# SAW-TOOTH SETTING ADVICE



## Argus (16 May 2010)

.


Bit in the dark on this one.

I have some tenon and dovetail saws with small teeth in the order of 16 - 22 to to the inch. 

Having been repeatedly sharpened in the past, the set is rapidly disappearing.

The saw-setters I have are far too big for these saws. 

What methods are there to re-set the teeth, given that I may have to file and re-level the whole lot of teeth on at last one of them?



.

.


----------



## woodbloke (16 May 2010)

I think you may be between a 'rock and a hard place' here. As far as I'm aware there are no saw sets available to set the teeth on finer saws such as d/t's. There is/was a rumour that LN were bringing out one (or was that the honing guide? :duno: ) 
In any event, I'd be interested in a saw set capable of sorting out dovetail saws [-o< - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 May 2010)

Tools for Working Wood in the USA do a saw set that is suitable for saws with 12 - 26 pt, so they are available http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merc ... ry_Code=TH

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## SammyP64 (16 May 2010)

I could have sworn on one of the Lie Nielsen youtube video's with Thomas, he shows or at least says how to adapt or adjust an outstanding saw set,
most modern ones ive seen are a bad of rubbish to say the least, so i would have thought either adjusting an old one of a certain auction site or getting one from TFWW would be the best option for you here,

Hope to have helped! 

Sam


----------



## pedder (16 May 2010)

Argus":ik7329m9 said:


> I have some tenon and dovetail saws with small teeth in the order of 16 - 22 to to the inch. The saw-setters I have are far too big for these saws.
> 
> What methods are there to re-set the teeth, given that I may have to file and re-level the whole lot of teeth on at last one of them?



I make a lot of saws from 18-20tpi. I use a eclipse 77. I've filed the hammer part smaller.

There are many who say it won't work. Please don't tell that my eclipse77.:lol:

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## TrimTheKing (16 May 2010)

pedder":1ghnh9bh said:


> Argus":1ghnh9bh said:
> 
> 
> > I have some tenon and dovetail saws with small teeth in the order of 16 - 22 to to the inch. The saw-setters I have are far too big for these saws.
> ...


Hi pedder

I have been buying up a few 77's off ebay for this very purpose, but haven't go t clue how small to go with the filing, or exactly where to file. Also, I have read that to get the best from it you really need to file the anvil too.

Is there any chance you could post a few close up pics of yours so I know where to start?

Sorry for hijacking the post.

Cheers

Mark


----------



## Sportique (16 May 2010)

Peddar

ditto as Mark says

Thanks

Dave


----------



## Shrubby (16 May 2010)

Japanese company Somax produce them - they look like the ones in the link posted
I've got two baby ulmia mitre blades to sharpen so my Eclipse is getting some fettling.
Matt


----------



## Eric The Viking (16 May 2010)

TrimTheKing":10ehi4xk said:


> I have been buying up a few 77's off ebay for this very purpose, but haven't got clue how small to go with the filing, or exactly where to file. Also, I have read that to get the best from it you really need to file the anvil too.



Don't you need to shim the anvil slightly rather than file it? Small teeth = less set. Either that or just squeeze less hard (consistency would be difficult, I can see). My Eclipse only goes down to 12 point, so I'm in the same boat really. 

Sorting this out will be the next big hand-tool fettling session for me - I've three or four saws waiting to be properly sharpened at the moment, including two tenons and a Spear & Jackson cross-cut panel saw, which was salvaged from the tip complete with cardboard sleeve!


----------



## pedder (17 May 2010)

TrimTheKing":1ygd9bk1 said:


> ]Hi pedder
> 
> I have been buying up a few 77's off ebay for this very purpose, but haven't go t clue how small to go with the filing, or exactly where to file. Also, I have read that to get the best from it you really need to file the anvil too.
> 
> ...



Hi Mark, I'm about 250km away from the set but I'll try to make pictures on the weekend.

Cheers Pedder


----------



## matthewwh (17 May 2010)

Hammer setting is the traditional method for setting fine teeth. I've had a go once with reasonable success, you need to shape the end of a nail to make the hammer, a reasonably sturdy lump of flat steel with an edge filed away for the anvil and something to clamp over the top to prevent the plate from deforming below the toothline. Clamp it all up and then just tap every other tooth over onto the anvil. Flip the saw and do the ones in between and (very) gently stone the sides to ensure that the set is dead level and the saw doesn't track.


