# Kell III, perhaps the ultimate honing guide...



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

Anyone who knows me will vouch for the fact that I've been after a single honing guide (note Paul :wink: :lol: ) that will hone _almost_ (pig stickers excepted) anything, simply and easily. The registration is on the reverse side of the brass plate, so setting up is easy. All the honing medium should be used which means that the rollers need to run on the outside of the medium used. 
The Kell III is the one that does it all, and after having seen it demonstrated by Matthew a couple of weeks ago, I thought a review of this method (as I've developed it) might be of some interest. 
Matthew supplied me with some PSA lapping sheets which after thoroughly cleaning the glass plate are easy to apply. I cut the papers up into 70mm strips so I'm able to get four from a single sheet: 







I then made a series of projection boards, very similar to the Eclipse system I was previously using: 






and a series of wedges to suit different applications: 






Richard Kell supplies an excellent data sheet so it's really easy to sort out the wedges and boards. Making a new wedge for a particular tool is the work of moments, once you know the slope details. 
The tool is then offered up to the projection board: 






by holding the bar and using the fingers to push the side of the chisel (in this case) against the two registration pins. Once everything is firm: 






the appropriate sized wedge is firmly pushed into place, locking the whole thing securely. It then goes onto the lapping papers: 






The green 30um is used to make the honed bevel (30deg), and the brown (5um) is used to crate a secondary bevel: 






with the final polish being achieve with the yellow brown paper (1um). Note in this shot, I've set the bevel on the LN to 32deg and am using a thinner wedge...this does in fact make using the KIII much easier and I thick is the secret to how it ought to be used successfully. 

Awkwardly shaped shoulder plane blades are also easily held, simply by making a parallel shim with a cut out: 






as are skewed blades, again with another shaped shim: 






Want to do cambered blades?...easy :wink: Set the blade up in the guide to the required projection, and then run one side of the gauge on a *double* layer of cartridge paper a set number of times, say 6 This has the effect of lifting one side of the guide at a time: 






Do this each for each side of the blade in turn, then repeat unfolding the paper, again working a set number of passes on each side: 






and continue to work your way down through the grades, repeating each step. Once the desired camber has been established, it's only a matter of tickling the edge using this method with the 5um and 1um papers. 

The big disadvantage of this method is that the lapping papers are *very *fragile...the slightest burr on the honed side bevel will rip the paper in use and the guide must be used on the pull stroke. This presents a problem in removing the burr on the flat side, so I opted *not *to use the papers but to polish this (the flat side) using the Spyderco 10000g ceramic stone: 






The results speak for themselves: 






the LN has been honed dead square and shows up inacuracies in the previous method and the skew is spot on  

Here's the cambered blade...a crappy old No4 just honed for this demo: 






and although you can't see it, there's the merest whisper of a cambered blade on the edge. 

It does take a little bit of getting used to, but once you've got your system organised, the KIII is just about the best honing system that I've ever used...highly recommended  - Rob


----------



## Boz62 (15 Aug 2009)

Excellent. Thanks Rob. Very thought provoking...

Boz


----------



## wizer (15 Aug 2009)

Thanks for this Rob. Can you explain a bit more about the wedges? What's that all about?

Edit: Also what are you plans for spokeshave blades?


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":142zwyb4 said:


> a single honing guide (note Paul :wink: :lol: )



You might have the *best guide *but I've probably got the *best collection* :lol: 

Looks good, Rob - look forward to seeing it.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

wizer":23c2eeyn said:


> Thanks for this Rob. Can you explain a bit more about the wedges? What's that all about?
> 
> Edit: Also what are you plans for spokeshave blades?


Tom - making an appropriate wedge is the way to use this guide I think. The wedge ought to be just a bit narrower than the width of the blade being honed, then it's very easy to push the blade against the two registration pins with the left hand and then push in the wedge with the right. If the wedge is far wider, then it becomes very awkward to set up, as I found out when Matthew was showing me how to use it 
I've yet to play around with 'shave blades - Rob


----------



## Karl (15 Aug 2009)

Hi Rob 

If I understand, then the Kell uses the wedges to hold the blade in position? If so, I can imagine that in itself putting a large proportion of Kell's potential market off.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

Karl":1vzsg3o8 said:


> Hi Rob
> 
> If I understand, then the Kell uses the wedges to hold the blade in position? If so, I can imagine that in itself putting a large proportion of Kell's potential market off.
> 
> ...


Karl - making the wedges is a *very* simple thing...it takes just a couple of minutes to make a decent wedge and then get if fettled in to fit 'just so' under the bar, it's a lot easier than you might think. The dimensions for the slope for the wedge are given in the handout sheet and it's just a case of working to the info given, dead easy. 
It does help though, to have a supply of Indonesian Rosewood offcuts from Weymouth :wink: :lol: - Rob


----------



## Karl (15 Aug 2009)

Hi Rob - I think there are those woodwokers out there who wouldn't want to be fussed with having to make wedges - they'll just buy a different jig. I agree it's not difficult, but nonetheless, I believe it will put some folks off. 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

Karl":26cohnz6 said:


> Hi Rob - I think there are those woodwokers out there who wouldn't want to be fussed with having to make wedges - they'll just buy a different jig. I agree it's not difficult, but nonetheless, I believe it will put some folks off.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Karl


You're probably right Karl...it put me off to begin with :x It's only when I saw the system working and tried if for myself did I realise that it's brilliant. Making the wedges is off-putting for sure, but it ain't difficult. 
What you need to be far more careful with is the lapping papers...some discipline is needed to remember that the guide must only be used on the pull stroke - Rob


----------



## wizer (15 Aug 2009)

He _is _right. That _is _a faff. Making the projection stops was bad enough. I can see that it overcomes the problem with the LV MKII having to tighten the 2 knobs evenly. But it's not much of a solution. So you have to have a wedge for practically every blade you have? oo-er, I think I'll keep the MkII. Much less clutter. Much less faff.

Otherwise, Like the rest of the solution. Will be ordering some papers soon.


----------



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

wizer":2hfo4lk5 said:


> He _is _right. That _is _a faff. Making the projection stops was bad enough. I can see that it overcomes the problem with the LV MKII having to tighten the 2 knobs evenly. But it's not much of a solution. So you have to have a wedge for practically every blade you have? oo-er, I think I'll keep the MkII. Much less clutter. Much less faff.
> 
> Otherwise, Like the rest of the solution. Will be ordering some papers soon.


Tom - no, it's not a faff...those are all the wedges that I've made and they fit all my plane and chisel blades, so that's all the LN chisels from 25 to 3mm, the LN No9 (needs a slightly shorter wedge 'cos of the plate on the back of the iron) the LV BU blades, shoulder plane blades, the blade from 'Big Woodie' and the standard 3mm thick blades from from planes like the LN block. 
I've used the Eclipse guide which is good but flawed and the Veritas MkII, which is again, in my view, very clunky _and_ flawed. The Kell is simple, but you do need to see it *and* use it to see just how good it is - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 Aug 2009)

It would be no use Tom getting one - he'd only sell it 6 months later :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## head clansman (15 Aug 2009)

Hi rob

nice system , plain and simple nothing difficult to understand , can't see what all the faff about myself  .hc :wink:


----------



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

Tom was asking about 'shave blades...awkward little sods to hold at the best of times. Here's how it's done in the Kell: 






An acrylic 'L' shaped cut out which has been shot dead square, with the 90deg cut out also being filed dead square. The blade registers against the _back_ of the acrylic and the acrylic itslelf will now register against the two pins. The blade is shown with a smaller one of the faff producing wedges :roll: but a bigger one could equally be used...simples  Believe it or not, all this 'faff' took about 15 minutes to make - Rob


----------



## wizer (15 Aug 2009)

hmm so remind me what's wrong with the MkII? (serious question seeing as I'm considering keeping or selling)


----------



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

wizer":us0ll2cl said:


> hmm so remind me what's wrong with the MkII? (serious question seeing as I'm considering keeping or selling)


Tom - this is just my personal view, lots of woodies use one and are happy. For me it's clunky...physically too big. You also need to buy extras to do other things (cambered blades, skewed blades and small blades) but the worst reason for me is that the roller runs on the honing material and there's not really a way round that (you can build a runway behind but this doesn't really solve the problem as the blade edge to roller distance is too small, hence you can't use the full length of the honing medium). The blade registers from the wrong side and it clamps from the top, which logically to me seems wrong. It's a clever idea (even with the projection plate and the little cam affair on the roller to raise the honing angle a smidge) but again, in my view, it's fundamentally flawed - Rob


----------



## wizer (15 Aug 2009)

thanks Rob. I understand what your saying. For me, I just use a set of chisels and a couple of planes. It works just fine for me, so I think I'll keep it. Tho very interested to see the Kell sometime. Still going to go down the scary sharp route tho.


