# flattening LN blades



## sean_in_limerick (9 Jun 2006)

Hi All - is it necessary to flatten the backs of new LN planes? The instructions that come with the hand-planes suggest all that is needed is a little honing?


----------



## bugbear (9 Jun 2006)

In my experience, the blades are flat. The backs can be further polished (if you like)

The bevels are ground; this may or may not constitute sharp by your own standards.

BugBear


----------



## Scott (9 Jun 2006)

I'll second that. My LN blades have all been flat enough not to need to bother about it. Hone the bevel and use DC's "ruler trick" so you only have to polish about a mm of the back


----------



## MarcW (9 Jun 2006)

Hi Sean,

I flatten LN blades backs on an 800 grit King Stone. Normally it takes 100 strokes to accomplish the job. Then follows David's ruler trick as Scott already mentioned. It works easily and takes all in all less then 20 minutes sharpening and honing the bevel included. 

Flattening is a good thing because you can check if there is any fault in the iron, such as a bump or a bow. A fellow had this with a # 5 1/2 iron, that had both. Now I check every new blade first with a confirmed straightedge before I go to the waterstones. LN replaced the blade immediately for free as they do usually.

Regards, Marc


----------



## sean_in_limerick (9 Jun 2006)

the reason i ask this question is that i recently bought a LN 5.5 and took it out of the box, honed the edge and all i could get was dust! My 80-quid stanley cuts better than it at the moment! I'm sure my sharpening technique is sound - i use the DC 'ruler trick' but i was very dissapointed with the quality of the cut. I didn't bother flattening the back - but i will have a look at it tonight for bumps or hollows near the edge. What honing angles do you guys put on your standard bench planes - i go with a 25' bevel, followed by honing at 30' with 800-grit, and finish with a couple more degrees of a microbevel on an 8000-grit- all the time using the ruler-trick - the irons look good and sharp - is there some special technique required for the LN?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (9 Jun 2006)

I have just received the #4 1/2 replacement iron personally from Thomas L-N. It looks just beautiful (quite different from the original, which was 6 years old and still new). I am sure it is representative of the rest of their stock (since I do own a number of their irons). The bevel was nice and clean and straight at looked like a 1200 grit to me. Importantly, the back was flat, even more so in the important area 1" behind the edge. This area looked like it had been smoothed to about a 6000 grit at best as scratches appeared when I ran it over my 8000 waterstone. In other words, regardless of flatness, unless you are using DCs' Ruler Trick, it is important to hone the back up to and including the final polishing grit you will use for your final bevel. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## engineer one (9 Jun 2006)

sean, at the risk of teaching you your trade, are you sure that the 
blade is projecting enough?????

sometimes i am sure that we all expect too much of LN and try to set
the cut too fine. i know when i first tried mine i was much happier
when i had moved the blade so that it took a bigger cut.

paul :wink:


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jun 2006)

Ruler trick is enough on a LN blade. If not, then it is below their usual superb standards and should go back


----------



## hockeydad (9 Jun 2006)

use DC's "ruler trick" so you only have to polish about a mm of the back.

What exactly is "the ruler trick"? I assume it is a piece of metal laid underneath the back raising it off the sharpening media to obtain a back bevel but how thick is it? How far back from the bevel edge, etc.. I have been using a piece of cardboard from a pizza box for years, ( I do change pieces frequently) but I'm open to a new technique.

George S


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jun 2006)

|George

loads of info on here

in brief, place a 6" metal ruler on one long edge of a waterstone (it will stick in the slurry) and then polish a very fine back bevel on the blade witht he back of the cutting edge on the other side of the stone. Works out at about 1 degree and so no impact on cutting angle, however, it ensures an absolutely perfectly flat mating edge.

David Charlesworth has published loads about it in books and mags


----------



## sean_in_limerick (9 Jun 2006)

Hi George - the 'ruler trick' comes from David Charlesworth, and English woodworking guru - when he is sharpening his plane-irons (not chisels), he places a thin 6" ruler at along the 8000-grit sharpening stone in order to obtain a slight back-bevel at the apex of the cutting edge - effectively only requiring the last mm or so of the back of the iron to be polished and saving a lot of work! He repeats this every time he sharpens. Can someone correct this if i didn't get it right!