----------



## bugbear (17 May 2010)

matthewwh":182nka4h said:


> Hammer setting is the traditional method for setting fine teeth.



http://toolemera.com/Manufacturers%20&% ... yzack.html

BugBear


----------



## xy mosian (17 May 2010)

From my distant past, I remember seeing something along the following lines. 

Starting with a '77

To take account of the greater number of teeth, therefore their spacing, file the sides of the plunger that moves when the plier handle is gripped. So that the bit that deforms the tooth only works on one tooth at a time.

To reduce the throw, the actual set, pack the bottom of the gullet so that the teeth do not pass as far over the anvil. That is the bit that is rotated to alter the set.

Sorry about the Noddy bits but people have different ideas about the names of things.

I recently bought a new '77 to modify in this way. What a let down. I suppose it just about could be made to work but I'm wondering just what else it could be used for.

HTH
xy


----------



## TrimTheKing (17 May 2010)

xy mosian":pbfmn5b0 said:


> From my distant past, I remember seeing something along the following lines.
> 
> Starting with a '77
> 
> ...


Thanks for this xy, but what does this bit mean? And how?


xy mosian":pbfmn5b0 said:


> ...pack the bottom of the gullet...


Cheers


----------



## xy mosian (17 May 2010)

Trim,
In the '77 the sawset is used such that the saw teeth pass over the anvil against the bottom of the 'gullet'. This ensures that all the teeth receive the same amount of set, as defined by the rotation of the anvil, and that the place on the blade at which the set begins is the same for all the teeth. 
Now to reduce the amount of set, outside the limits of the rotating anvil, all that is needed is to place the saw over the anvil without going to full depth. This is best achieved repeatedly by packing out the bottom of the gullet. This can be done with almost anything, for one blade a thickness of plastic, for a permanent job a piece of metal. Chosen for longer wear. I would suggest double sided tape so that the packing can be removed. the thickness of the packing I'll leave for you to choose. 
As a matter of interest I have read of people who only sharpen fine toothed saws, no setting, relying on the burrs left by filing to give all the clearance needed.
If my scanner will work I'll attempt a sketch.

Perhaps I have thought of a better explanation. Take a '77 and put it on a saw as if to use. The bottom of the gullet is the place where the teeth rest.

HTH
xy


----------



## xy mosian (17 May 2010)

If anyone's looking I've just spotted these:-
Two '77's for sale.

http://www.gandmtools.co.uk/cat_leaf.php?id=743


xy


----------



## bugbear (18 May 2010)

xy mosian":11jccadp said:


> This is best achieved repeatedly by packing out the bottom of the gullet.



When talking about saws, a "gullet" is the gap between teeth. This can't be what you're talking about (I can't see a way to pack all those little triangles) - so what do you mean by "gullet"?

BugBear


----------



## TrimTheKing (18 May 2010)

xy mosian":3bu86xbv said:


> Trim,
> This is best achieved repeatedly by packing out the bottom of the gullet. This can be done with almost anything, for one blade a thickness of plastic, for a permanent job a piece of metal.
> xy


Thanks for this xy but I'm afraid I can't picture what you're explaining.

What am I packing? And where? On the anvil, on the saw?

As BB says, the gullet is the gap between teeth, so I'm guessing you mean you put a shim somewhere around the bottom of the gullet so it can only be pushed over so far, but I just can;t picture how or where


----------



## Racers (18 May 2010)

Hi,

I think he means the gullet in the saw set, it would reduce the amount of set.

Pete


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

Pete got it. 
" Hi,

I think he means the gullet in the saw set, it would reduce the amount of set.

Pete "

The gullet on the saw set. The gap in the saw set frame that goes over the saw blade when in use. As I said further on " The bottom of the gullet is the place where the teeth rest. " (When the set is in use.) Can anyone think of a better name for it, gap, slot, mouth ?

HTH

xy


----------



## pedder (18 May 2010)

xy mosian":qvgy96ug said:


> The gullet on the saw set. The gap in the saw set frame that goes over the saw blade when in use. As I said further on " The bottom of the gullet is the place where the teeth rest. " (When the set is in use.) Can anyone think of a better name for it, gap, slot, mouth ?
> 
> HTH
> 
> xy



Don't know the word, but I think you mean this? 








