dry grinder than a tormek because it's quicker, no fiddling with water, abrading the surface of the stone is certain and takes seconds and the hollow is longer lasting.

I had one (Tormek supergrind) for a while and eventually got tired of looking at something I didn't use and put it in a box and sent it to someone else.

[Derek Cohen]

Just to demonstrate that it is all about choices and preferences, and that there are no "right" answers, I am going to disagree with both Charles and David. :)

I have both the 10" Tormek as well as a 8" dry grinder with a 48 grit white Norton wheel. If one simply compared the speed with which the dry grinder removed steel, the Tormek is not in the running. The Tormek is quicker than most realise when the wheel is clean and used at the lower 220 grit. However, it is still going to hollow grind the steel from a 2" O1 plane blade in about 3 minutes versus the 1 minute for the dry grinder.

The large Tormek also creates a shallower hollow, actually quite shallow - it is possible to hone away the hollow quite quickly. The up side of this is that one can use it on laminated steel without removing the backing layer. One needs to refresh the hollow after about 4 or 5 honings, but this is quick thanks to the angle setter, and the only steel removed is inside the hollow, not from the length of the blade.

So far the dry grinder seems to be the winner. However, there is another factor, and this is where the Tortoise overtakes the Hare.

The Tormek, being a wet grinder, runs very cool. You can grind to the very edge of the blade without fear of burning the thin steel there. You can also hollow grind laminated Japanese blades without fear of affecting the hard steel layer. By grinding to the edge, it take one or two passes on a 5000 or 6000 grit waterstone to create a micro bevel. It takes about 5 passes on a 13000 waterstone to complete the polishing stage. And you are ready to go. This process takes about 30 seconds.

On a dry grinder one would have to stop about 2mm from the edge to avoid heat damage. At this point you need to begin with a 1000 grit waterstone to create a larger micro bevel (not sure it it is a "micro" bevel any longer), and I'd estimate that this takes about 2-3 minutes. And then you still need to move to the 6000 and 13000 stones, each of which takes many more passes than on the primary hollow from the Tormek as the primary bevel is wider.

Furthermore, the hollow grind on the Tormek is controlled by the guide, and it ends up being very even in width. The hollow on the dry grinder tends to be made freehand. I am quite decent at this, but still end up with an edge that needs to be straightened on the 1000. This adds to the time in preparing the final working edge. Remember, it is the time in achieving a working edge that determines the speed of the machines, and in this manner you will find that the Tormek is the faster machine overall.

Lastly, a further advantage of a clean hollow is that it makes it easier to freehand if, as I do, one uses the hollow as a jig. Grind the hollow primary at the angle desired, and freehand directly on this. Quick and easy. But not for everyone.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

I think people differ in their use, here's a couple of examples of what I mean by that:
* I always dry grind my tools right to the edge of the hollow, like the very edge, as in three swipes on a 1000 grit stone brings a wire edge. On a good carbon steel chisel, I almost lament how much metal that will remove, esp. if the stone being used is a semi fresh diamond stone. It literally takes less time to hone off of the dry grinder than it does to put a tool in the tormek jig and take it back out, and the dry grinder time is less during the grinding process.
* I never have water at my grinder unless I'm doing something really heavy. I check for temp and cool an edge by dragging the back flat side on my palm. If I can stop whatever I'm dragging in the middle of my palm, it's not that hot

The other real turnoff of the tormek, aside from the water, and aside from the fact that the black wheel essentially could only be graded by diamonds, and the gray wheel needed to either be refreshed or diamond trued to cut fast, was that the cut speed was never very consistent (you'd love to have it aggressive all the time, but it constantly breaks in like any hard stone, unless you're sharpening something narrow on it, and that just puts lines in the wheel) and putting something like muji HSS on the stone just graded it right down.

Freehand grinding can be just as even as the tormek, except you don't try to raise a wire edge with it, you go just short instead. Not that raising a wire edge necessarily causes temp. problems on a coarse wheel, it doesn't, but it does cause geometry problems because the wheel is narrow.

And, if the purists would look away for a second, I have ground japanese tools on the dry grinder without any issue. I don't do it often because it's totally unnecessary, but I do have a coarsely set funjii plane (an inexpensive but fabulous little beat-around plane that JWW no longer sells) that I use as a jack that gets refreshed either by a belt grinder or a dry grinder.

Certainly for someone who is new, a tormek would be better for japanese tools if there is some large correction to be made or a bulge in a bevel to get rid of or some other such thing.

But, to paraphrase what warren says, if someone has trouble using a dry grinder faster than it's possible to use a tormek, then the dry grinder hasn't yet been mastered.

In this case, a turtle is a turtle. And my turtle is now in a celebrity's shop in virginia.

[Charlie Stanford]

Just to demonstrate that it is all about choices and preferences, and that there are no "right" answers, I am going to disagree with both Charles and David. :)

I have both the 10" Tormek as well as a 8" dry grinder with a 48 grit white Norton wheel. If one simply compared the speed with which the dry grinder removed steel, the Tormek is not in the running. The Tormek is quicker than most realise when the wheel is clean and used at the lower 220 grit. However, it is still going to hollow grind the steel from a 2" O1 plane blade in about 3 minutes versus the 1 minute for the dry grinder.

The large Tormek also creates a shallower hollow, actually quite shallow - it is possible to hone away the hollow quite quickly. The up side of this is that one can use it on laminated steel without removing the backing layer. One needs to refresh the hollow after about 4 or 5 honings, but this is quick thanks to the angle setter, and the only steel removed is inside the hollow, not from the length of the blade.

So far the dry grinder seems to be the winner. However, there is another factor, and this is where the Tortoise overtakes the Hare.

The Tormek, being a wet grinder, runs very cool. You can grind to the very edge of the blade without fear of burning the thin steel there. You can also hollow grind laminated Japanese blades without fear of affecting the hard steel layer. By grinding to the edge, it take one or two passes on a 5000 or 6000 grit waterstone to create a micro bevel. It takes about 5 passes on a 13000 waterstone to complete the polishing stage. And you are ready to go. This process takes about 30 seconds.