----------



## MarcW (9 Jun 2006)

I flatten every back of a blade despite I use the ruler trick. The edge of the cap iron lies on the back sometimes on the slight microbevel i.e. the thin polished strip, but sometimes for coarse work on the unpolished back. So when the back isn't flat enough because of a minimal bump or hollow, the shavings stick in the gap on this area and make sawdust on the other places that have good fit.

Once one of my LNs made just sawdust. I realized after some time, that I'd planed with the cap iron. 

Marc


----------



## Alf (9 Jun 2006)

DC does flatten the backs, the ruler being reserved for the _polishing_ step, in case there's any confusion.

Cheers, Alf

Who hates back flattening - no good saying "but you only have to do it once" when you're a tool junkie.


----------



## hockeydad (9 Jun 2006)

re "ruler trick".

Thanks for the replies. I arrive at my back bevels with my, "pizza box", trick in a similar way that each of you use the 6" ruler. It was the thing that was at hand many years ago when I wanted something to use that was thin, available and repeatable. I was also in the process of switching from stones to scary sharp. Never thought of my 6" ruler. Think I'll give it a go. 

However, I hone across the width of the blade on back bevels. It seems to me that if one strokes the length of the blade the size of the bevel can get quite large (long). If however the strokes are along the width, the bevel can be kept narrow, depending on the distance from the elevating surface and it's height. What am I missing??

By the way, I only back bevel blades that I'm having trouble flattening.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (9 Jun 2006)

I learned how to do this on a training course with DC last year. I believe he would distinguish the "ruler trick" from a "back bevel".

The bevel produced with the "ruler trick" is insignificant and is NOT a substitute for flattening the back of the blade. It merely serves to speedup the process of polishing the back to 8000grit by ensuring you only polish the very smallest area behind the cutting edge. You must have already made the back of the blade substantially flat with 800 and 1200grit. 

David - shoot me if I didn't learn that much!


----------



## Scott (9 Jun 2006)

Good Surname or what ?":c8m9g11q said:


> The bevel produced with the "ruler trick" is insignificant and is NOT a substitute for flattening the back of the blade.



True but I hate flattening backs too. Every LN blade I've had I've given a quick wipe over a 1000 grit stone to confirm it's as flat as I expected it to be and then just used the ruler. Haven't had one so far that needed flattening as far as my standards go but I concede that DC's standards are very likely far higher than mine. LN blades are "substantially flat" enough for me.

In fairness to DC and his exacting and finely honed processes (which I admire enormously but rarely have the patience to follow to the letter) I really ought to rename it the "SL-lazy-git's-version-of-DC's-ruler-trick".

Sorry David. I know I'm a philistine!


----------



## deirdre (9 Jun 2006)

Alf":1ynuubpd said:


> DC does flatten the backs, the ruler being reserved for the _polishing_ step, in case there's any confusion.
> 
> Cheers, Alf
> 
> Who hates back flattening - no good saying "but you only have to do it once" when you're a tool junkie.



Amen, Alf. Nothing like getting 20-odd planes in 2 months to remind you how much you dislike back flattening, either.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (9 Jun 2006)

> The bevel produced with the "ruler trick" is insignificant and is NOT a substitute for flattening the back of the blade.



I think that it is worth repeating that the back of the blade must be flat and the back of the bevel must be flat _and_ as smooth as the bevel. The Ruler trick is not a substitute for the flat but rather contributes to the smooth.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## engineer one (9 Jun 2006)

ah but at least you are saved the trouble of flattening
the soles of LN and LV planes :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

just sharpened a couple more blades for my wooden planes on the tormek
and thought i'd try an extra bevel, so for the first time ever in living
memory, i used an oil stone, and a cheap guide. now i know why so many people get curved blades, because the blades are almost or slightly wider
than the stone, and the guide runs on a narrow wheel it is almost impossible not to get a slightly curved edge.

now that cuts well after a bundle of time setting the blade up. but how much easier is it with a bailey or LV/LN adjuster????? :? 

still not sure how you set one for a really thin shaving when you get the wedge down hard.  

paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Kierstead (9 Jun 2006)

MarcW":qb4w1fqh said:


> Once one of my LNs made just sawdust. I realized after some time, that I'd planed with the cap iron.