Cheers Pedder


----------



## TrimTheKing (18 May 2010)

Okay, now I understand which bit we're talking about, but I still don;t know where this 'packing' is going, or what it looks like  

Sorry if I'm being a pain here but I am sat looking at the 77 now and just can't see what i'm supposed to stick where. Sorry.


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

Pedder, spot on. Sorry I didn't get to a picture. 
Now then the packing. Place the saw set over a saw blade as if to set a tooth. The teeth of the blade will be in contact with the bottom of the gullet. Now place a thin piece of plastic, or similar, between the teeth and the gullet bottom and there you have the packing which will reduce the amount of set.
The thickness of the packing will need to be chosen well. Too thick and you get no set, too thin and too much. If you choose your packing with the anvil mid rotation, you will still have some fine adjustment available.

From my dictionary some of the meanings of 'Gullet', throat, ravine, trench.

Hope this clears things up a bit. (HTCTUAB :lol: )

xy


----------



## TrimTheKing (18 May 2010)

xy mosian":2qymfwd2 said:


> Pedder, spot on. Sorry I didn't get to a picture.
> Now then the packing. Place the saw set over a saw blade as if to set a tooth. The teeth of the blade will be in contact with the bottom of the gullet. Now place a thin piece of plastic, or similar, between the teeth and the gullet bottom and there you have the packing which will reduce the amount of set.
> The thickness of the packing will need to be chosen well. Too thick and you get no set, too thin and too much. If you choose your packing with the anvil mid rotation, you will still have some fine adjustment available.
> 
> ...


 :idea: and there's the lightbulb moment 

Yep, I get where you're coming from now. So get the packing thickness right, and tape it along the length of the blade, in the right position, and I should just be able to whizz along one side, flip blade and move packing and repeat on the other side.

Cheers xy, I will try and find some time this week to give that a bash. I've a couple of old saws that could do with a tidy up so I can use them to practice on.

And I would just call it the 'blade slot'


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

Trim sorry not quite.





I hope this makes it even clearer. There may be little clearance between the anvil and the bottom of the gullet (blade slot), in which case position the packing as best you can. 

xy


----------



## Racers (18 May 2010)

Hi,

Looking at the D&M ones one has flat lugs on each side, drill and tap for adjuster screws? I will dig all mine out and see if I have one with lugs.


Pete

Yes I do have several :wink:


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

I've just been looking at mine. The thirty year old bought new, and the new one which has lots of slop. The anvil is a round piece of steel which has a chamfer all around the edge on one face. The size of this chamfer changes to give different setting for the saw teeth, if you've got one it will make sense on inspection. 
Now I've done a bit of metal work, school stuff mostly, and I cannot think how this could be machined without some fairly complex machinery. Any ideas anyone?
Of course I was thinking of replacing the anvil for use with fine toothed saws.

Pete, your adjuster screws sound like a good idea, let us know how you get on.

Pedder, you are the saw king around here. What sort of set would you use on, say, a 20 tpi saw? I hope you don't mind me asking. 

xy


----------



## pedder (18 May 2010)

xy mosian":37g6jt9s said:


> What sort of set would you use on, say, a 20 tpi saw? I hope you don't mind me asking.


 
Hi xy mosian

I don't believe that the amount of setting depends on tpi. 

I believe it depends on cutting depth, experience of the sawing person, moisture of the wood, kind of wood, length of the saw, length of the cerve.... 

I don't set a 15tpi dovetail saw more than a 20tpi dovetail saw. How much? That it cuts well and fast.  

Okay, I'll tell when i measured after the weekend. 

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

Pedder. Thanks for the prompt reply. I can see good reason for all you say. But methinks this could be as mind boggling as effective pitches in plane iron sharpening  I have an old book, a guide for beginners, which suggests that the sawn kerf should be three times the thickness of the blade. Now I always thought that was too much and set less than that. Personally I tend to the finest set which will work well, there is less physical effort involved then.  Snag is of course many of us are part time woodies without the experience to make judgements such as you suggest. Still if it were easy everyone would be doing it.