On a dry grinder one would have to stop about 2mm from the edge to avoid heat damage. At this point you need to begin with a 1000 grit waterstone to create a larger micro bevel (not sure it it is a "micro" bevel any longer), and I'd estimate that this takes about 2-3 minutes. And then you still need to move to the 6000 and 13000 stones, each of which takes many more passes than on the primary hollow from the Tormek as the primary bevel is wider.

Furthermore, the hollow grind on the Tormek is controlled by the guide, and it ends up being very even in width. The hollow on the dry grinder tends to be made freehand. I am quite decent at this, but still end up with an edge that needs to be straightened on the 1000. This adds to the time in preparing the final working edge. Remember, it is the time in achieving a working edge that determines the speed of the machines, and in this manner you will find that the Tormek is the faster machine overall.

Lastly, a further advantage of a clean hollow is that it makes it easier to freehand if, as I do, one uses the hollow as a jig. Grind the hollow primary at the angle desired, and freehand directly on this. Quick and easy. But not for everyone.

Regards from Perth

Derek


On the bit about not grinding to the edge... well, you need to be able to grind at the edge and not burn steel. One will grind at the edge, immediately, if raising the grinding angle of any particular cutter. A clean wheel, light touch, plenty of quenching make this mostly a non-issue. On a day in and day out basis, sure, stop a little short and wrap up at the stones. One never grinds all the way to the edge, anyway, if just restoring the hollow. All you really need to do is "squeeze" the honing bevels at the heel and edge back to a reasonable size - this is the definition of refreshing the hollow.

[dan sherman]

how do you all feel about belt grinders? I have considered building a 2" x 72" one, and making a custom honing guide like a Kell, that would slide onto a Tormek style rest. This would alloy you to set the tool in the guide go to town on the belt, and then strait to the stones with no fuss.

[David Weaver]

A common belt sander would be what I'd use for a nick. It always rounds the blade a tiny bit, but it's faster than any grinder that I've used, especially with a fresh belt. serious nicks in an edge are few and far between, I can't remember my last one, but I'm pretty sure that the last couple of times I nicked an edge, it was more of a hangar rash type of incident, or accidentally (like something loose on a hard stone) and not from use in woodworking.

[David Weaver]

(about the big belt grinder) If you're going to use a grinder that big on edge tools, I would personally want it to be variable speed. If it is, you can do anything those, from bevel refreshing to serious heavy grinding. At full speed, the belt speed is really high, though, thus the want for variable speed.

[Charlie Stanford]

Good advice. The sander can be used for other stuff too.

[Tony Wilkins]

Just want to pop back in and say that I appreciate all the different points of view expressed in this thread. I have learned a lot from both Charlie and Derek over the last year when I've been trying to get off the ground in the hobby. As well as many other folks such as David Weaver, David Barnett, Chris, and many others I'm forgetting.

[Jim Koepke]

My only comments in this thread so far were based on my curiosity about the possibility of how a convex bevel may actually improve the function of a mortise chisel and something recalled from reading about the historical/philosophical reasons behind Japanese woodworking.

Most of the time my shop equipment limits me to having a flat bevel. This is due to not having a grinder capable of making a hollow grind.

My thoughts on this are for people to work with what they have and to find what works best for them. If one can get their tools to work for them, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of how you got there.

So far my methods work for me. It is always interesting to see what others are doing with an eye toward gleaning tidbits of information that may help me to understand the process better or to improve what transpires in my shop.

As Derek said, "there are no 'right' answers."

There is a multitude of useable information available which we must distill into our own answers along the way.

jtk

[David Barnett]

how do you all feel about belt grinders?

I love belt grinders. While I enjoyed the incredibly versatile 2" VS Wilton Square Wheel for years, it was overkill for most I now do so passed it along. While I mostly use an 1800 rpm 7" Baldor for chisels and planes, I use a 1"x42" belt grinder for carving tools and just about everything else. It's terrific for making & maintaining hand tools, woodworking and otherwise. Wouldn't want to be without one.

[dan sherman]

(about the big belt grinder) If you're going to use a grinder that big on edge tools, I would personally want it to be variable speed. If it is, you can do anything those, from bevel refreshing to serious heavy grinding. At full speed, the belt speed is really high, though, thus the want for variable speed.


If i build it, it will be variable speed for sure. Something like a 3 phase 1hp coupled with an appropriate VFD.

[David Barnett]

If i build it, it will be variable speed for sure. Something like a 3 phase 1hp coupled with an appropriate VFD.

I do like the KMG grinder (http://www.beaumontmetalworks.com/shop/category.aspx?catid=3) and clones, especially with the rotary platen attachment (http://www.beaumontmetalworks.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=69). Yeah, every since letting the Wilton go (I 'loaned' it but will never ask for it back), I've wanted to build one of these, if only for fun. And 3 phase would be nice, and David's right, you gotta have VS.

Kind of a handful for the home woodworking shop just to sharpen hand tools, but...

[dan sherman]

I do like the KMG grinder (http://www.beaumontmetalworks.com/shop/category.aspx?catid=3) and clones, especially with the rotary platen attachment (http://www.beaumontmetalworks.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=69).

Jesus those things are over priced, I'm pretty confident I could design what I want for less than $500 maybe less than $300 depending on what type of deals i can find on the components. for one thing I don't thin you need a 2hp + motor. We are sharpening tools, not hogging away chrome molly tubing. I also don't thing we need the 5000 sfpm max that some of these machines have.

[David Weaver]

Jesus those things are over priced, I'm pretty confident I could design what I want for less than $500 maybe less than $300 depending on what type of deals i can find on the components. for one thing I don't thin you need a 2hp + motor. We are sharpening tools, not hogging away chrome molly tubing. I also don't thing we need the 5000 sfpm max that some of these machines have.

Thus my comment about VS. 5000 feet per minute and a little bit of pressure against a hard platen will turn a tool edge orange in no time.

I don't have a big grinder, just 2 1x42 grinders, well, one now and one that doesn't work. Anyway, nothing I have in my shop will burn an edge faster than the viel tool grinder would with a trizact belt and a platen.

[dan sherman]

Thus my comment about VS. 5000 feet per minute and a little bit of pressure against a hard platen will turn a tool edge orange in no time..