----------



## Jake (15 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":12udwrnf said:


> the worst reason for me is that the roller runs on the honing material and there's not really a way round that (



Oh migod when your sandpaper wears you are going to mess up your bevel [nsert bezel] angles. :shock: 8-[  

How many microns tolerance is the backing paper. :? 

etc.


----------



## woodbloke (15 Aug 2009)

Jake":uejqmlbg said:


> woodbloke":uejqmlbg said:
> 
> 
> > the worst reason for me is that the roller runs on the honing material and there's not really a way round that (
> ...


I understand the dry hilarity in the comment, but sandpaper it definitely ain't..if you want to polish the mirrors in the Hubble telescope then this might be the stuff you're looking for - Rob


----------



## Ironballs (15 Aug 2009)

Rob - do you know if Matthew has access to adhesive backed abrasive paper in the ranges 200-2000 grit?

Easy to get hold of in the US not here - and I've spoken to the 3M people in the UK


----------



## woodbloke (16 Aug 2009)

Ironballs":h037l3o0 said:


> Rob - do you know if Matthew has access to adhesive backed abrasive paper in the ranges 200-2000 grit?


Damian - not sure, I'd suggest you send Matthew a PM - Rob


----------



## yetloh (16 Aug 2009)

Only two things as far as I can see:

1. The brass clamping screws don't give enough purchase to securely clamp the blade. Solution; pliers.

2. Square reference surface is a bit short; potential for out of square sharpening. Solutions; care in setting up and check with a small square.

Doesn't seem much trouble to me although bigger brass screws would be nice. 

Jim


----------



## Jake (16 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":27r3kcoq said:


> sandpaper it definitely ain't..if you want to polish the mirrors in the Hubble telescope then this might be the stuff you're looking for - Rob



What's the code on the back? Some of it seems to be plain old AlOx - fine grit size, of course, and no doubt well graded etc.

It is also available in Chrome Oxide which is a bit more unusual.

I hope you manage to avoid the need to send up a shuttle with corrective optics for your blades.


----------



## woodbloke (16 Aug 2009)

Jake":162nwnah said:


> I hope you manage to avoid the need to send up a shuttle with corrective optics for your blades.


 :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## Doctor (16 Aug 2009)

These jigs are fascinating, I have had a pair of jigs for a few years now, I can't remember the name of them but I'll call them leftie and righty, they have five long bendy things on the end which can be manipulated to hold the chisel or blade.
The major problem it would appear is that I'm the only one with them? even mr grim needs a twig, having said that it was a cracking stick, very shapely :lol:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Aug 2009)

> For me it's clunky...physically too big. You also need to buy extras to do other things (cambered blades, skewed blades and small blades) but the worst reason for me is that the roller runs on the honing material and there's not really a way round that (you can build a runway behind but this doesn't really solve the problem as the blade edge to roller distance is too small, hence you can't use the full length of the honing medium). The blade registers from the wrong side and it clamps from the top, which logically to me seems wrong.



I'm sorry Rob, but none of this flies for me. Maybe for you, but your statement has all the properties of a general critique, which demands a response in the name of objectivity.

Note that I have the Kell #1, which I use for my oval bolstered chisels as it is side-clamping, a preference for such thick blades. Also note that I prefer to freehand my blades - chisels and plane blades - that do not require a secondary bevel. For the latter I use the Veritas mk II. And also note that I was involved in the pre-production testing of the Veritas, which may bias me. Still, I have a number of guides and I see them all having specific strengths and weaknesses (which is why I have them all).

Could the Veritas Mk II be less clunky? Sure. But what you have in the Kell #3 is the most clunky set up I have ever seen! The reason the Veritas _appears_ clunky is that it is made of two parts, the angle setter and the guide. The guide alone is quite compact - and it is comfortable to use. The Kell #1 is the most uncomfortable guide ever. I only use it because it can take the depth. Is the #3 the same as the #1 in this regard? 

You criticise that the Veritas for the add-ons. This is to keep the price down of the basic unit. Buy what you _need._ This way you can have maximum flexibility. Still, are you aware that the basic Kell #3 is 20% more expensive than the basic Veritas mk II? http://www.fine-tools.com/hilf.htm

You don't like the fact that "the roller runs on the honing material"? A news flash - the Kell also does when I use waterstones. 

"The blade registers from the wrong side" ...!!!! Do you have any idea how important this design feature is? You could _not _have an integral angle setter without the blade this way round. Blades come in different thicknesses and this is the only way to _accurately _set the bevel angle using an integral angle setter. The integral angle setter is part of a bigger picture - the guide is also designed to use the skew setter in a similar way. 

Can the Veritas be improved? Absolutely. Would I swap it for the Kell #3 which will require a drawer of bits-and-pieces. Not on your Nelly!

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbloke (16 Aug 2009)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > For me it's clunky...physically too big. You also need to buy extras to do other things (cambered blades, skewed blades and small blades) but the worst reason for me is that the roller runs on the honing material and there's not really a way round that (you can build a runway behind but this doesn't really solve the problem as the blade edge to roller distance is too small, hence you can't use the full length of the honing medium). The blade registers from the wrong side and it clamps from the top, which logically to me seems wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Derek - without getting into a slanging match regarding the merits of the KIII vs the VMkII, the KIII for me, personally, is infinitely preferable to the Veritas. You mention the KI...I'm discussing here the KIII which is a totally different animal and will doesn't run on the honing material, something that I specifically required in a gauge...however you slice it, any gauge with a trailing roller has to run on the stone and if its a waterstone :shock: 
I've used the KI and KII and they are both awkward...*if* you try and push them, when used on the *pull stroke* they're as easy to use as any other. 
The registration of the chisel or plane blade is from the reverse of the brass plate and the back of the tool in question, which is the correct and logical place for it to be...simple. 
The KIII will hone almost anything (bar thick mortise chisels) In my view the KIII is a very elegant way to achieve what I require in a honing gauge and it's very easy to make any fittings from oddments of hardwood and acrylic in the offcuts box, so I don't have to buy expensive add ons for specific tasks. 
All Veritas stuff is well constructed, nobody in their right mind would deny that, but the Kell's are individually hand made by a bloke in a shed in the Lake District and are exquisite...does your VII have some engraving on the plate made by a Holtzapffel ornamental lathe? No?...thought so :wink: so I'm very happy to spend a little more dosh. 
I'ts clear that you're biased towards the VII and fair play, but it's also clear that you _probably_ haven't used the KIII...I suggest you do so (I've used both :wink: ) and in the mean time, keep on necking the Fosters :lol: - Rob


----------



## matthewwh (16 Aug 2009)

Absolutely textbook rant Derek, I haven't seen one that good for a long time!

You have deftly misunderstood every element of what Rob is saying, carefully and eloquently defended the Veritas Mk2 against everything except the Kell No.3 Mk2 that the thread is about, and arrived firmly and with notable indignation back at the party line!

Truly magnificent! (ever considered a career in politics?)

Failing that, you could grab a cold one, roll up your Veritas banner and come back and join us when you've got your thinking head back on. As you are a man who's opinion Rob Lee and many others - myself included hold in high regard, I think you could serve him better as a learned advisor than a stoic but boneheaded rottweiler.