Must add, no critisism of your reply intended here at all. I hope it doesn't read like that. Quite the reverse you've opened up even more areas for thought. Thanks again. 

xy


----------



## pedder (18 May 2010)

xy mosian":pgvdz9vk said:


> I have an old book, a guide for beginners, which suggests that the sawn kerf should be three times the thickness of the blade.



Fare too much on any saw.



xy mosian":pgvdz9vk said:


> Personally I tend to the finest set which will work well, there is less physical effort involved then.



I agree 100%. The problem for me as a maker is to anticipate wich is the finest set wich will work for a customer. But when you sharpen your own saw, you can try in real life. (Wich is what I do most of the time.) 



xy mosian":pgvdz9vk said:


> Snag is of course many of us are part time woodies without the experience to make judgements such as you suggest. Still if it were easy everyone would be doing it.



Now I tell you a secret: It *is* that simple. Nike comes to my mind: Just do it. 



xy mosian":pgvdz9vk said:


> Must add, no critisism of your reply intended here at all. I hope it doesn't read like that. Quite the reverse you've opened up even more areas for thought. Thanks again.




No offense taken. I do understand, that you want to hear the big secrets. But all I can tell you is there are no big secrets. Just training and practice.

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

pedder":n95f12tz said:


> Nike comes to my mind: Just do it.
> 
> Cheers
> Pedder



Thanks Pedder Nike's advice, via your good self, should be my motto. I do tend to think things through for far too long. In fact a one time boss of mine accused me of "Making a career out of a project" on several occaisons.  

xy


----------



## bugbear (18 May 2010)

xy mosian":1dcpr7y8 said:


> Now I've done a bit of metal work, school stuff mostly, and I cannot think how this could be machined without some fairly complex machinery.



From an old post to OLDTOOLS:

paul womack wrote:

> So; has anyone out there tried non-uniform
> teeth in a saw?

Heh, heh. At the risk of replying to my own post,
I have (now).

Summary; it took a while to do, and the saw cuts well.

Longer version.
I spent 10 minutes filing off the old 14 TPI teeth,
and then filed a 1/8" camber onto the toothless edge.

Since this saw is to be used for tenons and dados,
I felt a "breasted" edge was desirable.

I then SiC'd and polished the blade - this is normally
difficult due to the teeth shredding up your
abrasive, so I made the most of my opportunity

The layout was done by using a computer to print
out the graduated teeth pattern on paper,
and simple gluing the paper on to the saw.

Initial filing is tricky - you need to make a "notch"
somewhere in the gullet of each tooth. Once you have
a prelimnary gullet, it's quite easy to guide the
triangular file left/right rather accurately
as you work downwards.

Once I'd more or less created the teeth, I removed the
paper, and did a final shaping and evening up pass.
All the work to this point was done from one side of the
saw. I find this *MUCH* easier, especially when filing BOTH
sides of a large tooth to get it's size and position correct.

I then applied moderate set with a modified Eclipse
#77 saw set.

SIDEBAR - the Eclipse #77 saw set
Eclipse #77 saw sets normally apply too much set -
the marked TPI settings around the anvil are WAY off.

Worse, you can't just use the setting for smaller teeth,
since the angle of the set is more or less constant (at around
20 degrees). If you use (e.g.) the 10 TPI setting on 6 TPI
teeth, you just bend the top part of the tooth, but still
at 20 degrees. This does give you less total set,
but in the wrong way.

I therefore removed and reground the anvil disc from
one of my #77's (I'm not a c*ll*t*r, no sir).

I ground a good amount of material from the thickness
of the disc (thus reducing the amount
of set) and then bolted the disc to the end
of a plywood scrap, and clamped the scrap in my
giant honing jig. I could then set the jig to my desired
angle (around 13 degrees) and carefully grind the disc.
Rotating the disc gradually on the bolt allowed me to make a
varying size, contsant angle bevel around the circumference of the disc.

