Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 81 of 81

Thread: Ray Iles Mortise Chisel

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dickinson, Texas
    Posts
    7,655
    Blog Entries
    1
    This string is almost 2 years old. Who would have thought it.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    South West Ontario
    Posts
    1,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post

    This method uses the back of the chisel to cut, and I believe that it is unaffected by a small secondary bevel. I am happy to be wrong if that leads to a more efficient use if a mortice chisel.

    Derek
    The back of the chisel cuts down but the front bevel shears the waste. The front bevel’s shearing action creates the texture of the mortice sides. A secondary bevel will take on more of the shearing than the primary bevel. It may increase the rate of shear which could be a good thing but if it is then the primary bevel is too shallow an angle. Different woods WILL have a different optimum shear angle. Putting more force on the tip seems counter productive but sharpening a large D2 bevel will convince most of us a very small secondary bevel will be forgiven by the elasticity of the wood.
    Shearing out a mortice with a pig sticker is productive but not elegant, cleaning up the sides with a wide chisel and tuning the tenon to fit can help but when you get good, tampering with an even, squared mortice is counterproductive.
    ​You can do a lot with very little! You can do a little more with a lot!

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    Thank you William.
    In beginning with a central V, I think that you are in the same company as Jim and Warren.

    I have a distant memory of Warren and I (on WoodCentral) timing this method separately, and it was a close thing.

    Regards from Perth
    Derek
    I have never tried the "central V" method. And I have never said how long it takes to make a mortise. You are confused on both of these.

    On the Woodcentral forum in 2013 you called your method the "most efficient". I was skeptical and asked how long it took to make a certain size mortise.

    Your reply: "No idea "how long", Warren. Never timed this."

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    Unnecessary step...and really not worth the effort. Those 8 mortises were done during a 2 hour work session...that also included cutting and drilling four corner blocks...
    Shaker Table Project, Langdon 75.JPG
    Each corner block needed cut from a 1 x 2, at 45 degrees on each end..
    Shaker Table Project, 4 corner blocks.JPG
    Pilot holes (8) and then counter sunk...
    Shaker Table Project, countersinks.JPG
    Using the countersink drill. Test fits..
    Shaker Table Project, mortises done.JPG
    Once all the mortises and tenons were done...tenons were done first,BTW...then assemble with glue and clamps..
    Shaker Table Project, base glued up.JPG
    And the corner blocks installed with glue and screws.

    Not too bad, for 2 hours of shop time? Only step left out? slots needed drilled...
    Shaker Table Project, slotted holes.JPG
    These are how I attach a top to a base....slots allow the top to expand/contract. Screws have a washer under the head, to allow the slide to happen.
    So...maybe 10 minutes per mortise?

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Mickley View Post
    I have never tried the "central V" method. And I have never said how long it takes to make a mortise. You are confused on both of these.

    On the Woodcentral forum in 2013 you called your method the "most efficient". I was skeptical and asked how long it took to make a certain size mortise.

    Your reply: "No idea "how long", Warren. Never timed this."
    Warren, that was 7 years ago, and all I recall was a discussion how quickly it took to get to depth with the chisel.

    Now, rather than saying what you do not do, how about explaining what you do? That would be appreciated.

    Regards from Prague

    Derek

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    I went looking for a 2013 thread on morticing chisels at WC. I cannot link to there, but below is one of my responses to Warren and others about penetration. I chose this on because it refers to issues I considered important to penetration, but also as it illustrates the V method of waste removal (possibly this is why I seemed to recall Warren using it - but obviously does not do so). Just information for discussion and learning ..

    I said:
    The issue is whether it is is easier or more efficient to make a mortice in hardwood with a chisel that has a 20 degree primary bevel and a 35 degree secondary microbevel (in my case a rounded one), as is the case with what I have come to believe is traditional, versus a primary bevel of 30 degrees, which is your preference.

    Tom said:

    What is easier about it? just the penetration?


    David wrote:
    I see two interesting things about the chisel being used:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-1-G26NBI
    First, the chisel has a flat bevel, as warren prefers
    Second, it looks like the cross section of it was either ground or deliberately made so that it is fairly light at the business end (relative to the rest of it) and very heavy at the shank of the chisel.


    Hi Tom, David and all


    It is all about penetration in my view. All things held equal, narrower primary bevel will require less force and penetrate the wood more easily than a thicker primary bevel.


    After David posted I did a little "research". What I wanted was to view and examine the way a mortice chisel entered the wood. The video he linked to shows a configuration similar to a Japanese mortice chisel, but note that Ge Hong has ground away some of the shaft ...





    I would assume that the reason is to effectively reduce the amount of steel entering the wood.


    Ge Hong works quickly, partly because he uses rapid hammer taps. He is also an experienced woodworker (I have watched him for a few years).


    I next looked at someone using a English Bolstered Mortice Chisel that was set up as per the method advocated by Joel (and used by myself): 20 degree primary bevel and 35 degree secondary bevel. The woodworker here is Peter


    video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1bo6NVYCc0



    Peter does not say what the size of the chisel is, but we know the wood is oak. The video is about demonstrating his method, which is not relevant at this time, but what we see is that he rapidly penetrates the wood. 3 or 4 blows to get down about 1" with what looks like a 16-18 oz mallet.


    Next we have a video by Paul Sellers. This one was made by him to demonstrate that a simple bench chisel may be used effectively for morticing compared to a English OBM chisel (although he does state that extra effort is required to keep it square). The video is here ..


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_NXq7_TILA

    What was not made clear is that the primary bevel angle of the OBM chisel is 30 degrees and is 3/8" wide ...




    He is also chopping onto what looks like oak. His Thor mallet (I have one similar) weighs 20 oz. He looks to be penetrating more slowly that Peter F did.


    Then he switches to a blue handled Marples chisel ...





    ... and literally scampers through the wood.


    Penetration is very rapid. Why? My interpretation is that there is little steel to hinder its progress through the wood. The 30-35 degree rounded bevel Sellers favours is small enough to compare directly with that of the OBM chisel with a 20 degree primary bevel.


    Method of working, weight of mallet, density of the wood ... there are several factors that make it difficult to compare chisels directly.


    Over this past weekend I was demonstrating at the Perth Tool Event (run by LN). I chose to build a night stand/bedside table as this contained mortices, tenons, sliding dovetails, dovetails, etc. Since it was just a demo I used pine. There were 6 mortices 3 1/2" long x 1" deep. Using a Ray Iles 1/4" OBN chisel and a 38 oz mallet, it took 1 blow to reach full depth. Frankly one could have used anything to make these mortices. The same mortices into a hardwood such as Jarrah would have taken 3-4 blows. In the past, when I used Japanese chisels (with a 30 degree primary bevel) it took longer. Longer here is not about time, but about more blows and a greater amount of effort. The Pine and the Jarrah represent two extremes. I imagine most other woodworkers would be somewhere between. The harder the wood, the more you may notice if you used these chisels side-by-side. The softer the wood, it would likely not make that much difference.


    Regards from Perth


    Derek

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •