Help Me Evolve My Sharpening: Scary Sharpish to Sharpton + Naniwa Snow White

[Trevor Goodwin]

Patrick, you have so many stones and so many overlap. I know most woodworkers have a lot more stuff than they need, but that's a whole new level, your wife must be very tolerant!

Something I didn't get from that vid is how he gets his irons square in the first place? He hones freehand so how does that make things square if they aren't already.

I'm just getting into power sharpening with my Tormek clone and have been hollow-grinding all my tools, getting rid of the ugly convex bevels Paul Sellers advocates. My trick to getting squareness is to not rely on the jigs or the wheel, when using the "square"-edge jig I micro-adjust adjust chisels/irons with a hammer or hand pressure until I'm getting a square grind. This eliminates sloppy tolerances in the support arm and jig, account for deflection of the arm, and account for the wheel being out of true. Sometimes I get high/low spots on the edge of a tool, but this disappears when I start honing on water stones which are maintained flat. Even after all the care I take I sometimes end up with a plane iron or chisel that isn't quite square, but it's never enough to worry about and for planes as long as you can get the edge of the chip-breaker parallel to the blade edge it doesn't matter.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, you have so many stones and so many overlap. I know most woodworkers have a lot more stuff than they need, but that's a whole new level, your wife must be very tolerant!

Something I didn't get from that vid is how he gets his irons square in the first place? He hones freehand so how does that make things square if they aren't already.

I'm just getting into power sharpening with my Tormek clone and have been hollow-grinding all my tools, getting rid of the ugly convex bevels Paul Sellers advocates. My trick to getting squareness is to not rely on the jigs or the wheel, when using the "square"-edge jig I micro-adjust adjust chisels/irons with a hammer or hand pressure until I'm getting a square grind. This eliminates sloppy tolerances in the support arm and jig, account for deflection of the arm, and account for the wheel being out of true. Sometimes I get high/low spots on the edge of a tool, but this disappears when I start honing on water stones which are maintained flat. Even after all the care I take I sometimes end up with a plane iron or chisel that isn't quite square, but it's never enough to worry about and for planes as long as you can get the edge of the chip-breaker parallel to the blade edge it doesn't matter.

As I said I'm an irremediable stone ho, and frankly I started accumulating them before I knew what I was doing (see bit on first page about killing a DMT DiaFlat by sheer ignorance. Not my proudest moment).

I can't speak for DW, and I usually use a honing guide to establish my starting straight/square edges, but I know of a couple ways he could have done it that would get him close enough (within tenths of a degree) for the chipbreaker's rotational play:

- Break out the combo-square or engineer's square and iterate, sharpening one side more than the other as needed. In other words, conceptually the same approach you would take to joint the corners of a rectangular workpiece to square with a plane.

- Paint the back of the blade with marking fluid, scribe a perpendicular line with a square, and grind away. You can use this approach to get a decently straight and square edge (close enough to easily true up on a stone) on a bench grinder.

Note that having a hand-honed straight/flat bevel on the leading edge makes it easier to grind square from there on out, since you can gauge your grinding work based on the thickness of that bevel. You know you're straight and square to within pretty decent tolerances when it's uniform all across (the human visual system is good at judging straightness and relative thickness...). I believe that was one of the points of DW's video.

It's probably worth noting that a nontrivial number of cap irons ship noticeably out-of-square (even the oldfangled-but-now-newfangled solid ones). The rotational play in the cap iron to blade interface is there to accommodate grinding tolerances in both parts. It's not like honing guides or hyper-accurate combination squares were cheaply available in Leonard Bailey's day, but they still set their cap irons close back then (per Warren), so it's unsurprising that the basic tool design accommodates enough slop to allow for hand-preparation.

Finally there's nothing wrong with starting "square obsessive" and then loosening up as you go. That's frankly what most people do, including DW (go look at some of his old posts and compare them to what he's doing now). I'm less obsessive than that or that what you describe but still pretty OCD. At some point everybody starts to figure out what does and doesn't matter in woodworking and we optimize our processes accordingly. IMO the ability to close-set the cap iron *does* matter, but there are a lot of ways you can get there - it doesn't require high precision in all of the relevant parts.

[Mel Fulks]

Some of the old books mention the technique on the video ,. especially in regard to working out on a job site with no grinder. That is why so much emphasis was on coarser stones like the Washita. And the method saves a little steel in that no length was lost. We forget how frugal people had to be.

[Warren Mickley]

This video is made by someone, I think, who professes to setting his chip breaker within just a few thou of the plane edge in order to get minimized tearout, yet he totally freehands the grinding and honing process. I find that to be almost comical. There is no way I can reconcile those two things. At least he could have demonstrated the manner in which he is able to get the precision of the edge squareness required to result in the ability to use the closely set chip breaker effectively. It would also have been interesting to see how he would freehand the convex radius on the plane edge. It is funny at the end with the obligatory, albeit invisible, hair shaving demo.