Doing this the "quick" way by carefully eyeball the spiral
took very careful judgement and several passes.
It would probably have been quicker to measure/mark some depth stations,
grind these accurately and then interpolate.
END

(later I realised that that end of the plunger needed to be at the same angle as the face of the anvil, and ground the plunger's end face too)

BugBear


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

Strange BB, I was reading that very post on 'Old Tools' earlier today, completely missed the sidebar about the '77. Was it more than just a gut feeling that led you to a setting angle of 13 degrees? 
I had worked out the thinning of the anvil to reduce overall set, but I'd still like to know how such a thing could be machined. That of course is a different story.

xy


----------



## Racers (18 May 2010)

Hi,

I checked my 77 style saw sets




L to R Eclipse77, Eclipse 77, Somax, Unbranded
None of them have big enough cheeks to drill and tap.

But it did show up a startling difference in the two Eclipse 77 the hammers are very different sizes 2.36mm and 1.51mm.




Any one come across this before? They are both marked Eclipse 77 and Made in England but the fatter one looks older, its has more metal to it, the thinner one looks simplified and streamlined, like the accountants have got there hands on it.

Pete


----------



## xy mosian (18 May 2010)

Pete, one of the things that makes my recent, 12 month old, '77 horrible, is the fit of the hammer in the 'sliding clamp?'. It is noticeably thinner than the same part in the thirty year old. The 'sliding clamp' in the older model is machined steel whereas in the newer it looks like a plastic casting (I kid you not!). The fit between the hammer and clamp? You could drive a bus through the gap as they used to say.

Another great shame because the design, to my mind, is well thought out.  

xy


----------



## bugbear (19 May 2010)

xy mosian":2p6i67dm said:


> Strange BB, I was reading that very post on 'Old Tools' earlier today, completely missed the sidebar about the '77. Was it more than just a gut feeling that led you to a setting angle of 13 degrees?


It's just "less than 20"



> I had worked out the thinning of the anvil to reduce overall set, but I'd still like to know how such a thing could be machined. That of course is a different story.
> xy



OK. Since there seems to be some confusion, I'm made diagrams, which I hope will help.

Let's start with my claim that the plunger angle needs to match the anvil angle (which also implies that the anvil angle must be constant around it's circumference).






If the plunger angle is too obtuse, the tooth can't be bent over as far as the anvil allows, so that's wrong (left hand side picture).

If the plunger angle is too acute, the teeth is subject to excess pressure (since the plunger effectively makes a point contact), so that's wrong too (right hand picture).

We're left with "they must match".

Moving on to "adjusting the set".






In the left hand pictures (representing the #77 as supplied), the amount of set is adjusted by rotating the anvil. This has the effect of moving the "location of the bend" up or down, because of the spiral.

Since the anvil angle is constant, moving the bend point up reduces the set, moving it down increases it. This can be seen on the diagram.

However, if one wishes the bend to be at the mid point of the tooth's height, the amount of set is NOT adjustable - it is determined by the anvil angle.

Further, on a stock #77, the spiral bend point does not go all the way to the edge of the anvil disc, so there is a lower bound to the set.

For this reason, I reground an anvil (as described) so that the angle was lower, and so that the spiral went all the way to the edge. This is the case on the right hand pictures.

The lower angle means that you get less set for a given bend point (i.e. tooth size, if you're following the mid point recommendation).

So this modified #77, in toto, gives less set for a given tooth size (due to the lower angle), and will handle small teeth (due to the spiral going all the way to the edge, and the narrowed plunger).

While I'm on, I'll also point out that older #77's have narrower plungers.

BugBear (exhausted!)


----------



## bugbear (19 May 2010)

Racers":33i4ho9v said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> But it did show up a startling difference in the two Eclipse 77 the hammers are very different sizes 2.36mm and 1.51mm.
> ...



I bet the right hand one is older. Look at the much nicer and clearer number markings on the anvil. it also has the (desirable, IMHO) narrow plunger.

Any chance of pulling out the anvils (don't mix them up!) and photographing the spiral, and measuring the angle (see my post for what I mean by angle)?

BugBear


----------



## Racers (19 May 2010)

Hi,

My money would one on the left one being older, it’s more curvaceous than the one on the right. 
I will pull then tonight.


Pete


----------



## lurker (19 May 2010)

BB / Pete

Whichever of you is correct ( I'm with BB as it happens) this tool certainly changed over the years ( quality of casting, plunger width, fine/course adjustability)

Amongst those I have :roll: some are much better than others. If I had any sense I hoick quite a few in the bin as I'd never contempate using them

At some point Eclipse lost the plot, so we should not talk about "a 77" as if they were all the same quality


----------



## xy mosian (19 May 2010)

bugbear, thanks for that explanation.