Cheers,


Matthew



P.S 
Kell No.3 Mk2 = £44.95
Veritas Mk 2 Basic Model = £46.95
Veritas Mk2 + Goodies = £85.60


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Aug 2009)

> a stoic but boneheaded rottweiler



Now now Matthew ... no name calling. That's rude :lol: ... hee .. hee ... a rottweiler ... Gee I've never thought of myself as a rottweiler... I have a Golden Retriever, if that means anything ..  



> You have deftly misunderstood every element of what Rob is saying



Let's see, Rob said ..



> I've been after a single honing guide (note Paul ) that will hone almost (pig stickers excepted) anything, simply and easily.



Matthew went on ...



> and eloquently defended the Veritas Mk2 against everything except the Kell No.3 Mk2 that the thread is about, and arrived firmly and with notable indignation back at the party line!



Careful here .. I tried to make it clear that I was trying to be objective and post responses to the points that Rob raised ... after all he was the one to cite the Veritas (otherwise I would just have made the comments about the #3, which no only still stand, but I could add more!).

My apologies if my post sounded like a rant or other. It was dashed off as I wandered in from the workshop while I waited for glue to dry. I must say that I read the original post and almost wet myself with laughter. I think that Richard Kell makes beautiful tools. I truly admire the workmanship in the #1 I have, and the workmanship of the #3 is no doubt as inspiring. And yes, I would rather own a guide in brass than one in black anodised aluminium (well I do, the #1). But for Rob to claim that the #3 does it all .... and then trot out all the jigs he uses to make the #3 work (such as the piece of paper - DC style - for the cambering), well please, the material writes itself :lol: 

Rob, I did not write that because the #1 is uncomfortable therefore I assumed the #3 would also be uncomfortable - I asked a question if this was so. Have another look. 

I accept that you like the #3. And it is unfortunate that you raised the Veritas as a point of comparison, because that then became the reference for my criticism. As much as Matthew argues that I did not understand your rationale, I argued that you did not understand the design of the Veritas. I repeat, I was simply responding to the points you raised. This is not about my being an advocate for Rob Lee ... Matthew, that is poor debate - stay above the belt please.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Doctor (16 Aug 2009)

Found my jigs, bit grubby but took a picture of them anyway.


----------



## studders (16 Aug 2009)

Cue Harry Hill...

"So, which is better, Veritas or Kell? "

"Only one way to find out..... "

*"FIGHT*"


----------



## matthewwh (16 Aug 2009)

Fair enough Derek, I didn't think it sounded like your usual measured and considered tone. Apologies for tearing a strip off you. OK, now that we've all put our handbags away and agreed to play nicely.......

I think there are some elements of Richard's design that are both simple and very clever. Some of which could have been incorporated into the Veritas, or could be incorporated into a third generation if they ever decide to do one. 






The wedge squeezes against a bar - in effect a fulcrum, so the wedged side is free to rotate about this axis, allowing the guide to accommodate tapered blades whilst always maintaing the back as a referance face. I think Veritas could incorporate this principle by allowing the surface that grips the face to pivot in some way.

Having a pair of rollers running outside the blade was originally intended to maximise stability. A pair of wheels set broader than the blade will dictate squareness to the edge rather than following a pre-existing condition. This guide was always intended to function as a fixture, rather than merely an angle stop for freehand honing.

The Kell No.3 Mk.2 is a facilitator of imaginitive use rather than a prescriptive solution - as Rob has demonstrated, the application of a little lateral thinking goes a long way. In three weeks he has developed all sorts of new ways of using it and covered his individual needs. I was happy with two wedges, one for plane irons, a smaller one for chisels down to about 3/4", and four lines cut into the top of my front vice for setting projections. Whilst Rob and I were chatting he suggested that a narrow wedge would work better for narrow chisels, so I chopped a bit off the end of the smaller one and we tried it, so I now have three wedges and can hone chisels down to 1/4" width. 

With my retailers hat on, I'd love to see a range of accessories, a pack of assorted wedges and shims for different applications, but I know if I did get them manufactured and put them on the market a lot of people would say 'sod that, I can make my own' and with my woodworking hat on I'd be one of them. Catch 22, but who knows, if the mood takes me I might do it anyway, possibly another reason to get a few boards of Kauri impregnated with resin....?

For the benefit of anyone who is confused, the original No.3 had a sprung pin that would provide the right setting for LN skew blades. This made it difficult and expensive to produce and was only of benefit to a small number of users. It was omitted on the Mk.2 version, which brought the price down and as Rob's explanation demonstrates, you can still hone skewed blades of any angle you like.


----------



## wizer (16 Aug 2009)

Look at this thread, flying over my head... 

I'll stick with my LV MKII. It works and I already own it. That makes sense to me. Maybe one day I'll invest in a pair of Doctor's jigs, but not his actual ones, I've heard he uses them to pick his nose. :shock: :lol:


----------



## woodbloke (16 Aug 2009)

matthewwh":2ck5fcyv said:


> Fair enough Derek, I didn't think it sounded like your usual measured and considered tone. Apologies for tearing a strip off you. OK, now that we've all put our handbags away and agreed to play nicely.......
> 
> I think there are some elements of Richard's design that are both simple and very clever. Some of which could have been incorporated into the Veritas, or could be incorporated into a third generation if they ever decide to do one.
> 
> ...


 
I'm able to hone even the smallest 3mm LN chisel quite easily with the narrowest of my wedges. One thing that I found out today is that the wheels on the gauge won't spin on the glass, rather they slide as there's no friction 'twixt the wheel surface and the dead smooth plate finish. The solution was to just tape (using d/s tape) some strips of printer paper between the lapping sheets so that the wheels now have a bit of grip. As I said earlier, the KIII works beautifully...it's the lapping papers you need to be really careful with - Rob


----------



## Aled Dafis (16 Aug 2009)

Rob / Matthew

What lubricant do you use with these papers? Does it matter? I currently use WD40 on diamonds, smells good and helps keep the dreaded rust at bay.

Also, will the Kell #3 Mk 2 accept a 6mm :shock: plane iron?

Cheers

Aled


----------



## wizer (16 Aug 2009)

The kits come with a Camelia Oil spritzer


----------



## woodbloke (16 Aug 2009)

Aled Dafis":3g1qv5bz said:


> Rob / Matthew
> 
> What lubricant do you use with these papers? Does it matter? I currently use WD40 on diamonds, smells good and helps keep the dreaded rust at bay.
> 
> ...


Aled - I use paraffin which is fine. The blade from 'Big Woddie' is a Phillyspecial and is 6mm thick...goes under the bar without a problem. If it didn't fit though, I'd just knock up a specific wedge for it - Rob


----------



## studders (16 Aug 2009)

Aled Dafis":3ekw4wou said:


> Rob / Matthew
> 
> What lubricant do you use with these papers?
> 
> Aled


I've tried several but find water seems to give the best cutting rate and finish; at least on my bog standard chisels/blades.


----------



## matthewwh (16 Aug 2009)

Hi Aled,

I usually use camellia oil but I've recently been playing around with Honerite #1. I chose camellia because it is non-hardening, so it won't form a cakey layer on the surface, a couple more drops (literally) the next time you sharpen and you are back to a nicely lubed but free cutting surface.

The honerite is very clean, similar to parrafin I suppose, but if you are using the non psa backed sheets you have to be careful not to slop it onto the glass as it will work its way under the sheets and turn the spraymount to mush. 

Doesn't seem to affect the PSA backed stuff though.


----------



## bugbear (17 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":ro0qhq96 said:


> but the worst reason for me is that the roller runs on the honing material and there's not really a way round that



Well, that's a biggy, and both approaches have pros and cons.

In the "wheel runs on the honing medium" type, the honing medium can be any thickness, and one can easily mix honing medium of different thicknesses (e.g. move from a coarse thick stone, to a fine thin stone). This is very helpful is you're using waterstones, which have to be flattened. Over time, waterstones end up at different thicknesses.

The downside is that the wheel might wear the abrasive (depending on wheel size and amount of pressure), or that the abrasive residue might get into the wheel and wear *it*.

The "wheel on the bench" type are almost the exact opposite. All your abrasives must be the same thickness (or are least be shimmed or inset to be the same effective thickness).

But the wheels stays clean, and can't wear the abrasive.