Heh, just the other day I put the cap iron back on, was *sure* that I did it right and the thing make an racket that sounded a lot like scraping and produced dust, not matter what tweaking of projection I did. Turns out, the cap iron doesn't make a great scraper and an even worse blade....


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jun 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > The bevel produced with the "ruler trick" is insignificant and is NOT a substitute for flattening the back of the blade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that the ruler trick replaces flattening the back of a blade. 

However, I did say that I think a LN blade should not require flattening because of their high quality. I have 8 LN planes and a LN #5.5 blade in my Stanley #6. 
I have never had to flatten any of these nine blades as they all came ground perfectly flat. Ruler trick was all I used when sharpening to get a great result


----------



## David C (9 Jun 2006)

Greetings, why are you not all at work on this intolerably hot Friday afternoon? or perhaps you are.....

Love the pizza box, shows how ideas are never as original as one wishes!

Delighted to see so many accurate descriptions of ruler trick! No, not that slow cumbersome one used for dovetail layout......

I still like to flatten *all *plane blades on an 800grit stone. There is inevitably variation of production and overall flatness across the width is important to ensure good chipbreaker contact, or good seating for bevel up planes.

The ruler trick, which I do on polishing stone only, (and never on chisels). imposes a minute back bevel, which comes out at two thirds of a degree, when using an 8000grit King stone. I am not sure that enough metal is removed to reliably polish through deeper manufacturers surface grinding scratches. I like to wipe these out with 800 grit scratches.

I no longer bother with 1200 grit on plane blade backs backs, because I can see that the polished band, from the ruler trick, *does* cut through and obliterate the 800grit scratches, at the cutting edge. (50x pocket microscope).
This narrow band of polish never seems to get wider than one mm or so, as the blade is being shortened with each sharpening.

The ruler trick saves hours of work when preparing a new blade. but the best thing about it is that it increases the probability of polishing away the wire edge. I find that sharpening becomes almost one hundred per cent reliable. When we tried to produce flat polished backs, the results were more hit and miss. What is the probability that your back, and polishing stone are perfectly flat? Then there was the stiction of Japanes polishing stones, to deal with as well......

I'm sure we have all found that the chipbreaker does not produce nice shavings! Usually due to not tightening the C/B screw, hard enough.

L-N PLANES DO NOT HAVE FAULTS, because if they do, as occasionally must happen, Thomas replaces them immediately. The same applies to all other reputable manufacturers.

David Charlesworth

excited to be viewing final proof of next DVD, which has some cunning chisel prep. strategies. Plays quite nicely at 1 1/2 X speed......


----------



## MarcW (9 Jun 2006)

sean_in_limerick":20ckckf0 said:


> ... What honing angles do you guys put on your standard bench planes - i go with a 25' bevel, followed by honing at 30' with 800-grit, and finish with a couple more degrees of a microbevel on an 8000-grit- all the time using the ruler-trick - the irons look good and sharp - is there some special technique required for the LN?



Sean, 

I forgot your second question. So here my late coming answer: I put a 30° bevel on my irons with a slight microbevel. Ruler trick for jacks and general purpose and a back bevel of more or less 5° for smoothers. My smoothers (#4.5 and #7) have a 50° frog. Except for the #8 all irons are cambered or rounded or have relieved edges. Mainly I use the 800 King and a 8000 grit japanese waterstone but often too the Norton stones from 220, up to 8000. 

Marc


----------



## Midnight (10 Jun 2006)

Sean.. I won;t rehash the sharpening advise you've had to date.. but the prob could be caused by a couple of other causes.. 

Firstly.. chip breaker needs tuneing... technique should be very similar to the ruler trick, but without the ruler.. idea is to polish all the way to the outer tip of the leading edge to ensure a good close and even fit on the back of the blade.. 

Secondly... chip breaker set too close to the edge of the blade causing a blockage in the throat of the plane.. ideallly the chip breaker should be somewhere between 1 - 1.5mm from the edge of the blade..