The anvil on my older '77 (30yrs) does not have a clearly defined corner where the spiralled chamfer meets the flat of the anvil face. Visually this looks rather like a blend radius. The 'striking' face of the hammer is very slightly curved, really very slightly. It certainly does not match the curve of the anvil. Hammer thickness is 2.4mm. However the edges of the'striking face' are chamfered reducing the width of the face to 1.9mm, as nearly as I can tell with a dial caliper.

On the newer '77 (2yrs) the same, chamfer/face, corner is definitely an angle. As for the hammer face, that can easily be seen to be curved even without the aid of a straight edge. Hammer thickness is 1.8mm.

I find it kind of interesting that the screw thread used to hold the anvil in place is the same on both models. 4.7mm diameter for the screw, now this could be 3/16", I wonder if they are using old tooling?

But, as lurker said, "At some point Eclipse lost the plot, so we should not talk about "a 77" as if they were all the same quality". Same as nearly all once great tools really.

xy


----------



## Racers (19 May 2010)

Hi, Chaps

Here they are...






The anvils 





Measurements, maximum depth of spiral and width of spiral





Angle 





The one on the right is what I think is the older one, but the anvil looks cheap and the bevel is rounded over, the left hand one is nice and crisp compared to it. But the casting is more ornate on the right hand one, the other seems like its been reduced of any unnecessary ornamentation.

Pete


----------



## Corneel (19 May 2010)

This is a very interesting thread, so I thought after long time lurking, let's registrate.

Bugbear, your diagrams of the Eclipse 77 are very enlightning. Now I understand why they made the tpi gradiations on the anvil. So your tooth will be bend at the right height . A 6tpi tooth is a lot larger, so will need to be bend a lot lower then a 12tpi tooth. 

The problem though is the rediculous amount of set you get at the 6tpi setting. My sawset would geive me something like 1mm on both sides! Even for a 6tpi saw in wet firwood, that is way too much. In fact the neccessary amount of set doesn't variate much between low or high tpi's.

So the perfect Eclipse 77 anvil would have one setting for set and the edge of the anvil would have gradiated angles. A 6tpi, being a much larger tooth, you would need a much lower angle then at 12tpi, to be able to bend the tooth at a lower point. Of course you would then need several anvils for differnent amounts of set.

But this being not a perfect world, I just use the Eclips77 mostly in the 12 tpi setting, even when I set a 6tp saw. And I have another one with a narrower hammer and even less set, because I grinded down the anvil, for when the time comes to sharpen my finest backsaws.


----------



## xy mosian (19 May 2010)

Hi, Corneel welcome to the 'Mad house'  

I was just beginning to think this thread must be getting a bit dry for onlookers and here you are. I agree about the calibration of the anvil on the '77, I just ignore it. However I do find the tool to be relatively easy to use and it does give repeatable results along the blade. 
That's a nice approach to making a setting tool for finer toothed saws. One that has been mentioned here abouts. I must get around to grinding the thickness of my second anvil down. I think I'll have another look at bugbear's changes to the chamfer angle too.

Of course for finer teeth I'll need to add more magnification too  

xy


----------



## xy mosian (19 May 2010)

Pete, if it is of interest the '77 on the right of your picture looks just like the one I bought thirty years ago. The anvil looks the same too although I haven't done those measurements.

Just in case any want to see other types of saw setting plier:-

http://members.acmenet.net/~con12a/saw% ... rindex.htm

Shame there isn't more information really

Have fun

xy


----------



## Corneel (20 May 2010)

Just been thinking it over a bit more.

Adjustable sawsets don't really work. You can't change the angle of the hammer, if you would use different angles for different tooth sizes. And when you use the same angle and same set, the bending point is probably too high on the coarse teeth and too low on the finer ones. 

So in fact you need a seperately prepared sawset for every possible tooth.
That's probably a bit too much. But you could lump them into 3 or 4 groups and prepare a sawset for each group, and never change the setting of these anymore. So get out the sinus and tangus tables and start designing the perfect sawset geometry :lol:


----------



## bugbear (20 May 2010)

So - does anyone know of a sawset design where the AMOUNT of set and the POSITION of the bend can be adjusted separately?