This post makes me think of a 5 year old who thinks it is just too hard to play two notes at once on the piano. Or one who thinks it is just too hard to learn to read. If you don't just throw up your hands and fret you will eventually learn.

I learned to control tear out with a double iron forty years ago, and have never used any honing guide. And the truth is that a plane iron does not need to be perfectly square; it is surprising how many people cannot figure that out. In the 18th century plane irons tapered somewhat in width from the bevel to the back end. You could not just place a square along the edge to check for squareness. But who needed to? The precision is made by skill, not gadgets.

[Stewie Simpson]

The precision is made by skill, not gadgets.

Well stated Warren. Throw those honing guides into the bottom draw and allocate some time refining your freehand skills.

Stewie;

[Matthew N. Masail]

I grind only free hand and use the close chip breaker setting all the time. Never had an issue. A couple practical thoughts:

1. Never grind to achieve a burr, stop about 1/32 mm or even more from the edge. That is easy to do with a light touch, just practice.
2. The stone is flat, it will grind the edge flat, of course a bit of cumber is almost always introduced with plane irons.
3. If you ate a bit out if square, you attach the chip breaker to match, no big deal. Sharpen it to square by altering pressure on the stones, a little each time you sharpen, don't waste steel by grinding it all of.
4. If it is so out of square that you must correct it ( as in you ran out of lateral adjustment or a shoulder plane iron, it's best to grind the edge at 90 degrees to get a square flat bevel, remove as little as needed, the grind the primary back to square using the flat on the edge as a guide. Alternatively just bias your grinding and your stone work which I imagine that what DW was doing.

It's not rocket science. Often I'll use the grinder free hand with no rest and get it good enough, but I do a convex cumber when I do that .

[Stewie Simpson]

Good advice Matthew.

[Pat Barry]

I have to say that with the new year here at Sawmill Creek I am so grateful for the condescending attitudes and name calling that we can all participate in. It makes me sick to think that the so called experts can partake in this type of personal assault. It really hows that they know their craft and can educate as well as pontificate. I cannot state my response with more name calling in return as that is not the way I was raised. I'm so happy that you all with your 40 years of experience and book learning have the capacity to attempt to understand a point of view other than your own. Maybe one of you (P___, W___, ...), folks that do a lot of talking but never show anything substantive, could put together a clean demonstration of the methods to get a square and sharp[ plane blade instead of just remarking how simple it is for you. I'd really like to see you attempt to do something to document your process for the world to see and learn from. I challenge you to do this in the new year instead of being judgmental from your high and mighty self appointed thrones. Honestly, if it were all that simple there would not be the myriad of methods and tools and gadgets to do the job - there would be one method and that would be all that is needed.

Oh yes, I forgot one thing I really wanted to say. It would be great if some of these so called experts who can so easily put forth the verbal attacks and put downs could actually show us their real skills and expertise by showcasing some of their recent, fine woodworking skills to real wow us with action rather than the wordstream. Doing that might actually be productive and inspiring to the rest of us here on this forum. I don't recall EVER seeing anything produced by some of you that are so willing to put forth advice and negative comments.

[Tom M King]

I can't remember ever checking a plane iron for square. I do flatten my stones.

[Stewie Simpson]

It would be great if some of these so called experts who can so easily put forth the verbal attacks and put downs could actually show us their real skills and expertise by showcasing some of their recent, fine woodworking skills to real wow us with action rather than the wordstream. Doing that might actually be productive and inspiring to the rest of us here on this forum. I don't recall EVER seeing anything produced by some of you that are so willing to put forth advice and negative comments.

Pat. Your raising a valid point.

[Matt Bainton]

Gentlemen and ladies, I would LOVE it if we could all be respectful of each other, and NOT use personally insulting language. Even better, if we could have attitudes towards our fellow man that reflect who's image we bear, the equality that we are created in, and in humility NOT have to position ourselves over one another? Differences of skill, technique, or approaches to the same problem don't have to turn ugly or into competition.

---

BACK ON TOPIC: It seems like Atoma 400 or similar will be good to get eventually to make quick work of stone flattening. For now, would 400x loose Silicon Carbide be the correct grit for flattening? How far will 2oz go?

As far as 1k stones go: Shapton Pro 1k is a splash and go contender (but less effective for A2, etc), and though Sigma Power 1.2k might perform better it requires a soak. Chosera 800 seems like it might be better at hard steels AND might match the Snow White in being short soak/splash and go worthy.

Patrick linked to the 1500 grit paper I can use to supplement the Snow White until I can get a 1k range stone.

[Steve Voigt]

For now, would 400x loose Silicon Carbide be the correct grit for flattening? How far will 2oz go?

I use loose grit to flatten oil stones, not water stones, but with that caveat, I think that 400 is nowhere near coarse enough. I use 60-90 grit, and it works very well. Silicon carbide is not like diamond--it breaks down very quickly. Also, don't waste money buying a couple ounces. Go to eBay and type in "60 90 tumbling grit silicon carbide". A pound will cost you $5 plus shipping and last a long time.