Thirdly.. frog is set too close to the leading edge if the throat.. remedy by slacking off the 2 retention screws (a half turn is more than enough) then retract the frog adjustment screw to give the desired clearence.. you won;t need to remove the blade to do this (takes all the guesswork out of setting your desired clearence)...

Last point.. blade's set for too aggressive a cut.. shavings are too thick to pass through the throat causing a blockage...


----------



## deirdre (10 Jun 2006)

David C":1jbj1k8n said:


> excited to be viewing final proof of next DVD, which has some cunning chisel prep. strategies. Plays quite nicely at 1 1/2 X speed......



I for one can hardly wait. I should have my DVD cabinet finished by then, too.


----------



## MarcW (10 Jun 2006)

David C":dkw41dwa said:


> L-N PLANES DO NOT HAVE FAULTS, because if they do, as occasionally must happen, Thomas replaces them immediately. The same applies to all other reputable manufacturers.



David,

Because I am the guy who talked about faults first... :? 

I am a loyal customer of LN since now more than 2 years. That's not long but long enough to have made good experience and bought 31 tools of which mainly planes (Yes I got to the shop before 8 a.m. and counted  .)

I acquired all these tools first because guys like you recommended them (furniture techniques vol. I) I stick to those because they are some rare fine tools and bring me pleasure every time I have to work with. 

Faults occurred and I experienced a very rare fine and easy return policy. All my LN planes came in good shape - with some rare exceptions - ready to make shavings out of the box. In addition to this I caused trouble to some of my planes like throwing a block plane from the balcony when fitting a mitre joint four meters down on a big enough stone  ... and LN replaced the spinwheel for free i.e. they repaired MY handling faults.

Coming to the point... LN is IMHO an outstanding company, but they are not God, so s... happens and I wonder why you don't accept talking about faults. Often it is very hard to find the fault and we should help one the other. Every new WW customer who has a problem with a new plane won't understand the world, because virtually everything's to be perfect. But if he knows that he can rely on a superb return policy this will make him even more confident. I aren't the guy who wants to point out faults in order to damage the company's image or to feel proud having found a fault. (I find enough faults in my pupils writings, believe me :wink: ) I think this is bad customer and bad ww, but I wanted to help someone who had a problem finding the hook.

Marc


----------



## Shady (10 Jun 2006)

> now that cuts well after a bundle of time setting the blade up. but how much easier is it with a bailey or LV/LN adjuster????? Confused
> 
> still not sure how you set one for a really thin shaving when you get the wedge down hard.



Paul: without coming over all galootish, some would claim that it's faster and easier than using an adjuster. I wouldn't - I think it's just a different 'feel'. But, FWIW, my technique has evolved to: Sit woody on blade setting block (HNT Gordon actually supplies one in his planes, but any flat lump of hardwood offcut will do), with blade inserted. Push fit wedge, tap it home - not too hard. Take a test cut. With experience, that'll do. However, if not enough projection, I tend to seat the wedge with another tap first, and take another test. If still nothing, a light tap on top of the iron, repeat test cut until it's what you need.

To be fair, the more difficult one is when you go too far, and the blade projects too much - 2 strategies work for me here: a) try light hammer taps on the back end of the plane. The geometry seems to mean that this makes the blade retract fractionally (do it hard enough, and you can sometimes actually hear/feel the blade sing like a tuning fork as it moves).

b) It may well be quicker to simply take it out and start again. 

On balance - once you know your plane - I think it probably is quicker than all the twiddling inherent in adjusters etc...


----------



## David C (10 Jun 2006)

Dear Marc,

Well said.

My comments were not aimed at you, but were expressed from a certain amount of frustration with the title of another thread on this forum. So I am guilty of expressing my feelings in the wrong place!

I have spent a huge amount of time and effort over the years, trying to help people understand the multitude of issues which prevent the blissful planing experience of working with a well set up and tuned plane.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (10 Jun 2006)

> My comments were not aimed at you, but were expressed from a certain amount of frustration with the title of another thread on this forum.



David, I suspect that was one of mine ("Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding"). I agree, an unfortunate choice of words. Should have been simply "Advice needed with tuning" or something like that. My only defense was that I was in a rush and did not give enough thought to it (I probably should have taken more medication as well).  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ian Dalziel (10 Jun 2006)

Sean,
I would recommend you check every plane blade for flatness be it LN...LV...Holtey etc. 