I'd do something like this, minus the solid stainless construction, and the 9000 SFPM top end. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKZI-Bm_Eyw

[Adam Cruea]

I'd do something like this, minus the solid stainless construction, and the 9000 SFPM top end. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKZI-Bm_Eyw

That thing sounds like it's got more chutzpah than my TC88 Softail. :(

[David Barnett]

I'm pretty confident I could design what I want for less than $500 maybe less than $300 depending on what type of deals i can find on the components.

Oh, if it's just for sharpening and a bit of slack belt shaping, yeah, under $300. You bet.

[Winton Applegate]

I am very frightened by the turn this thread has taken, power grinding and all and will all too soon succumb to my natural fear and panic impulse to run away and over the horizon like a terrorized rabbit but first let me say that if you do make a power belt sander don't use small pulleys; go larger and they will run cooler and treat the bearings better. I have one bench mounted belt sander with small V belt pulleys. The pulleys get so hot that the bearings actually start to seize and slow the works down. Blister hot if you touch them. No amount of belt tension adjustment makes much difference. I admit to using it heavier than say for a woodworking chisel but you guys are talking
three phase ?
and one horse power ?
. . . and he ran away in a small cloud of dust . . . all that could be seen was feet and a little white tail disappearing into the heat haze.

[Winton Applegate]

Ok that was a nice little run. Exercise does wonders for stress, fear and the mentally unhinging effects of discussing drastically different sharpening methods.
I'm better now.

Hi Derek,

I am not responding just to you but just generally chiming in on wheel size, wet grinders, speed etc.

James Krenov used quite a small radius wheel on his hand crank clamp on the bench hand grinder (god I hate those things; I admit it . . . he was just tougher than I am ) then one or two Arkansas stones to finish up. Of coarse he was working high carbon blades only. Arkansas stones lay down and die when I use them on my A2s.


The Tormek is quicker

Couldn't be anything slower on the planet than my Delta wet grinder (huge wheel diameter as well). And to make it just over the top frustrating to use the wheel has a hard spot in it as well. Goes grrrrrinde . . .bump . . . grrrrrinde . . . bump . . . grrrrrinde . . . bump.
I have considered buying a new wheel of a different brand for it but can't quite shell out the money. It would still turn too slow.

My first impression of the Tormec was that it was WAY over priced and I spent the money on the stones that I have. Some how I couldn't bring myself to "grade" the stone back and forth between coarse and fine. I assume you don't do that and just leave it coarse. Seemed like a racket. "Lets get the customers to grind their stones back and forth from fine to coarse and fine again until they wear them down in no time."
I just couldn't do that. Several times a day ? People do that ?

[dan sherman]

three phase ?

The motor needs to be three phase, so that you can vary the speed using the VFD.




and one horse power ?

most decent bench grinders are between 3/4 & 1 1/2 hp. I think 1hp is plenty powerful enough for sharpening.

[Sam Takeuchi]

I think 1hp is plenty powerful enough for sharpening.

Way and beyond plenty. When a hand cranked grinder can get the same job done, I think even a 1/3hp grinder would be plenty for grinding woodworking tools, even for HSS tools.

[Derek Cohen]

My first impression of the Tormec was that it was WAY over priced and I spent the money on the stones that I have. Some how I couldn't bring myself to "grade" the stone back and forth between coarse and fine. I assume you don't do that and just leave it coarse. Seemed like a racket. "Lets get the customers to grind their stones back and forth from fine to coarse and fine again until they wear them down in no time."
I just couldn't do that. Several times a day ? People do that ?

Hi Winton

Technically, I did not set out to purchase a Tormek. I bought a cheap Grizzly-type Scheppach version. The writing on the case was in German, which was a con because it was made in China. Poorly made at that. The wheel wobbled, and the cheap rest could not be set up reliably. I returned it to the store. The owner was quite apologetic and offered me a big discount on the run out Tormek 2000 model (the green version that was replaced by the blue). So I returned home with a still-expensive Tormek, but with my conscience appeased a little. Within a few days I no longer felt guilty. This is a class machine, and worth every penny. That does not make it a viable proposition for many. I am fortunate to have one.

I am in the bad books of the US agent as I insist on the Tormek being a grinder and not a sharpening system. I only use it on the coarse setting. I would not want to use a blade that is honed on the stropping wheel - just polished serrations. Sharp serrations. I like the Tormek because it is very predictable, reliable and safe as a grinder. My 8" dry grinder still gets used, but generally for roughing out rather than final grinding. Everyone has a system they feel comfortable with. As I wrote earlier, there is no one "right" system.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

I think even a 1/3hp grinder would be plenty for grinding woodworking tools, even for HSS tools.

but... but... My grindstone is from an old mill and weighs in at 3 tons...

jtk

--just for laughs folks...

[dan sherman]

Way and beyond plenty. When a hand cranked grinder can get the same job done, I think even a 1/3hp grinder would be plenty for grinding woodworking tools, even for HSS tools.

It depends how fast you want to remove material, the faster you want to remove material, the more power you need.

[Sam Takeuchi]

It depends how fast you want to remove material, the faster you want to remove material, the more power you need.

As far as woodworking tools are concerned, you never press down the tool on the wheel hard enough to bog down even a 1/3hp motor. Perhaps more power can be useful in metal working or auto repair, but for woodworking tools, it's utterly unnecessary. In fact, if you look at Baldor's grinder catalog (that's more than decent line of grinders), 6" & 7" grinders are between 1/4hp and 1/2hp. Even 8" grinders are only in 3/4hp range (with price tag of nearly $1000) and those are designed with more than plenty of power for most use, including metal grinding. I know there are cheaper grinders with 1hp available elsewhere, but it doesn't change the fact it's way over powered for the use concerned here, regardless of material removal speed.

Out of many problems and issues people often write about, grinder not having enough power is one thing I've never seen so far on woodworking forums. Have you ever come across an occasion where you needed that much power?

[Winton Applegate]

I only use it on the coarse setting
Derek,
See, I know you are logical and practical. Seems like I remember that story now from quite a while ago about the swapping of the grinders.

Ha, ha, take this with the humor it is meant to be
At work today I was thinking WHY my flat stones sharpening is "the only right way" and why the power grinders are "all wrong".
Because . . .
this is Neander and it is for HAND tool wood working.
Ha, ha there you see ?