I can't say that one approach is clearly better than the other in all circumstances.

BugBear


----------



## Jake (17 Aug 2009)

bugbear":39gk1mip said:


> The "wheel on the bench" type are almost the exact opposite. All your abrasives must be the same thickness (or are least be shimmed or inset to be the same effective thickness).



Yet another advantage of the Kell, which will add a hyper-micro-bevel automatically with finer PSA abrasives (which must be a few microns thinner than the lower grits, assuming identical backing and a single layer of grit). [/snake oil]


----------



## Imperial (17 Aug 2009)

Never felt the need to add micro bevels to any edge never mind "hyper micro bevels" what ever the #:*% they are? My blades are all honed by hand on a couple of waterstones and have sucessfully cut through the leather tool rolls I keep them in as well as my jeans and a bag they were being carried in on more than one occasion as well as wood of course. Jigs I find are only useful when grinding a new angle, if you happen to chip the edge. I own the Veritas and only ever use it for that purpose. This kind of talk is what puts off novices from trying to sharpen freehand themselves and they fork out cash for devices which are really not required, not very good and made some of the pro's start another forum elsewhere. When a tool is blunt you'll soon see the effect and know it time to hone.

All of the above IMO!


----------



## woodbloke (17 Aug 2009)

Bloonose":2qljar3j said:


> Never felt the need to add micro bevels to any edge never mind "hyper micro bevels" what ever the #:*% they are? My blades are all honed by hand on a couple of waterstones and have sucessfully cut through the leather tool rolls I keep them in as well as my jeans and a bag they were being carried in on more than one occasion as well as wood of course. Jigs I find are only useful when grinding a new angle, if you happen to chip the edge. I own the Veritas and only ever use it for that purpose. This kind of talk is what puts off novices from trying to sharpen freehand themselves and they fork out cash for devices which are really not required, not very good and made some of the pro's start another forum elsewhere. When a tool is blunt you'll soon see the effect and know it time to hone.
> 
> All of the above IMO!


Don't get me wrong...I can freehand hone and as an ex-woodwork teacher of the old school could grind and hone a class set of bench chisels...that's 80 :shock: :shock: in about an hour. The thing with freehand honing is that you can never fully guarantee the bevel that you're trying to achieve and more often that not is far higher than you anticipated. This isn't too much of a problem with carbon steel as metal removal is fairly swift...it becomes more of a problem with A2 steels which are much tougher and the tendency is then to round the bevel and then you _think_ it's sharp, when it ain't really. As has been said many times, a honing guide will provide a guaranteed angle every time which is it's inherent beauty. The KIII just does it better, but you really do need to get your head round how it does it and more importantly, see it working. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this system to a novice woodworker. 
All in my opinion of course..... - Rob


----------



## wizer (17 Aug 2009)

I think Jake was being facetious there  Wouldn't that scenario actually round the front of the blade over?


----------



## woodbloke (17 Aug 2009)

wizer":17wra7hy said:


> I think Jake was being facetious there  Wouldn't that scenario actually round the front of the blade over?


Tom, we _know_ Jake was being facetious :lol:...snake oil might be a good alternative to Camilla though (need to speak to Mattew) - Rob


----------



## Imperial (17 Aug 2009)

Hardy har har, my sides have now split at the marvelous wit :lol:


----------



## woodbloke (17 Aug 2009)

Bloonose":36etdu4d said:


> Hardy har har, my sides have now split at the marvelous wit :lol:


Sarcasm is noted - Rob


----------



## Smeg (17 Aug 2009)

I agree with bloonose, blades are for using not polishing, measuring in microns, micro beveling or super duper micro micron beveling  

When do you people find time to do any work?

And of course this is just my opinion


----------



## woodbloke (17 Aug 2009)

Smeg":n8082bs3 said:


> I agree with bloonose, blades are for using not polishing, measuring in microns, micro beveling or super duper micro micron beveling
> 
> When do you people find time to do any work?
> 
> And of course this is just my opinion


The super duper micro-micron bevel is one of Jakes fabrications :lol: :lol: caused by the inexpert application of an excess drop or two of Snake Oil. What's under discussion here is applying just two bevels to *A2 steel*. The main primary bevel ground at 23deg, is achieved on the Tormek. The honed bevel at 30deg is the first one honed, a secondary micro bevel at 32deg (which is so small that you can't really see it) is then added, really just two or three passes on the 1um paper. 
The reason is fairly straightforward in that A2 steel benefits from a higher honing angle than a standard 01 carbon steel blade. I know this because when I honed the A2 blade on my LN block at 30deg, it completely crumbled and left the underside of the plane looking like a ploughed field (an exaggeration :roll: but there are multiple score lines in the sole caused by the disintegrating edge) 
If you happen to use 01 carbon steel (nothing wrong with that at all) then there isn't really any need to go to 32deg, stay with 30deg, which makes the process a bit easier - Rob


----------



## Philly (17 Aug 2009)

Not wanting to go too far off-topic, but its pretty easy to hone free-hand. The secret is to feel for the wire edge - that tells you you're sharpening where it counts, at the cutting edge.
It seems to be really easy to spend more money on sharpening gear and jigs than on tools :lol: 
Just a thought.... I'll get me coat.
Philly


----------



## studders (17 Aug 2009)

Disposable blades, thats wots needed.

:idea:


----------



## woodbloke (17 Aug 2009)

Philly":1vwl18y1 said:


> Not wanting to go too far off-topic, but its pretty easy to hone free-hand. The secret is to feel for the wire edge - that tells you you're sharpening where it counts, at the cutting edge.
> It seems to be really easy to spend more money on sharpening gear and jigs than on tools :lol:
> Just a thought.... I'll get me coat.
> Philly


I know Philly, it _is_ easy to sharpen freehand, but a honing guide provides you with a repeatable angle each time, which may or may not be the case with freehand honing, which may in itself be more difficult with A2 steels. As Matthew pointed out the VMkII with all the associated clobber will set you back £80+notes (almost enough for one of your planes...my turn for the coat :lol: ) whereas the KIII is about half that, and it will hone just about anything - Rob


----------



## matthewwh (17 Aug 2009)

There is nothing wrong with freehand honing. If you are good enough at it to produce a polished surface and a wire edge in a dozen strokes without increasing the bevel angle, then it is probably going to be quicker than using a guide. 

In my experience, the 30 seconds or so spent setting up a guide are well worth it because I know that I can go back to precisely the arrangement I had last time and often get a wire edge on the first or second stroke. I do freehand sometimes, if only to keep my eye in, but to be honest I get better and more consistant results in less time using a guide. 

I have heard stories about colleagues laughing at people for using honing guides. I wonder how much of it is macho pride in the skills that they have spent years perfecting and how much is fear of humiliation that some spotty oik with a honing guide will turn up and put a better edge on a set of chisels faster than they can.

Speaking of strokes, I believe Mr Grim has an excellent picture which may help the alternists who are looking to rustle up a bit of the elusive 'snake oil'. Never tried it myself but on this occasion I think I'll just take your word for it.


----------



## Jake (17 Aug 2009)

wizer":3610fat8 said:


> I think Jake was being facetious there  Wouldn't that scenario actually round the front of the blade over?



If you went up the grits carefully enough, I think you would end up with a hyper-micro (slightly segmented) Grim-style rounded bevel.


----------



## head clansman (17 Aug 2009)

Hi 


there is no way on this earth no matter how bloody good one might think you are at sharpening free hand that each time you pick that chisel or plane you will get the same angle when sharpening , neither will anyone get the polished razor sharp edge that scary sharpening will give you each and every time you use it to sharpen your tools for the perfect angle every single time .


----------



## Philly (17 Aug 2009)

Chaps
Its not about being macho, or even getting the exact same angle each time. I use my tools to make things, and I like them sharp. I don't have the time to waste with long drawn out routines when it comes time to hone - I just wander over to the stones and a few strokes later I go back to work. I'm no woodworking genius, I just know what I'm trying to achieve.
Jigs are an excellent way to achieve a result, just not the only way. And sometimes, sharp is enough, not "ultimate sharp" :wink: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Mr Ed (17 Aug 2009)

I am catching up on this one (having been away walking in North Wales for 5 days) so have read the discussion so far all in one go, rather than over several days as it was written. The thread appears to be going in the direction that forum discussions do from time to time, where positions become entrenched and people start arguing their corner, rather than discussing the topic.