In the manufacturing process of blades they are all surface ground and are held in position by magnectic chucks. These chucks have incredible holding power and if a blank has a very slight hollow when its fitted to the chuck....the strength of the actual magnet can pull the hollow out....once its been ground and the chuck releases the hollow can jump back. 
I have seen this happen with some of the best blades. its something that is very difficult to detect and overcome. Hence professionals say flatten the backs

You will start to see blade technology moving forward soon with the introduction of lapping machines (this came from the electronics industry) ...Bridge city are already doing it ....LV are about to and i would imagine LN will soon.

My personal views are no matter whose blade it is it doesnt take long to check for flatness.....but it does take longer to cure any discrepencies and the better manufacturers like LN, LV their quality control measures are as good as you can get in todays market. You already saw TLN actions in another post.

David C has spent many an hour preaching about the areas that are important on a plane....he has produced excellant dvd's and sharpening series....for anyone just getting into hand tools or even experianced users ....if you have gone to the expense of buying LN then spending an extra few pounds on his techniques DVD's will be well worth the expense.  

Sean as you will see from answers here....most people have at some time gleamed something from David.

regards

Ian


----------



## hockeydad (10 Jun 2006)

David C":2ricqf6p said:


> "Love the pizza box, shows how ideas are never as original as one wishes"!
> 
> "When we tried to produce flat polished backs, the results were more hit and miss. What is the probability that your back, and polishing stone are perfectly flat? Then there was the stiction of Japanes polishing stones, to deal with as well......"


Thank you. I was trying to solve the exact problem that you describe in the second quote. It also describes what I meant by, "I only back bevel blades that I'm having trouble flattening". My experience, all self taught , 40 years ww with occasional hand tool use and the last 20 with primary hand tool use has led me to believe that perfectly flattening and honing (polishing) with stones or ss is near impossible. I started sharpening on oil stones, (got some good ones in the '50s from a barber friend) but I couldn't get them to work. I then switched to waterstones in the 80s(Kings), 800 for flattening 1200 for whatever, 4000 and 6000 for honing/polishing. I believe (memory going) that I switched to ss in the late 80s. Dishing, dubbing and all the other vagaries of the media, underlying surfaces, etc., made it a difficult proposition to get an acceptably flat back. I overcame most of those vagaries with the pizza box and what I call a slight back bevel and most of you seem to call polishing. I think we're in, "a rose by any other name....". The point is, I do attempt to flatten and polish from 80 or 220 through 2000 grits. Most of the time I feel I need to BB to have that sharp apex with the wire edge gone. I would rather not have to, so I'd never had to touch the back again. Keep in mind, like most of us who have been around awhile, most of my experience has been on old planes, Stanleys, Sargeants, Miller Falls, Keen Kutters, etc.. I have 42 old bench planes by count (most of which I've turned into acceptable or excellent users) and 1 LV Jack and 1 LN 4 1/2. My experience with the LN is not great but the LV simply outstanding. I will own more. The blades from both though were as flat from the factory as anything I've seen. 

David, I went into my shop and tried the 6" "ruler trick" and I think I like it better than my old method because I can better control the width and the angle of my back bevel by contoling the distance from the ruler. In order to make use of this "feature" though, I need to hone/polish across the width of the blade. Can you see any longer term problems with this approach? :!:


----------



## MarcW (10 Jun 2006)

David C":29u3cn5e said:


> Dear Marc,
> 
> Well said.
> 
> ...



Well David,

Thanks for clarification. I am teacher too, not in ww. So I know how you came to this "certain amount of frustration". I hear those exclamations every business day and don't like them either.

Friendly regards, Marc


----------



## deirdre (10 Jun 2006)

Ian Dalziel":39lz4v37 said:


> Sean,
> I would recommend you check every plane blade for flatness be it LN...LV...Holtey etc.
> 
> In the manufacturing process of blades they are all surface ground and are held in position by magnectic chucks. These chucks have incredible holding power and if a blank has a very slight hollow when its fitted to the chuck....the strength of the actual magnet can pull the hollow out....once its been ground and the chuck releases the hollow can jump back.
> I have seen this happen with some of the best blades. its something that is very difficult to detect and overcome. Hence professionals say flatten the backs



Wow, Ian, that's fascinating. That must be SOME magnet, too.