[dan sherman]

Out of many problems and issues people often write about, grinder not having enough power is one thing I've never seen so far on woodworking forums. Have you ever come across an occasion where you needed that much power?

let me try and explain this in a different way. You can remove more material in two ways. You either feed the work into the grinding medium more aggressively, or move the medium past the work faster (higher sfpm at the wheel face or belt). Like you said Baldor ups the power as the wheels get bigger. they sell 3600 rpm grinders with 6,7,8 inch wheels that yields the following.

6" ~5654 sfpm
7" ~6597 sfpm
8" ~7539 sfpm

the 8 inch has the potential to remove more material at a given feed rate, but it is also easier to stall, as the large wheel creates a larger lever arm, thus it needs more power to maintain the sfpm.

I have needed the extra power before, when you're grinding stuff like M2, M35, M42, & T15 it's pretty easy to bog down the grinder.

[Sam Takeuchi]

Yes I know about the pressure and surface speed, and I understand why larger wheeled grinder need more power in general (and that larger grinders are generally designed for...well, larger and heavier tasks which also require more power). That's why I was separating woodworking tools (where you have to balance the speed, heat and temper, and can't go ham-handed grinding) and metalworking. And that's where my emphasis on "woodworking tools" come from since that was the primal concern here. Your grinding tasks include steels that are uncommon in woodworking tools, but if you go back, you recommended 1hp grinder and sharpening of woodworking tools. That's where I pointed out that it's over powered. And it is.

I don't have experience with those steels you mention as they are not common in woodworking tools, but I do have M2 blades for plane and HSS turning tools. I can hardly bog down a 8" 1/2hp grinder with reasonable use. I'm sure if I ram it hard, it can, but who does that? Other commonly available woodworking tool steel are not going to survive the kind of grinding that bog down a motor. Between cooling and aggressive grinding, that's not going to remove materials any faster.

[dan sherman]

I don't have experience with those steels you mention as they are not common in woodworking tools, but I do have M2 blades for plane and HSS turning tools.

It depends on what kind of woodworking you are doing.
http://www.d-waytools.com/tools-skews.html

And besides if it's cheap more power is always better. :D

[Brian Ashton]

let me try and explain this in a different way. You can remove more material in two ways. You either feed the work into the grinding medium more aggressively, or move the medium past the work faster (higher sfpm at the wheel face or belt). Like you said Baldor ups the power as the wheels get bigger. they sell 3600 rpm grinders with 6,7,8 inch wheels that yields the following.

6" ~5654 sfpm
7" ~6597 sfpm
8" ~7539 sfpm

the 8 inch has the potential to remove more material at a given feed rate, but it is also easier to stall, as the large wheel creates a larger lever arm, thus it needs more power to maintain the sfpm.

I have needed the extra power before, when you're grinding stuff like M2, M35, M42, & T15 it's pretty easy to bog down the grinder.

I would have to disagree with this presumption that surface speed allows you to remove more material faster. Remembering this thread is about sharpening tools, not pushing a piece of scrap steel into a grinding or cut off wheel as hard as you can. Even then you will find that you can't grind all that fast either… If you have a cut off machine try forcing the wheel as hard as you can on a piece of steel, to the point where the metal glows red. It gets to a point where you stop cutting altogether. The heat build up is so high that the cut off wheel is actually floating over the hot metal and not removing anything or very little. Obviously this doesn't apply to a thin piece where the PSI over comes this.

I have for decades ground all my tools at very low RPMs. For about the first 20 years I always suspected that grinding at sub 300rpm was much quicker than grinding on a standard grinder but couldn't be bothered to put it to a test. About 8 I had mentioned this on a forum down here and was told I was full of it… So I took an old chisel and put it to the test. Conservatively, I figured it might be 10% faster. To make sure I wasn't being biased I usually allowed the chisel to over heat every so often to a light straw colour when using a standard grinder to maximise time on the wheel… And made sure I didn't discolour it when using my slow speed grinder. I was quite surprised at the results when it was all done. Slow speed grinding allowed me to remove material on average 40% faster.

There are at least two factors here at work, probably others but I can't be bothered to figure them out. First, at slow surface speeds basic physics says heat will be generated at a much lower rate. Therefore the steel, having a high heat coefficient, is more efficiently able to conduct the heat away from the edge and dissipate it before a critical temperature is reached; allowing you to keep the steel at the wheel for longer. Second, when you try to remove material using sand paper or grinding the slower the grit is passed over the wood or steel (or vise versa) the deeper it's able to cut thus removing relatively larger amounts of material in each pass. So when you combine these two factors you end up removing material much faster and more efficiently at slow surface speeds (> 450 sfpm) compared to very high speeds such as what you have listed.

I'm sure there is a formula that will determine how many seconds you can keep a piece of steel pressed up against a grinding wheel, at a specific pressure, at a variety of speeds before it reaches 300 degrees… So if someone wanted to really get stuck into it they could determine the optimum speed…

[Tim Put]

I've got a Tormek, a 6" variable speed grinder with a (regularly dressed) 60g grey wheel, and a Viel belt grinder with belts down to 46x Zirconia. Because of the pressure that can be safely put on a tool when it's in a water bath, the Tormek with a diamond dressed wheel (not the grading stone; follow Derek's advice, not the aforementioned US Tormek rep) is the fastest of the three for major regrinding. It is however the slowest to setup and take down. But then again it's also the cleanest (least dusty/gritty).

The Tormek with a "coarsely graded stone" using the carborundum stone it comes with is the slowest of the three. In that case even hand powered methods compete with the Tormek.

[David Barnett]

I would have to disagree with this presumption that surface speed allows you to remove more material faster. Remembering this thread is about sharpening tools, not pushing a piece of scrap steel into a grinding or cut off wheel as hard as you can. Even then you will find that you can't grind all that fast either…

The principles of grinding and abrasive removal of tool steels, edge and otherwise, having long been established, well-known, widely published and in constant industrial use would tend to refute your anecdotal and/or intuitive experience regarding rates of metal removal, Brian, and there is little to nothing new to learn or discover in this regard, although the practices you've adopted and with which you are apparently comfortable give you results adequate results, so I have no interest in dissuading you from them.

Might I suggest that your following statement may be indicative less of general principles than your individual performance of grinding?


I was quite surprised at the results when it was all done. Slow speed grinding allowed me to remove material on average 40% faster.