Could it be possible that some people like the Kell guide and others prefer the Veritas or Eclipse? People have these preferences on most other tools, so liking one honing guide or another (or none) is equally valid. There's a lot of very well informed opinion on this forum, and I always feel a bit disappointed when that gets Eclipsed (pun intended) by bickering and partisan posturing.

Anyway, enough of me on my moral high horse.

In my opinion the making of wedges and spacers and the use of bits of paper to get the Kell guide to do all the required jobs suggests that it is only half a system. The Veritas product looks to do all the required things (with the add ons purchased admittedly) out of the box. I should say I don't own and have never used either of these, managing to stumble along with a combination of a £10 Eclipse guide and a bit of freehand when feeling dextrous.

My angle on these things, and all tools, is that if you like it and can afford it then by all means go for it. Bear in mind though, if you're always looking for the new new thing, chances are you will jump from pillar to post ad infinitum. Apparently now diamond stones are out and scary sharp is in...well I tried scary sharp 10 years ago and didn't get on with sticking bits of paper onto glass, so I'll be keeping my diamond stones. My point on this being that you need to go with what you find works, not just what eveyone else is doing.

Cheers, Ed


----------



## wizer (17 Aug 2009)

So those of you who don't obsess about these things. What grade stones do you use? Primary bevel on the Tormek or Grinder... then...?


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Aug 2009)

head clansman":3pw1qkkw said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> there is no way on this earth no matter how bloody good one might think you are at sharpening free hand that each time you pick that chisel or plane you will get the same angle when sharpening , neither will anyone get the polished razor sharp edge that scary sharpening will give you each and every time you use it to sharpen your tools for the perfect angle every single time .



Not sure about that. Given a thick enough blade (hollow ground) it's more than possible. Difficulties occur with thin blades and narrow chisels but it wouldn't surprise me if someone had the skill to do even those.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Aug 2009)

EdSutton":1gw1g5pi said:


> I am catching up on this one (having been away walking in North Wales for 5 days) so have read the discussion so far all in one go, rather than over several days as it was written. The thread appears to be going in the direction that forum discussions do from time to time, where positions become entrenched and people start arguing their corner, rather than discussing the topic.
> 
> Could it be possible that some people like the Kell guide and others prefer the Veritas or Eclipse? People have these preferences on most other tools, so liking one honing guide or another (or none) is equally valid. There's a lot of very well informed opinion on this forum, and I always feel a bit disappointed when that gets Eclipsed (pun intended) by bickering and partisan posturing.
> 
> ...



'Half a system' might be a little unkind, after all it's just a few wooden wedges. As someone who works wood I don't think it would put me off.


----------



## Karl (17 Aug 2009)

MIGNAL":359czjhk said:


> head clansman":359czjhk said:
> 
> 
> > Hi
> ...



Ah, but what happens once it's been hone a couple of times???? If you continue to reference the blade off the hollow grind you will spend longer and longer raising a wire edge on each sharpening session. Unless one increases the angle of the blade to raise a wire edge more quickly.

But what happens at the next sharpening session? Raise the angle further?

And then the next session?

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Karl (17 Aug 2009)

EdSutton":1zcrltfe said:


> In my opinion the making of wedges and spacers and the use of bits of paper to get the Kell guide to do all the required jobs suggests that it is only half a system.



That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread about people being put off buying it - it isn't ready to go from the box. Like buying a plane and being told you've got to make your own blade....

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Jake (17 Aug 2009)

Karl":1o7qv9cp said:


> If you continue to reference the blade off the hollow grind you will spend longer and longer raising a wire edge on each sharpening session. l



Only twice as fast as any microbevel system on the planet. And there's a trade-off time, of course.


----------



## matthewwh (17 Aug 2009)

Karl":1fccg7ak said:


> EdSutton":1fccg7ak said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion the making of wedges and spacers and the use of bits of paper to get the Kell guide to do all the required jobs suggests that it is only half a system.
> ...



Cool,

That's two votes for an accessory kit.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Aug 2009)

Karl":1dao3sdi said:


> MIGNAL":1dao3sdi said:
> 
> 
> > head clansman":1dao3sdi said:
> ...



You do what I do, which is to grind it back but still maintaining a glint all along the edge. Difficult with a powered grinder but with a handcrank it's not much of a problem, the slow cut allows you to creep up to the very edge but without removing too much metal. From the handcrank I go straight to a 8,000G waterstone. The fast cut of the waterstone makes it possibe.


----------



## bugbear (18 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":3f3tbgwm said:


> ...and the tendency is then to round the bevel and then you _think_ it's sharp, when it ain't really.



Ah, well that depends what sharp means. As any carver will tell you there's more to a tool that cuts well than a sharp edge; the "macro" profile of the tool matters too.

In some specialised areas bevel angles all the way up to 90 degrees are used, and the edge (arris?) is nice and sharp (intersection of two polished surfaces and all that).

You wouldn't get much of a shave from it though.

BugBear


----------



## woodbloke (18 Aug 2009)

Karl":325d20wh said:


> EdSutton":325d20wh said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion the making of wedges and spacers and the use of bits of paper to get the Kell guide to do all the required jobs suggests that it is only half a system.
> ...


What a bunch of wusses :lol: :lol: We're woodworkers... we make things (read tools) from wood!! (unless Ed your marking gauges in F&C were a figment of my imagination?)
Before anyone reminds me of it, I know I committed the unpardonable cime of taking Saint Alf of Falmouth to task a coupla years ago over hammer handles, for which I'll probably end up in Dante's lowest circle of hell but as woodworkers, these wedges take minutes to knock up.
Right. That's it, finish...I'm not making anything else at all, ever, from wood,* ever* again and I'm giving all my tools away (only jesting here) - Rob (stamping foot and retreiving teddy to go back in pram :lol: :lol: )


----------



## Imperial (18 Aug 2009)

"That's it, finish...I'm not making anything else at all, ever, from wood, ever again and I'm giving all my tools away (only jesting here) - Rob (stamping foot and retreiving teddy to go back in pram )"

Your wit is scary sharp just like your blades :roll:


----------



## woodbloke (18 Aug 2009)

Bloonose":1neyjxsq said:


> Your wit is scary sharp just like your blades :roll:


Your _attempt_ at sarcasm is again noted... the comment wasn't meant to be 'witty' as such, rather a futile (in your case) stab at a bit of humour at an early hour, clearly stony ground here - Rob


----------



## woodbloke (18 Aug 2009)

bugbear":3vartvir said:


> woodbloke":3vartvir said:
> 
> 
> > ...and the tendency is then to round the bevel and then you _think_ it's sharp, when it ain't really.
> ...


...as in the scraper chisels used by Bill Carter? - Rob


----------



## OPJ (18 Aug 2009)

wizer":2l49uy1i said:


> So those of you who don't obsess about these things. What grade stones do you use? Primary bevel on the Tormek or Grinder... then...?



It's like Ed says; you need to find the methods and mediums which best suit you, instead of trying to follow what everyone else is doing. 

You don't _need_ a Tormek either. A cheap bench grinder, used with care, will serve you well for grinding the primary bevel. You can even make your own tool rests from scrap wood (see Keith Rowley's 'turning book). Tormek's are great if you can afford them - reduced risk of burning the steel and losing its temper, although you have to put up with some watery mess/slurry. I can get by with my 8" grinder but, I'm thinking of upgrading to a WorkSharp 3000 soon. :wink: By the time you've upgraded one of the wheels (Norton 3X, £40), bought the dressing tool (£25) and maybe a couple of tool rests (£50?), you've already spent over £100 and may as well save up a little bit extra to buy it all [almost!] in one. :roll: 

I've always been happy with oil stones. I have no idea what grit they are, they just read 'Coarse', 'Medium' and 'Fine'... I rarely use the coarse one unless I cannot be ar**d to set up my grinder (I'm paranoid about sparks!) but, the all give me me good results. For an extra fine edge, I do use an 'ultra fine' ceramic stone, which does make a big difference when working hardwoods.