Since such a design is neither common nor dominant, I'm guessing there are definite problems with making it.

BugBear


----------



## xy mosian (20 May 2010)

Ah Corneel, I foresee some grand discussions about correct angles and bend points coming up. Have you formulated any thoughts yet?

xy


----------



## AndyT (20 May 2010)

bugbear":34j0044z said:


> So - does anyone know of a sawset design where the AMOUNT of set and the POSITION of the bend can be adjusted separately?
> 
> Since such a design is neither common nor dominant, I'm guessing there are definite problems with making it.
> 
> BugBear



Here's one:






It's by CK, made in Germany. Not uncommon on ebay - I bought this one from Bristol Design for £4.50.

There are two adjustments. One stop limits how far down on the tooth the bend comes. Here it is for a small tooth:






and here it is set for a large tooth:






The other stop (the setscrew at the bottom of the picture) controls how far away from vertical the bend goes. (I've not changed it between these two photos, and I'm holding the set in the 'bend' position.)


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2010)

tpi width height bendheight Aset=0.2 Aset=0.25 Aset=0.3 
4,5 5,64 3,26 1,95 2,93 3,66 4,39 
5,0 5,08 2,93 1,76 3,25 4,07 4,87 
5,5 4,62 2,66 1,60 3,58 4,47 5,36 
6,0 4,23 2,44 1,47 3,90 4,87 5,84 
7,0 3,63 2,09 1,26 4,55 5,68 6,81 
8,0 3,18 1,83 1,10 5,20 6,49 7,77 
9,0 2,82 1,63 0,98 5,84 7,29 8,73 
10,0 2,54 1,47 0,88 6,49 8,09 9,68 
11,0 2,31 1,33 0,80 7,13 8,89 10,63 
12,0 2,12 1,22 0,73 7,77 9,68 11,57 
13,0 1,95 1,13 0,68 8,41 10,47 12,50 
14,0 1,81 1,05 0,63 9,05 11,26 13,43 
15,0 1,69 0,98 0,59 9,68 12,04 14,35 
16,0 1,59 0,92 0,55 10,31 12,81 15,27


Okay, so I made a table of all dimensions of several tooth sizes.
Sorry the layout of the table got lost between excel and this forum, so it is a bit hard to read

tpi => the tpi of the saw
Width => width of tooth in mm
Height => height of tooth in mm with rake = 0 and sharp gullets.
Bendheight => 0.6 * height, a good spot to start the bend
Aset=0.2mm => arctan((0.2/2)/bend height) this is the angle in degrees over which the tooth must be bent, with a 0.2mm set.
The same for set=0.25 and set=0.3. With set I mean the kerfwidth-sawplate tickness.

Some caveats
Gullets aren't sharp, they are rounded. So the tooth doesn't really start so deep. So maybe 0.6 of the height for the bending point is too deep.

I think you need to set the teeth somewhat further because steel always springs back a little.

you can't use these measurements directly on the anvil, because the top of the toothline doesn't reach all the way to the top of the anvil. So you should add that little bit to the heights.

As you can see it is all very small. I doubt you're able to accurately translate these numbers to the anvil with just handtools. Nonetheless, I just bought another Eclipse77, so I have something to play with.


BTW, that CK sawset looks very interesting. Is it also suitable for small teeth?


----------



## AndyT (21 May 2010)

Corneel":13jmvor2 said:


> BTW, that CK sawset looks very interesting. Is it also suitable for small teeth?



Not as much as you might hope. The limiting factor is the thickness of the hammer (ie the bit with the graduations on). It's about 3.5mm thick, tapering to 1.5mm on the end, so with very small teeth it touches not only the one you want to bend, but the two neighbouring teeth as well.

But the design is a good example of making the two adjustments (amount of bend, and distance from tip for the bend to start) separately. It could perhaps be filed down to make a version just for fine saws.

Has anyone tried?


----------



## bugbear (21 May 2010)

AndyT":2mb5j68l said:


> Corneel":2mb5j68l said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, that CK sawset looks very interesting. Is it also suitable for small teeth?
> ...



If I'm reading the picture right, the saw isn't clamped during the setting operation, it just "sits" in the slot, which is formed in one of the jaws.