Whatever the case, I would disabuse others from adopting those conclusions before surveying the accumulated knowledge in the field and would suggest acquiring that broader perspective.


I'm sure there is a formula that will determine how many seconds you can keep a piece of steel pressed up against a grinding wheel, at a specific pressure, at a variety of speeds before it reaches 300 degrees… So if someone wanted to really get stuck into it they could determine the optimum speed…

For over a hundred years those factors have been known, published and routinely applied.


While feed rates and grinding speeds are intimately related, and while the range of effective usefulness is narrowed considerably insomuch as grinding a tempered tool to a sharp edge is a balancing act of maintaining that narrow thermal band through chosen abrasive, abrasive particle size, presentation characteristics such as friability, tribological characteristics such as coolants and lubricants, and the feed speed of target metal to surface speed of abrasive presentation and its resistance to slowing can be independently measured and controlled, any conclusion that lower grinding speeds remove metal more quickly than faster speeds is refuted by ultra-high speed grinding (UHSG) technology, while outside the purview of day-to-day home shop practice certainly illustrates the underlying fallacy of your assumption, an assumption for which I cannot find support from my admittedly casual and far from expert experience of the literature and in-place practice.

One current book, Grinding Technology: The Way Things Can Work: Theory and Applications of Machining with Abrasives (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0831132477) by Stephen Malkin (Apr 15, 2008), covers the waterfront and unlike so many advanced books on the subject, is affordably priced for individuals without scholastic or industrial research and acquisitions budgets.

Of course, there is a staggering wealth of information online, as well, but I'm unprepared to offer a bibliography. This book, as I've said, gets most of what's happened and happening between two covers without bogging into machinist's tables of which abrasive at what speed for what material, and so on.

So while I'm dubious of those who would derive and assert grinding principles from everyday experience and personal practice of grinding and sharpening in the home workshop, if one finds their use of Tormaks and other wet grinders to speed things along by eliminating errors made using higher speed dry grinders, that's a pretty good tradeoff if one needs that.

For others with the understanding and technical skill to move beyond that, they'll likely appreciate commensurate gains in speed. As I'm comfortable and facile using both slow and high speeds I speak to this from actual experience. So again, like so many processes in the home woodshop, what's best is more a matter of preference and habit than a rigorous demonstration of industrial practice.

So if someone says "it's faster for me" — I'll accept that. If someone says "it's faster for me so this must be how it works" — not so much. Just sayin'.

[David Weaver]

Another good example of there probably being a difference between optimized professional comparisons and anecdotally driven conclusions. (sort of along the same lines as my suggestion in prior threads to avoid blogs and non-professionals for advice that needs to be precise.

Of course, I am an amateur, but I'd never suggest that someone should take any advice that I provide if they can get a professional opinion (thus no blog about sharpening stones or plane building or sharpening razors or any other such thing that entertains me).

[Winton Applegate]

if they can get a professional opinion

I have worked along side many "professionals" in several different trades :


High end art bronze sculpture and architectural Foundry work
High end luxury sports car mechanic and body work
Getter done art steel sculpture from sconces to full size fancy steel canopy beds
Bicycle frame building and high end bicycle mechanic work off and on from 1972 to present day
Residential electrician/electrical work
Metal machining including engine block and head rebuild work


There may be another one or two that don't come to mind but . . .
one common thread I have observed is . . .
almost to a man (and some women) they don't do what is in their best interest or is less expensive or less time consuming or produces the best product or is the latest techniques. What do they do ?
what ever the heck they tried that sort of gets them by and they don't have to think about much. it is like they reinvented the wheel because they are too proud to look to see how the best in the business are doing it. Or how the last hundred years have shook out.

Nearly always I study the heck out of what ever I get involved in including the trade magazines and books, most all of this was before the internet or at least me being on line.
Often being the new guy on the line I find I still have superior info and tools in the back of my mind but what do we use ? Just some sort of what ever good enough. Wasting time, products and not getting the best results.
Maybe it is the high altitude out here. I don't know. There have been exceptions and we have really got up on the wave but not often.
When people say something to me like "I am going to take it to a professional" or "he knows best; he's a professional" my first thought is
yah don't know do ya'?
and
that "professional" is often just some guy who was working at an espresso machine a month ago and is now trying to get by at this new gig working for an "owner" of the business who is a business person first and not too sure about the hands on details them selves.

I see it too often and that espresso guy when he gets off work . . . does he go home and study his craft so it goes better the next day, as I always did ? No he goes out and parties and when he shows up the next day has forgotten half of what I taught him the last week or so.
That sounds sooo negative as I type it but that has been my experience over the last thirty years and more.
People just don't DIG HARD for the edge they just laze along. Too many distractions to just focus on being a "_______". Fill in the blank.
I think often the amateur or the enthusiast may actually have something quite valuable to contribute because they have dug hard because they enjoy the learning and because they have the time to devote. Or a better way of putting it is . . . they have devoted the time.

[David Barnett]

Of course, I am an amateur, but I'd never suggest that someone should take any advice that I provide if they can get a professional opinion (thus no blog about sharpening stones or plane building or sharpening razors or any other such thing that entertains me).

Blogs certainly do have their raisons d'être, commercial or otherwise, don't they, and it's not uncommon to find craft blogs where one attempts to credentialize interests and accomplishments, often on a path to commercial ambitions—one reason I skeptically take most blogs as self-promoting or agenda-driven, or at the very least, narrow and highly idiosyncratic personalizations celebrating one's craft journey—all to the good as long as such limitations are kept in perspective.

Too commonly nowadays, at least to my thinking, to recognize or revere something beyond another's skill level or cultural ceiling readily invites invective and scorn, charges of snobbery and elitism, and this reactionary philistinism worsens should one criticize or even question one's apotheosized craft popularizer, mentor, hero, whatever.

I am amused that some mistake adequacy for mastery. I am also amused that the longer one persists at a practice, the more likely is one to regard that enduring repetition as proof of their practice's soundness or personal expertise. I am still further amused that many ducklings waddling behind a another duck can somehow confer accomplished status on that lead duck, no matter where it's been or where it's headed.