Most of my honing is done freehand. I know in my heart that I've gone over 30° on most of my blades but, I can still get a sharp edge (as Philly says, feel for a burr on the back). I do admit to owning a Veritas MkII jig, which is great but, even that takes time to set up and I only really get it out when the tools are fresh off the grinder, to create a 'reference' edge for future freehand honing...

I can see the appeal in the new Kell jig but, to a beginner, the 'ready-to-go' Veritas MkII jig is almost always going to have more appeal. If Matthew is seriously considering an 'accessory kit' for the Kell guides then, that sounds like a great idea and would certainly make that item more attractive to potential buyers (even beginners). :wink:


----------



## Mr Ed (18 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":29zefzyv said:


> What a bunch of wusses :lol: :lol: We're woodworkers... we make things (read tools) from wood!! (unless Ed your marking gauges in F&C were a figment of my imagination?)



What these ones? :wink: 







No, not a figment of your imagination, they very much appeared in F&C 135 - Christmas 2007. I have also made all kinds of other tools and workshop aids to what I consider to be a good accurate standard, all starting from scratch.

I think you're missing the point though - its not that I can't make some wedges, its that I think if you have to make them and then some spacers and then use bits of paper to get a cambered edge its not a complete system. Its a honing guide kit, where the tricky bits are done and you finish the job yourself. Making something from scratch because you enjoy the process (which is where I got into it) is different in my view from having to make additional components before you can use something. It seems to me that a lot of woodworkers are tinkerers, in which case it probably appeals and thats fine. As I said orginally; if you like it and can afford it then go for it. If on the other hand you're a beginner starting out, its probably not a good recommendation.

Cheers, Ed


----------



## woodbloke (18 Aug 2009)

OPJ":jmlv4z3t said:


> wizer":jmlv4z3t said:
> 
> 
> > So those of you who don't obsess about these things. What grade stones do you use? Primary bevel on the Tormek or Grinder... then...?
> ...


Olly - this is perzactly how I started to sharpen, Norton India oil stones, finishing on the 'fine' with a lick on a strop just to finish off. Nothing wrong with that and it did me for many years (and it was how I honed stuff in school) but as you say for that superfine edge, a ceramic stone (presumably the 10000g Spyderco?) is needed to work _more easily_ in hardwoods (and also works much better in softwoods) It's also probably true that the harder the timber, the finer the edge you need. If you were to plane some of Waka's rosewood or even some of Martin's greenheart with a plane blade straight off a 'fine' India, you'd know what I mean :wink:

I'd suggest that you get down to the next Bash we're having in these parts and have a look at this sort of honing system and you're also right in saying that everyone needs to develop their own way of working - Rob


----------



## bugbear (18 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":3lvo38ru said:


> bugbear":3lvo38ru said:
> 
> 
> > woodbloke":3lvo38ru said:
> ...



Good example - I wouldn't like to try to pare the waste from a dovetail with one, and yet they're very sharp.

BugBear


----------



## ivan (23 Aug 2009)

For me hand honing only gave a decent result every time if I had a hollow grind on a very thick ~3/16" blade.

Lee Valley's jig as supplied probably holds a larger variety of blades referenced from the correct surface, than any other, but it's not perfect. It might be if it gripped the sides of tapered chisels like the Eclipse style as modified by David Charlesworth. 

Surely rollers on the grinding medium are only a problem with waterstones, where the large amount of slurry on 800/1200 grit stones makes it likely you'll get it in the wheel's bearings? No problem on diamond or 8000 grit waterstone.


----------



## Walter Hall (23 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":upyrvj2f said:


> the Kell's are individually hand made by a bloke in a shed in the Lake District



I have found this debate fascinating and informative, but shall not enter into it except to point out that Richard Kell does not work in a shed in the Lake District, but in a shed in Choppington, Northumberland.

Walter


----------



## woodbloke (23 Aug 2009)

Apolgies to Richard - Rob


----------



## Chems (23 Aug 2009)

The Tormek Manual says you don't need a secondary bevel. Just a light polish on the leather wheel. I've been doing that an its worked ok for me, in at least that the tools are sharp.


----------



## matthewwh (23 Aug 2009)

ivan":rvvur182 said:


> Lee Valley's jig as supplied probably holds a larger variety of blades referenced from the correct surface, than any other, but it's not perfect. It might be if it gripped the sides of tapered chisels like the Eclipse style as modified by David Charlesworth.



Hi Ivan, 

Please, please don't take this personally - it took me ages to get my head around - but once I did it was like the clouds parted and I could hear the angels singing. 

The Veritas sandwiches the blade with the bevelled (non-referance) face on top of the big machined block and then has a lighter, broad bar screwed down onto the back - the face that we measure the bevel angle relative to. 

If they had machined the underside of the block and put the attachment gubbins down there with a narrow, v shaped or pivoted bar, then it would be referencing off the correct surface. The bar would make a single line of contact on the bevelled side and the larger contact area between the block / back of the blade would define the referance plane; which is what happens on the Kell 3 - the wedge is free to pivot about its line of contact with the 'axle'. This is what DC was trying to correct with his modification of adding plates to the top of the eclipse, undoubtedly a significant move in the right direction, but I wouldn't recognise it as the best solution so start from if I were designing a guide from scratch.

Another thing that I think they could have done better is the twin thumbscrews that hold the clamping bar in place. This arrangement takes time to tighten and release, the screws must be tightened evenly in order to avoid gripping one side of the blade more than the other and it applies the force unevenly across the blade (lots on the sides less in the middle). From a business/marketing perspective it was absolutely the right thing to do, shiny brass knobs will sell more guides than unappealing wedges, especially if you get to make the wedges yourself. However from a purely functional point of view, the ancient technology of the wedge is superior both mechanically and practically.



ivan":rvvur182 said:


> Surely rollers on the grinding medium are only a problem with waterstones, where the large amount of slurry on 800/1200 grit stones makes it likely you'll get it in the wheel's bearings? No problem on diamond or 8000 grit waterstone.



Broad rollers on the stone are not a great problem for most people, if the roller is going to wear the stone it will do so evenly and as long as you wash and dry it carefully (especially with well specified kit like the Veritas) it's going to give years of service before the bearing surfaces suffer to the point where the roller needs replacing. If someone already has the Veritas Mk2 and they get on well with it I wouldn't recommend changing. I'll happily explain to them why I believe the Kell 3 is better, but the Veritas is still a good piece of kit and for many people it produces the results they are after. 

The reason that Richard installed the wheels either side side of the area that the blade travels along had nothing to do with keeping them clean or avoiding wear, althought these are fringe benefits. It was done to make the guide stable, like a tricycle, so the guide forces the blade to sit square on to the sharpening media, resulting in a square edge. 

Taking the opposite extreme i.e. a single central wheel and a blade that is wider than the wheel, the tricycle is reversed, so the blade is telling the guide where to go rather than the other way around. Yes, you can lean on the edges of the guide to create a camber, and you can shim under the wheels of the Kell as Rob describes in his original post to achieve a camber. The difference is that leaning on the centre of an eclipse type guide doesn't produce square, it produces more of whatever angle you had before. 

The broad roller of the Veritas will also dictate squareness to the blade (and you can shim under the sides to do cambers rather than buying a barrel shaped roller for it - but don't tell Rob Lee I told you so.)

Squareness isn't essential for all types of blade, bench planes have lateral adjusters for example, but it is necessary for some and it does give you a known starting point, which is absolutely critical to achieving repeatability and control. 

There are a wide range of honing guides on the market, very few of which are completely useless but many seem to have been designed specifically for one or two things that you might want to sharpen rather than all of them. Richard on the other hand has given a great deal of thought to the fundamental principles and produced a dead simple but very clever and well engineered piece of kit. It's a bit like a survival knife in that it still requres the application of some nowse and the materials you have at hand, but with those you can make it do an enormous variety of tasks with an astonishing degree of accuracy and control.