The "tooth bender" is part of the other jaw.

There is no counter part of the #77's "anvil".

Is that right?

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (21 May 2010)

Yes, BB, you are reading it right. 

There is one more helpful subtlety not visible in my photos - the adjustable stop for the depth of the bend has a little notch filed in it. The tip of the tooth sits in the notch, making it fairly easy to locate and use. But the fixed open mouth is a bit of a problem.


I just spent a few minutes looking at the site Xy linked to, and a German site linked to from there. Good grief, there are hundreds of variants!

Over the last couple of centuries, others have looked at this problem just as we are looking at it, and lots of them had a little idea of how to make an improvement. 

Some of the designs look really clever, and plenty of them have both size and positioning adjustments. Nothing new under the sun...


----------



## pedder (21 May 2010)

Corneel":ntfsvkgm said:


> 16,0 1,59 0,92 0,55 10,31 12,81 15,27
> 
> BTW, that CK sawset looks very interesting. Is it also suitable for small teeth?



Hi Kees,

15,2*7*mm :?: :lol: 

Hand sets are hand powered. You will never work precise within the 1/100mm with a hand set. And there is no need for! It is an advantage that the hand is a bit irregular. Think of hand stitched rasps.

I have only one set of that Kind, a present of a friend.





The gap or slit is too wide for thin blades. And the "tooth bender is to thik to bend smal teeth. IMO it is to coarse in every part but the system would work on finder tooth, too.


----------



## Corneel (21 May 2010)

pedder":3hywnrge said:


> Corneel":3hywnrge said:
> 
> 
> > 16,0 1,59 0,92 0,55 10,31 12,81 15,27
> ...



Degrees, degrees! 

Well, Excell can easilly pour out 10 decimals. the idea was if I could find some reasonable numbers so I can make 3 sawsets to set 3 groups of saw. I must ponder this a bit more. Tomorrow I'll pick up another Eclipse for just 4 euro, so i have something to experiment with.


----------



## bugbear (21 May 2010)

AndyT":ixnsd1pk said:


> There is one more helpful subtlety not visible in my photos - the adjustable stop for the depth of the bend has a little notch filed in it. The tip of the tooth sits in the notch, making it fairly easy to locate and use.



That's a nice touch.

BugBear


----------



## pedder (22 May 2010)

pedder":3colnl7g said:


> xy mosian":3colnl7g said:
> 
> 
> > What sort of set would you use on, say, a 20 tpi saw? I hope you don't mind me asking.
> ...



Hi I measured. 0.11-0.13mm set is what I get minimal from my eclipse and I like that. I think less set would mean no set. But that is only my opinion.

Cheers
Pedder


----------



## pedder (22 May 2010)

pedder":2n9mesob said:


> TrimTheKing":2n9mesob said:
> 
> 
> > ]Hi pedder
> ...



Hi Mark, 

my camera would not show the details. 

But I think th thread made clear, where to start.

Cheers Pedder


----------



## xy mosian (22 May 2010)

pedder":3j6htrna said:


> pedder":3j6htrna said:
> 
> 
> > xy mosian":3j6htrna said:
> ...



Thanks Pedder. A good ball park figure, much appreciated.
xy


----------



## Corneel (22 May 2010)

The sawset I bought today is a good one, but one of the older ones I have is totally worn out. So I still "only" have two sawsets. 

I have been thinking a bit about changing one of these, but I think it's not worth my time. The standard angle is pretty good for all the medium to fine tooth saws. Only the coarse saws like 5-7 tpi are set rather high on the tooth. But I don't know if that is a problem. At least the saws I sharpened and set with the eclipse 77 cut like a dream. 

So I think I'll just convert one of the sawsets for very fine work. Narrowing the hammer and maybe grinding of some of the anvil if it gives too much set. Just a warning, make sure you don't remove too much when narrowing the hammer, just the very tip. Otherwise it isn't guided securely anymore and can move while tensioning.


----------



## pedder (25 May 2010)

bugbear":4amrl37a said:


>



Hi Paul, 

I inspected my two eclipse 77 and both had a hammer/anvil configuration like the right one. But only at the high numbers. At the low number the hammer matched the anvil.

That is probably the reason Why I didn't have to grind the hamers face.

Cheers
Pedder


----------