[Brian Ashton]

I started skimming a fairly drawn out response to my post that was peppered with a condescending tone and soon remembered that the point of this thread was sharpening a chisel and stopped reading… Do I really need to read volumes of carefully collected imperial evidence for grinding pretty much anything that exists to do such a task? Hardly. Do I want to study all the factors that affect grinding a infinite amount of materials, memorise the formulas, physics laws that make it possible and become a super grinding freak… I have better things to do with my time - like build nice furniture.

[Hilton Ralphs]

Do I really need to read volumes of carefully collected imperial evidence for grinding pretty much anything that exists to do such a task?
Nah, just empirical evidence.

[Brian Ashton]

Nah, just empirical evidence.


Shows you much i care about the term - can't even be bothered to spell it right.

[David Weaver]

Blogs certainly do have their raisons d'être, commercial or otherwise, don't they, and it's not uncommon to find craft blogs where one attempts to credentialize interests and accomplishments, often on a path to commercial ambitions—one reason I skeptically take most blogs as self-promoting or agenda-driven, or at the very least, narrow and highly idiosyncratic personalizations celebrating one's craft journey—all to the good as long as such limitations are kept in perspective.

Too commonly nowadays, at least to my thinking, to recognize or revere something beyond another's skill level or cultural ceiling readily invites invective and scorn, charges of snobbery and elitism, and this reactionary philistinism worsens should one criticize or even question one's apotheosized craft popularizer, mentor, hero, whatever.

I am amused that some mistake adequacy for mastery. I am also amused that the longer one persists at a practice, the more likely is one to regard that enduring repetition as proof of their practice's soundness or personal expertise. I am still further amused that many ducklings waddling behind a another duck can somehow confer accomplished status on that lead duck, no matter where it's been or where it's headed.

Unfortunately, it's not exclusive to woodworking, actually, I think it's inclusive to everything. My first taste of it was as a kid having a fascination with ag equipment (my relatives were farmers). There are far more people willing to write a book with glossy information and extreme numbers of errors in the technical details than there are folks who will get all of those details right (rest in peace, JR hobbs). I guess it's mostly a matter of what comes first. The desire to know and do, or the desire to write.

[Hilton Ralphs]

Shows you much i care about the term - can't even be bothered to spell it right.
No worries, you were only off by an inch.

[John Coloccia]

Do I really need to read volumes of carefully collected imperial evidence for grinding pretty much anything that exists to do such a task? Hardly. Do I want to study all the factors that affect grinding a infinite amount of materials, memorise the formulas, physics laws that make it possible and become a super grinding freak… I have better things to do with my time - like build nice furniture.


I somewhat agree with you, Brian. While I think it's interesting to share various ideas and techniques with each other, some of this stuff borders on a little looney because anyone can go out into their shop and simply try a technique to see if they like it. We can talk all the theory we want, but all that really matters is that you get the results you're looking for. In my former life as an engineer, I always got a little giggle when someone would come into the lab and say, "You're not doing this right", or "That's not how it's supposed to work". Ha ha ha...shut up, pay attention and come learn something, kid.

[bob blakeborough]

Personally I would not let it go, because like you said some beginner could find this thread, and take something as gospel without completely understanding the variables at play. Grinding is a lot like other machining operations, in that some situations are completely counter intuitive.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that some people are super touchy when something is presented that is different from what they do.The rub is that most (not saying ALL) beginners are going to glaze over when discussions get overly technical. They are usually looking for something simple and easy to understand, and then after that is practiced and grasped, more subtle nuances can expanded upon and understood with greater interest. These conversations rarely appeal to the rank beginner, and in reality tend to overwhelm and intimidate rather than help (I am speaking as an almost beginner myself). It is not friendly feeling nor inviting. It can easily make one feel like there is no point in trying as unless you are an engineer you could never be a woodworker...

I know of no person who learned to throw splitters, sliders, change ups etc without first just having fun tossing a ball around with dad...

I am really not trying to say that there is no room for appreciating and learning from those who are masters, but that sometimes we (ie ME and some other relative newbs) are quite content to have things made clear and simple and look forward to learning more as we go rather than having every single technical aspect thrust down at us in what can feel like a condescending, patronizing manner (be it intended or not), so when you completely dismiss something as pure crap that we may have actually identified with and were able to easily process and utilize, it can be alienating. While some of you think you are doing this for the benefit of the rank beginner, you are really just comparing notes with other mid to heavily experienced folk...

It isn't always what you are saying as much as how you are all saying it...

[Steve Voigt]

The rub is that most (not saying ALL) beginners are going to glaze over when discussions get overly technical. They are usually looking for something simple and easy to understand, and then after that is practiced and grasped, more subtle nuances can expanded upon and understood with greater interest. These conversations rarely appeal to the rank beginner, and in reality tend to overwhelm and intimidate rather than help (I am speaking as an almost beginner myself). It is not friendly feeling nor inviting. It can easily make one feel like there is no point in trying as unless you are an engineer you could never be a woodworker...

I know of no person who learned to throw splitters, sliders, change ups etc without first just having fun tossing a ball around with dad...

I am really not trying to say that there is no room for appreciating and learning from those who are masters, but that sometimes we (ie ME and some other relative newbs) are quite content to have things made clear and simple and look forward to learning more as we go rather than having every single technical aspect thrust down at us in what can feel like a condescending, patronizing manner (be it intended or not), so when you completely dismiss something as pure crap that we may have actually identified with and were able to easily process and utilize, it can be alienating. While some of you think you are doing this for the benefit of the rank beginner, you are really just comparing notes with other mid to heavily experienced folk...

It isn't always what you are saying as much as how you are all saying it...

You should keep in mind that the forum doesn't exist solely to provide advice to beginners. People of all skill levels come here. While you may not like highly detailed, technical posts, I really enjoy them. I'm certainly no master, but I'm not a beginner, and generic beginner's advice is useless to me (especially when it's blatantly wrong).
But I don't have any objection to the type of posts you like; I just skip over them. You can do the same with the detailed, technical posts. There's something here for everyone.

[Jim Koepke]

Here's my 267275.

Though there is a love of technical information coursing through my veins, it seems superfluous to bring up high speed methods of removing steel in a discussion started to glean information on why folks might choose one method over another to produce an edge on their cutting tools.

There was even this in the original post:


PS This is part of a bigger question I asked about on another forum about shifting through the information provided by so many woodworking 'gurus'.

PSS Hopefully not too divisive a topic; that certainly is not what I'm looking for in asking - quite the opposite.

Sorry Tony, your hopes may be for naught.

So in an effort to get back to the original intent:

I like hollow ground edges but do not have the equipment in my shop, at this time, to produce a hollow grind. The reason for liking a hollow grind is the way it "clicks" on a stone when honing by hand.

So many blades have come my way that were messed up by someone with a grinder that it makes me think they have a learning curve a lot of people ignore. The lust for speed may be at play in this.

Micro bevels seem to work best when one is using a guide. My sharpening is mostly by hand and a micro bevel or a secondary bevel is difficult to repeat accurately. My thickest blade is often given a micro bevel just because it is difficult to sharpen it without doing so. After a few sharpenings it is usually returned to the power sharpening system to reestablish its bevel.

A rolled bevel (Paul Sellers method?) seems to work for some, but it isn't the way of choice for me. Isn't in reality just a series of micro bevels?

Also a lot of times my chisels are used bevel down in cutting dados. For this a low angle grind seems to work best for my liking. Not sure how the convex bevel would be on this kind of work.

My grandkids are currently visiting and my oldest grandson is working with me in the shop. One of my paring chisels comes the closest to having a convex bevel. It is sharpened at ~15º. I was showing my grandson the difference between a low angle, 15º and high angle, ~25-30º, chisel's ability to pare end grain. There are enough chisels in my shop that some are ground at low angles for paring and others a bit steeper for chopping.

My chisels are mostly flat ground due to the sharpening system purchased years ago, the Veritas MK II power sharpening system.

My goal is far away from trying to remove the most metal the quickest. It is more like removing just enough metal in a timely fashion.

Sometimes that means just a quick stropping every few cuts. Sometimes it means just a few swipes on the 8000 stone and back to work. If there is a nick, most of the time it can be taken out within a few minutes on a 1000 stone.

So my concern is not how many inches of steel can be ground away in seconds. My concern is to remove a thousandth or less of metal and getting back to work.

jtk

[David Weaver]

Backing away from who likes what in their posts or what real life doesn't turn out to be the same as experts says it does, David saw a post that said metal can be removed faster with slow speed than high speed, and didn't agree with it and had proof as to why. I think the back and forth that occurs trying to find a or the right answer is useful. It's something that's sometimes lacking on the forums because there is a slice of the posting population that does not like any disagreement of any kind to be had on open forums. To me, that's too bad. I'm not in that group.

I thought the comment about slow grinding being faster for heavy removal was puzzling and to go without David's reasoned response, even though it was in direct conflict with another statement, really doesn't do anyone any service.

[Jim Koepke]

I thought the comment about slow grinding being faster for heavy removal was puzzling and to go without David's reasoned response, even though it was in direct conflict with another statement, really doesn't do anyone any service.

There is also the vast differences in the different systems available.

A slow system with a water cooled wheel may have a speed advantage over a fast grinder without cooling or quenching. Unless one doesn't care about the outcome of the metal's temper.

A fast wheel with a cooling system may be faster at removing steel.

It may be possible to find 30 angels dancing on the head of a standard tailors pin. Yet a pin used commonly by map makers could comfortably support 40.

Maybe a consideration for what will most commonly be found in our shops or the supply houses we frequent should be one qualifier for what is included in such discussions.

jtk

[David Weaver]

Yeah, sorry about that post positioning jim, it wasn't necessarily directed at you, it was just about the comment about aversion to expert information that usually is more reliable than our anecdotal conversation. Certainly it doesn't negate the ability go without and use only personal experience for just about everything in woodworking.

[bob blakeborough]

You should keep in mind that the forum doesn't exist solely to provide advice to beginners. People of all skill levels come here. While you may not like highly detailed, technical posts, I really enjoy them. I'm certainly no master, but I'm not a beginner, and generic beginner's advice is useless to me (especially when it's blatantly wrong).
But I don't have any objection to the type of posts you like; I just skip over them. You can do the same with the detailed, technical posts. There's something here for everyone.I agree 100% with you for sure... As I am going along I too am taking a much greater interest in the mining down of information as well. Lots of information is a good thing in general, but how information is presented can obviously invoke emotional responses, especially as we are all keyboard warriors here and are not facing our fellow participants face to face...

What I am referring to is more about the reasoning that is consistently being thrown around by some members that they are only worried "beginners" are being led astray by "lesser" popular woodworking figures with simplistic views or techniques that don't correspond with how the very best in the world do it, when there actually is still quite a bit of good information and help for the beginner from these people, sending them happily down the road getting experience, which in turn is leading them to garner more in depth knowledge and techniques as they are ready for that. The rub I spoke of was that while using beginners as an excuse for their presentations, they may actually be unintentionally turning those very beginners they want to be helping away with the perception that they are being spoken down to (again, unintentional or otherwise).

Some people don't really care how they are being perceived if they feel that their point is just, but one can definitely be a little more subtle and aware of how what they are saying is going to perceived by others if they truly are concerned with helping newbies to the craft...

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Folks,

a friendly reminder.......a lot to posts in this thread have had to be edited to remove unfriendly, uncivil comments. Keep on the subject and keep it friendly please.

[David Barnett]

So many blades have come my way that were messed up by someone with a grinder that it makes me think they have a learning curve a lot of people ignore. The lust for speed may be at play in this.My point, Jim, was never that faster grinding medium surface speeds are better, only that with an understanding and proper application of technique so as not to draw temper, it does not follow that slower surface speeds, whether water cooled or otherwise, ensure faster tool steel removal in everyday home shop grinding environments when a person skilled with faster applies them to bevel grinding, suggesting that achieving acceptably fast results on slower media may be due more to personally appropriate technique than general principles of grinding medium surface speeds—nothing more, nothing less—and that one should endeavor to place anecdotal and highly individual results, meaningful though they may be, in that context rather than to assert generalized principles based on such results.

Nowhere did I mean to imply that theory trumps experienced practice, just that practice in the home shop by its solitary nature may be more idiosyncratic, less broad and less rigorous when inferring from it general principles.

As I use both slow and fast speeds as appropriate in my own shop for materials where tool steels are but a subset, I felt I was qualified to at least call into doubt the narrower perspective and assumptions presented by another contributor.


A slow system with a water cooled wheel may have a speed advantage over a fast grinder without cooling or quenching. Unless one doesn't care about the outcome of the metal's temper.

A fast wheel with a cooling system may be faster at removing steel.

Did I not say:

"So while I'm dubious of those who would derive and assert grinding principles from everyday experience and personal practice of grinding and sharpening in the home workshop, if one finds their use of Tormaks and other wet grinders to speed things along by eliminating errors made using higher speed dry grinders, that's a pretty good tradeoff if one needs that."


Maybe a consideration for what will most commonly be found in our shops or the supply houses we frequent should be one qualifier for what is included in such discussions.

and:

"For others with the understanding and technical skill to move beyond that, they'll likely appreciate commensurate gains in speed. As I'm comfortable and facile using both slow and high speeds I speak to this from actual experience. So again, like so many processes in the home woodshop, what's best is more a matter of preference and habit than a rigorous demonstration of industrial practice."

...in my first reply? I did. So where's the beef?

I also tried—apparently failing—to state my reservations as clearly and with no ill will or ad hominem and was surprised and disappointed in the somewhat bitter response from Mr. Ashton, which I felt unseemly and undeserved.

I now notice that both the post I found offensive and my measured response to it have been removed. Fine, as nothing would be furthered as regards our discussion of grinding. Perhaps I am in the wrong and have in a manner unbeknownst to me transgressed the sensibilities of other contributors or forum decorum, in which case I apologize as that was never my intent.

[David Barnett]

Folks,

a friendly reminder.......a lot to posts in this thread have had to be edited to remove unfriendly, uncivil comments. Keep on the subject and keep it friendly please.
]

Ken, thank you for the gentle reminder. If I've transgressed forum decorum or have been uncivil, I am sincerely sorry and will endeavor not to do so in the future. I would rather not participate at all than to act unreasonably or in an unfriendly manner.

[Winton Applegate]

professional

It occurred to me today that I should have made a distinction between a professional and a Master.
I would say for the most part a master is a person who not only has been in the trade most all their life and has at least, for woodworking, twenty years at it and making their living by it but maybe needs to have a close family member who also has been at it all their life teaching them and maybe one before that.

Generally that would be grand father was a cabinet maker, father was a cabinet maker and this "master" was their grand son and son respectively. To quote Frank Klausz his dad told him "after ten or fifteen years you are going to be a pretty good beginner too".

Does that mean, say for example, that Philip Lowe isn't a "master" because he didn't have the direct lineage and was trained at The West Bennett Street School and so the highest art was with held (not handed down or observed) ?
That sounds really wrong. Philip Lowe works on million dollar restorations and is a sought after expert of the highest order and yet his choice of work bench seems to demonstrate a certain disconnect from what has come before in sound workbenchness.

This may even be an example of what I was saying earlier about a professional often comes up with the first solution that sort of gets them by and then clings to it rather than constantly improving or seeking out the best proven solution.

anyway that was what I was thinking today while applying the old nose to the grind stone.

[David Barnett]

This may even be an example of what I was saying earlier about a professional often comes up with the first solution that sort of gets them by and then clings to it rather than constantly improving or seeking out the best proven solution.

mas·ter

c: a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices

d: (1) : an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill (2) :a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as a model or ideal.

While all well and good and thoroughly interesting, my use of master is d rather than c, of course, and has nothing to do with the profession of woodworking or any other craft, but rather a level of artistic attainment apart from professional status or occupational considerations.



Your distinction, is entirely valid, of course, and meaningful in the history and practice of crafts and craftsmanship—"sound workbenchness"—great term. By the way, your previous post was thoughtful and insightful and I totally applaud your work ethic. Bronze founding, huh? Interesting.

[David Weaver]

It occurred to me today that I should have made a distinction between a professional and a Master.


Yes, master is the word I should be using instead of professionals. There are enough masters around to seek advice.

[Winton Applegate]

Bronze founding, huh?
Thanks for reading my scratchings and for your kind words.
Not sure about the "huh" so I will post some of my favorite photos of bronze sculpture. I had no hand in any of these. I didn't even own a camera then so I really missed out taking some cool photos of what we did.
If you go to the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs, CO (the newer part) you will see architectural trim and applications around the pillars of the building etc.

The Cowboy with the newspaper in the last photo was made at the foundry I worked at but long before I ever worked there.
Up the pass in the next larger town west of Colorado Springs there is a notable sculpture I worked on; it is of a one and one half times life size of a huge grizzly bear with his front paws up on a bronze bolder and he is looking down at a very young American Indian boy with a bow and arrow and his dog following along behind. The boy is "hunting" and has not seen the bear, the dog HAS just seen the bear. No there isn't a bronze wet spot under the dog but there should have been by the look on his face.
That was a keeper.
There is one other photo I wanted to post of a well done clown bust that has some colorful make up paint on it but it has disappeared again in my photo files but is on my iPad. Drives me nuts.
anyway I hope that helps the "huh". I was searching around trying to get into art metal as a line of applying my skills but for several reasons am not doing that any more.

PS: any body here build the Jefferson lap desk that is on his lap in the sculpture? That one is in my files to do one day. Out of wood of course.

[David Weaver]

What's incorrect... slow speed grinding faster than high speed. I believe that was the conclusion.

[Derek Cohen]

What's incorrect... slow speed grinding faster than high speed. I believe that was the conclusion.

Well David, I'd better add a response since a post of mine early in this thread was one that was in that vein. You may be referring to some other posts ...

What I did not say was "slow speed grinding faster than high speed". What I did explain was that a Tormek (read slow speed grinding if you will but that would be incorrect) offers controlled and safe grinding such that the entire honing process may be speeded up by the hollow it creates. Of course, it is up to the user whether they wish to avail themselves of the technique I outlined. Under these conditions the tortoise beats the hare.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Stewart]

I have a Tormek that I bought at a garage sale, a six-inch Baldor, and a buffer. I use all three and the more I dry grind the better I get at it. I still prefer the Tormek for applications where I use it. I can mount a tool fast and the results are always good. Mindless I guess. I have Sigmas and diamond stones for finish.

Best,

Jim

[Ken Fitzgerald]

This horse has been beaten to death and I tire of spending time editing the sophomoric behavior within it.