----------



## woodbloke (23 Aug 2009)

I'm very happy with the way the KIII will hone everything I throw at it, though like all new systems, it does take a bit of getting used to. The thing that you do have to watch out for is trapping any grit or crud on the bevel being honed, this will have the instant effect of tearing the papers, 'specially the finer ones so great care is needed to ensure that the lapping sheets are clean before honing begins. 
I've been planing teak all over the weekend so the plane blades have had constant attention fairly frequently on the lapping papers, edges have come up super sharp and square. 
Matthew - order in to you soon for some more 5um papers as well as a cheque in the post :wink: - Rob


----------



## bugbear (24 Aug 2009)

ivan":2dedubl0 said:


> Lee Valley's jig as supplied probably holds a larger variety of blades referenced from the correct surface, than any other, but it's not perfect. It might be if it gripped the sides of tapered chisels like the Eclipse style as modified by David Charlesworth.



Then it couldn't do anything other than perfectly square across blades. There's no such thing as perfect.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (24 Aug 2009)

matthewwh":1reit42h said:


> The Veritas sandwiches the blade with the bevelled (non-referance) face on top of the big machined block and then has a lighter, broad bar screwed down onto the back - the face that we measure the bevel angle relative to.









I can't tally your words with the picture.

In use, I'm seeing back (reference face) of the blade upper most, contacting the "Blade Carrier", with the "Clamp Bar" underneath, being pulled UP by knurled nuts on the upper surface. This is quite correct for accurate bevel measuring (should one deem this important).

In short, it appears to me that the LV is doing everything one would want in the matter of reference surfaces and bevel angles.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (24 Aug 2009)

matthewwh":21m297nf said:


> The difference is that leaning on the centre of an eclipse type guide doesn't produce square, it produces more of whatever angle you had before.



Indeed. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Bu it means, that once you've got (e.g.) a shoulder plane blade at just the right blade angle (which may be 1/2 degree or so OFF square to allow for machining errors in a low bed angle), you can sharpen it in an Eclipse style jig without any setup at all. You don't even need to KNOW what the angle IS to maintain it.

The common square across blade is also self-perpetuating.

This strikes me as a strength, not a limitation.

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (24 Aug 2009)

As I read and interpret the many problems raised over years on the forums, the problem with honing guides is that users tend to suspend their brain and hand over all thinking to the guide.

No, that is not a rant. 

I have a variety of honing guides - Kell, Veritas Mk I and Mk II, a couple of Eclipse, Side Skate - and they all get used at times, even though my preference is to freehand blades. 

Being able to competently freehand blades is very important, and the ability to do so changes ones perception of what honing guide needs to do.

Many consider that a honing guide is a jig designed to create a perfect and/or reliable result. It is not. It is true that the aim of a guide is to facilitate a repeated setting, which is helpful since this can reduce the amount of honing needed. However, most honing guides I have used are a compromise of strengths and weaknesses. None are perfect in replacing a human hand. Nor should they be - the fact is that a honing guide is really to supplement the hand, not replace it.

I'd go so far as to say that the more controlled and inflexible the guide, the greater the problems that will be experienced. 

The strength of the Eclipse is the narrow wheel. The strength of the Veritas Mk I is the clamping system (YES!) and microbeveling. The strength of the Kell Mk I is the side clamping. The strength of the Side Skate is the side sharpening and closest mimicking of freehand honing.

Try and imagine that you are holding a blade and freehanding it on a stone. You should be able to feel that the bevel is flat to the surface, be aware if you are rocking at all, be aware of where the pressure is being exerted so that you know which part of the bevel is being honed, be aware of the flatness of the stone as this feeds back to you as a smooth blade movement.... 

How do you replicate this with a honing guide? (Yes you want to!). 

Any one who has a Tormek or the Veritas Mk II, or both, will recognise that the bevel will be ground out-of-square if one side clamp is tightened more than the clamp on the other side of the blade. Many (especially novices) curse and see this as a problem with the Tormek or MkII. It is neither. 

Whether you are honing freehand or with a guide you have to be able to make constant minor modifications as you work. In the case above you use the side screws to alter the setting of the grind - checking as you go. Think of it as you driving and steering the guide, not the other way around.

Widely spaced wheels on a guide limit the amount of camber that may be induced by pressure on a corner of the blade. One wants as much flexibility as possible if you desire to mimic the hand. The Eclipse is excellent here as it has a narrow wheel. The standard Mk II is quite capable of camber without the camber accessory, but the latter increases the options. The Sharp Skate also uses finger pressure (there is a review on my web site on this guide, plus a demo of side sharpening - that can change your ideas on freehand honing!). 

I think I must end this post before it takes over all our lives. The bottom line is that honing guides are a limiting factor if you stop thinking about what your hand naturally wants to do. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (24 Aug 2009)

Hi BB

Outr posts overlap - a good thing. (I have been writing it on-and-off as I had time between appointments). 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## wizer (24 Aug 2009)

The other day my Dad was here helping with a little DIY job in the house when he said "I need a chisel". So being the ever obedient 29yr old son, I toddled off to MY workshop to grab him a chisel. As I did I caught a glimpse of my now sold diamond plates that where laid out on my workbench. Hmm "Wonder if I could just quickly touch this up" I didn't have time to faff about with the MKII so I used Gidon's technique of pushing the chisel away from you on the stone. A few swipes on the finer grades and I could see a lovely shiney edge. Dad didn't notice while he was whacking it...

My point being, there is a time and place for all of these methods. Oh and freehand sharpening isn't as scary as it seems.


----------



## matthewwh (24 Aug 2009)

Bugbear,

You are quite right, it's been a year or two since I used the Veritas and I could have sworn I was screwing the bar down rather than pulling it up! My bad - comment withdrawn unreservedly.  



bugbear":3bmo7o6q said:


> Indeed. You say that like it's a bad thing.



It's not a bad thing, as you say in some circumstances it can be just the job, as long as the person using it understands the progression from freehand honing (like riding a unicycle) where it's all you in every direction but once you can do it it's quite natural, to narrow wheel honing (bicycle) where one plane is controlled but you are still responsible for left to right, and broad roller / tricycle honing which controls the blade in both planes.


----------



## Vann (25 Aug 2009)

matthewwh":2gmb8ye9 said:


> The Veritas sandwiches the blade with the bevelled (non-referance) face on top of the big machined block and then has a lighter, broad bar screwed down onto the back - the face that we measure the bevel angle relative to.


This is true only of the 'backbevels' settings. Somewhere in the Lee Valley blurb it says the resulting bevel angles are based on a 1/8" thick iron, and the actual bevel will vary depending on iron thickness.

Also in the Lee Valley blurb are tables (Table 1 of the instructions) that give the exact angles that result from each setting, and at each position of the eccentric roller. It even gives the bevel angles that result if the 'backbevel' settings are used for normal (i.e. non-back) bevels. In this case these are different to those shown on the registration plate.

Of course, we're only talking of a degree, or fraction of a degree, difference here...



bugbear":2gmb8ye9 said:


> I can't tally your words with the picture.
> 
> In short, it appears to me that the LV is doing everything one would want in the matter of reference surfaces and bevel angles.


Well spotted bugbear. I thought matthewwh had got that one wrong, but he confundled me initially  

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (27 Aug 2009)

bugbear":18q4lhsd said:


> The "wheel on the bench" type are almost the exact opposite. All your abrasives must be the same thickness (or are least be shimmed or inset to be the same effective thickness).



I must have been having an off day. It is also rather important that your abrasives are parallel to the surface the wheels are running on, which (in practice) means that the upper abrasive surface must be parallel to the lower abrasive surface.

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (27 Aug 2009)

wizer":2l336sq0 said:


> hmm so remind me what's wrong with the MkII? (serious question seeing as I'm considering keeping or selling)



Nothing at all!

I have the Kell mk3 and the Veritas mk2 and the LV is much easier to use. I do like the kell though and am using it more often as I like the wheels being off the abrasive. Bit of a pain making shims, wedges etc., but it is a one-off.