[Matt Bainton]

Thanks for the clarification Steve! It makes sense about the difference in media type vs particle size.

[Kees Heiden]

I really don't want to come over "condesending", allthough I'm afraid I am not always succesfull. That said I have to agree that getting a straight enough edge to use the capiron close to the edge, using grinder and honing stones freehand isn't that difficult. I compare the edge to the capiron and I judge the camber in the plane while working. When things are a bit off I correct in that direction freehand on the stones. Here is an older video from me showing the proces with a wooden plane. I don't use squares or jigs when sharpening.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

What wet/dry paper grit is equivalent to ceramic 1000?

1000 is roughly 600 to maybe 800 grit on sandpaper in the USA. I have numerous internal documents that I have created, here are some excerpts:

Thereare many different ways to measure abrasives. Wood workers areusually concerned with abrasives related to finishing wood (such assandpaper) and for sharpening tools. Tools are sharpened by rubbingthe tool edge against something (stone, sandpaper, etc) that wearsthe edge to a sharp point.
Sandpaperis labeled with a number. The number provides information about thesize of the abrasive particles on the sandpaper. There are a fewitems of interest that can cause confusion:

1. There are multiple methods commonly used to identify size of the abrasive particles. Paper labeled 1000 in the USA is roughly the same as paper labeled P2000 in Europe.
   
2. There are different standards for coated versus bonded particles.
   
3. Most items have a range of acceptable particle sizes so it is common to see conflicting micron sizes in charts.
   
4. Micron to micron comparisons are really only relevant with similar types of stones and/or medium. Comparing a 6 micron hard black to a 6 micron diamond is not sufficient because they leave an edge in much different condition.

Eachstandard specifies how the particle size is determined and how manyof the particles may differ in size. I assume that this is why I finddifferent sizes commonly listed for 1000 grit sandpaper. ANSI Bonded 1000 particles has an allowable range from less than 4microns to almost 14 microns, with the majority of the particlesoccurring around 9 microns.


Sandpaper

Sandpaperis referenced by “grit”. Sandpaper is usually graded using one offour scales, a North American scale by the Coated AbrasivesManufacturers Institute(CAMI), a European scale by the Federation ofEuropean Producers Association (FEPA), the Finishing Scale, and theMicron Scale.

Table1: Micro-Mesh, CAMI grit, and Micron comparisons.

Method	Identifier
CAMI	No identifier used.
FEPA	Prefixed with the letter P before the grit number.
Finishing Scale	Prefixed with the letter A before the grit number.
Micron Scale	May be followed by the lower case Greek letter Mu (μ).

Inthe USA, they use the CAMI grit designation, and in Europe, the ISA /FEPA Grit designation. While looking for sandpaper with very smallparticle sizes, I almost purchased a bunch of paper labeled using theFEPA designation, but P2500 has a larger grit size than CAMI 1200.
TheFEPA standard has stricter requirements on allowable particle sizes –the particles are more uniform in size and closer to the specifiedaverage size for the FEPA scale. I expect more uniform performance,therefore, for sandpaper graded using this standard.




Table2: Common sandpaper abrasives.

Abrasive	Moh	Comment
Aluminum Oxide	9	Most common woodworking sandpaper. Typically stays sharp until the crystal breaks, leaving another sharp surface. Performance is based on creation and manufacturing technique, so, if one does not work well, try a different one.
Silicon Carbide	9.4	Harder and sharper than aluminum. Better for finishes, paint, metal, and plastics (think auto-parts stores). Not good for wood because the wood is not hard enough to break the crystals so cutting starts fast, the edges become dull, and then cutting is slow.
Ceramics		Dulls slowly, excels at quickly removing large amounts of wood. May find it with names such as Norzon, Dynakut, Regalite, Cubitron, Cubicut, and Aluminum Zirconia.
Garnet	6.5 – 7.5	Dulls quickly and does not break. This produces a very smooth surface, it just takes a long time to do it. This is great for final sanding before finishing, end grain, blotch-prone wood. Has a tenancy to close off pores (burnish) in wood, so stains (especially pigmented stain) penetrate evenly.

<remove a bunch of stuff>


Stones, Waterstones, and JIS R6001

TheJapan Industrial Standards (JIS) Committee established JIS R6001 toset particle sizes, which are used for Japanese water-stones. It ismy understanding that the actual standard does not have a definitionfor values smaller than 1 micron (8000). The average micron size andthe 3M micron size match until sizes are less than 1 micron.


Table6: JIS size comparison.

JIS	AVG μ	3M μ	CAMI
10000	0.6	0.5
9000	0.8
8000	1	1
6000	2	2
4000	3	3
3000	4	4
2500	5	5
2000	6.5		1200
1500	9	9	1000
1200	12	12	800
1000	15	15
800	16		600
600	18
500	24		400
400	30	30	360
360	41	40
320	44		280
280	53	50	240
240	66		220

Grit.xls


I attached a grit comparison chart as an XLS document. Sadly, it would not allow me to attach the ODS version (just another file format, but it is the original).