If I were looking to buy a new, single honing guide, it would the Veritas MK2 though due to its ease of use

Nice review Rob


----------



## wizer (27 Aug 2009)

I agree Tony, which is why I've now kept the MKII and will continue to use it. Tho as said above I am experimenting with hand sharpening when just a touch up is needed. I'm not bothering with secondary bevels. My woodworking isn't really up to that level.


----------



## bugbear (28 Aug 2009)

Tony":2im8voqk said:


> If I were looking to buy a new, single honing guide, it would the Veritas MK2 though due to its ease of use



If I were buying, I'd probably buy the Veritas Mk2 AND an Eclipse(type).

The Eclipse is so VERY convenient, and fast to set up, for the majority of sharpening, that I would always want one.

There's a "long tail" of tricky sharpening, but the "core" of most peoples sharpening requirment is bench plane blades, and medium width chisels.

BugBear


----------



## TrimTheKing (28 Aug 2009)

I have got lost in this thread as I got bored a couple of pages back , and I have no compunction to get involved either way. 

Having said that, I do have a quick observation that may well be wrong, but I think my maths is right... 

Rob - on your post where you show how you camber a blade, I think I may have spotted a small flaw in the system. The registration pins for setting a blade up against are on the left side (as you are honing, I think...) so the blade is always on that side of the jig (please correct me if I am wrong or have missed something here). 

With that in mind, when you set up you pieces of paper on the right hand side of the jig, to camber the left corner of the blade, due to the fact that the blade is not centred in the jig, won't you be taking more material off that corner than you will when you then transfer the paper over to the other side? Surely when the paper goes under the left wheel, the right side of the blade will be marginally higher off the honing material than the left side was when that was being honed. 

Like I say, math's isn't my strong suit so I may well be wrong, but I don't think I am... 

I do appreciate that the difference will be so small to probably be negligable, but if we are looking for absolute repeatability and perfection, then this is a flaw. 

Tin hat on waiting to be proved wrong...


----------



## Karl (28 Aug 2009)

wizer":1w64oy64 said:


> I agree Tony, which is why I've now kept the MKII and will continue to use it. Tho as said above I am experimenting with hand sharpening when just a touch up is needed. I'm not bothering with secondary bevels. My woodworking isn't really up to that level.



Tom - how do you freehand a blade without a secondary bevel?????


----------



## bugbear (28 Aug 2009)

Karl":121bs5r5 said:


> wizer":121bs5r5 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree Tony, which is why I've now kept the MKII and will continue to use it. Tho as said above I am experimenting with hand sharpening when just a touch up is needed. I'm not bothering with secondary bevels. My woodworking isn't really up to that level.
> ...



Err. It's easier (although possibly more laborious). The worst case for freehanding is a thin blade (e.g. Bailey plane) with a small secondary bevel. The only freehand option here is to "just" keep your hands moving parallel to the stone, with no guidance other that you own skill.

If OTOH you have a very thick, short blade, with a socking great single bevel, you can actually sit the blade on the bevel and just push it about! This works very well for the blades from japanese planes.
It does mean (however) you're abrading a large surface.

A common solution is to use a hollow grind; this still gives a large reference to make freehanding accurate, but reduces the area being worked by the abrasive.

BugBear


----------



## Karl (28 Aug 2009)

bugbear":fbrgbfao said:


> Err. It's easier (although possibly more laborious).



How does that work then :?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Aug 2009)

> how do you freehand a blade without a secondary bevel?????



With the exception of blades for BU planes, I freehand hone all my plane and chisel blades without a secondary bevel.

My goal is to create a coplanar face on a hollow grind. Grind at the angle your require. A Tormek makes this easiest, but it is also straightforward on a dry grinder.






You can then rest the blade on the honing medium and it will balance with more stability than a flat bevel.

The other trick is to work the blade along its longest axis, and often this means that you are honing sideways. It's very easy. Try it.











Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## TrimTheKing (28 Aug 2009)

I think BB and Derek have missed the essence of Karl's question. He asked


Karl":2svm6kmb said:


> how do you freehand a blade without a secondary bevel?????


While Derek's explanation is very good, I think the terminology of 'bevel' and 'grind' may well be the sticking point....

Karl asked how you can hone a blade _without_ a secondary bevel. That would just be a more polished primary bevel/grind surely...

I appreciate the pedantry of this


----------



## woodbloke (29 Aug 2009)

TrimTheKing":1j3ptv7h said:


> I have got lost in this thread as I got bored a couple of pages back , and I have no compunction to get involved either way.
> 
> Having said that, I do have a quick observation that may well be wrong, but I think my maths is right...
> 
> ...


 
Mark - you're not the only one who's bored...and you're right. I've just tried it with a blade from my LV jack and it's off centre by about 6mm. The fix is to insert a shim ( an offcut from Big Woodies blade did nicely) 'twixt pins and blade and it's now central again in the Kell. 
Well spotted...treat youself to an extra one or four glasses of the vino collapso tonight :wink: :lol: - Rob


----------



## Boz62 (29 Aug 2009)

Just to correct the correction :shock:. 

The wheel axle axis is centred on the main brass plate in the Kell 3 ie it is all symmetrical. So the registration pins can go either side - you just reverse it before inserting the blade. Any projection setting jigs will still work the same.

And a fine piece of kit it is too . 

Boz


----------



## woodbloke (29 Aug 2009)

Boz62":1py75t30 said:


> Just to correct the correction :shock:.
> 
> The wheel axle axis is centred on the main brass plate in the Kell 3 ie it is all symmetrical. So the registration pins can go either side - you just reverse it before inserting the blade. Any projection setting jigs will still work the same.
> 
> ...


Boz - quite correct...you can have a coupla three tonight as well then :lol: - Rob


----------



## TrimTheKing (29 Aug 2009)

Boz62":1b2s1hwy said:


> Just to correct the correction :shock:.
> 
> The wheel axle axis is centred on the main brass plate in the Kell 3 ie it is all symmetrical. So the registration pins can go either side - you just reverse it before inserting the blade. Any projection setting jigs will still work the same.


Ahhh, wasn't aware that it was reversible, problem solved


----------



## bugbear (1 Sep 2009)

TrimTheKing":yly73qfz said:


> I think BB and Derek have missed the essence of Karl's question.



In truth, I wasn't quite sure what was being asked - hence my somewhat discursive treatise on various freehanding techniques.

A shotgun answer, if you like.

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (5 Nov 2009)

Since this thread was started, I have corresponded with Rob (Woodbloke) a few times and made a small improvement to his rather nice set up.

I really like the Kell when used this way and the Veritas MK2 has remained in a drawer since. I measured the angles using the projections Richard Kell supplies and found them not always correct. I measured my own projections using the digital angle gauge shown below and they are listed here (Rob has them and I think uses them):

32 = 14.5m
30 = 18.5mm

35= 10.5mm
37 = 9mm

25 = 24mm
27 = 23m

20 = 44mm
22 = 36mm

Method of determining these is shown here:








I put a little support on the front edge







that supports the Kell before the blade is presented - much easier now







And the whole thing sits nicely on my tablesaw next to the sharpening location. very easy to use


----------



## woodbloke (6 Nov 2009)

Tony - thanks for that updated information. I now use the distances that you let me have and have altered the projection boards to included the little bit on the front to locate the guide...as you say, much easier to use - Rob


----------



## bugbear (6 Nov 2009)

Tony":kkzzt2pq said:


> And the whole thing sits nicely on my tablesaw next to the sharpening location. very easy to use



I always wondered what tablesaws were for ;-)

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (6 Nov 2009)

bugbear":2d92qgxj said:


> Tony":2d92qgxj said:
> 
> 
> > And the whole thing sits nicely on my tablesaw next to the sharpening location. very easy to use
> ...



Isn't it obvious?


----------



## Harbo (7 Nov 2009)

Tony, thanks for the figures - I was going to try drawing it to scale and then saw in a mag. the method you had used for setting the angles!

A while back Matthew emailed me a formulae he had worked out, but I could not get it to give Richard Kell's figures so gave up on it - perhaps my calculator was faulty?

Rod


----------



## woodbloke (8 Nov 2009)

Is there a projection distance for 45deg for scraper blades? - Rob


----------