----------



## Paul Kierstead (11 Jun 2006)

David C":1fuut6xh said:


> Delighted to see so many accurate descriptions of ruler trick! No, not that slow cumbersome one used for dovetail layout......



Thank you David for putting a very big smile on my face. That is the one of the funniest off-hand ones I have read in a bit. Humour is sometimes lacking in these discussions


----------



## Alf (11 Jun 2006)

Paul Kierstead":29pdzxg7 said:


> Humour is sometimes lacking in these discussions


<Alf idly wonders what forum Paul's been reading... :-k :lol: >

Erm, while I agree that it's nice to use the right words in the right place, let's not get hung up on it, eh? I'd hate to think peeps didn't post simply because they feared giving offence by choosing one word over another. Best to go on general tone in the body of a post, rather than a title, on t'net, to avoid taking unnecessary offence. Anyway, bet I'm not the only one who faced with an empty subject box goes as blank as a blank thing.

Cheers, Alf

Who figures if you're going to mildly pull someone up you might as well make it an internationally famous woodworking teacher, author and DVD star... 8-[ Sorry, David.


----------



## Shady (11 Jun 2006)

Careful now Alf: Strong disciplinarian women have been known to generate 'unusual' reactions in some quarters... :wink:


----------



## David C (11 Jun 2006)

George,

I move the blade, to & fro across the stone with a very short stroke. The edge of blade goes off the edge of the stone, and comes only about 1/2 inch onto the stone.

Harrellson Stanley takes his wire edges off with a lengthways stroke but I prefer not to.

Ian is spot on re magnetic surface plate chucks. Paul Williams in OZ, flattens his blade stock with a pecking hammer, before surface grinding, to solve this problem

Paul, glad you enjoyed my little dig. The tone on forum has stayed much calmer than a couple of others, WC & Knotts, which I think is a good thing. Alf has correctly deduced that I have no wish to enter the places where many Trolls lurk, nor do I have the time or the inclination, to enter into these interminable partisan flame wars.

I think people who have bought reasonably expensive tools are upset if it is implied that they have faults and do not perform. I think they are especially upset if the reviewer, consistently raves about products from a particular manufacturer, who is clearly manipulating the internet to get advance publicity for new tools before the magazines get around to their reviews. 

In my experience from running short and long courses, most user problems are inadvertantly self inflicted due to a lack of experience, poor teaching or poor technique. though there will always be a small percentage of tools which have escaped the quality control systems.

I think it is a pity that Paul Marcou's beautiful looking work has been possibly sidelined by the recent avoidable furore? The price seems far too reasonable to me, after my experience building the Shepherd kit. 

David Charlesworth


----------



## MikeW (11 Jun 2006)

David C":15uwv60d said:


> ...I think they are especially upset if the reviewer, consistently raves about products from a particular manufacturer, who is clearly manipulating the internet to get advance publicity for new tools before the magazines get around to their reviews.


Me thinks that people often get around to showing their own biases and loayalties if they write often enough on a given topic.

I have respect for you as a professional person, David. But to a certain degree, this is like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

There have been several posts wherein you refer someone to purchase your book and or DVD rather than give a full answer. Isn't that manipulating the internet for personal gain?

Please do not get me wrong. I am not accusing you of ethical or moral wrong--I personally do not think it is. It is, however, a similar activity.

I think your rather inflammatory statement reveals a loyalty to a particular eastern US company. There is nothing wrong with loyalties. We all have them in one or more areas. What is dubious is castigating the "other" company in the process.

And before anyone jumps on the Larry-wagon [if you don't know what I am refering to, it doesn't matter], I am beholding to no company but my own. As far as handplane ownership, there are more eastern-US branded planes in my shop than the "other" ones. Neither plane any better than the other.

I respect both companies, especially their respective owners. Too much to dis either one or make cutting remarks about them publically [well, even privately].

Take care, Mike


----------



## David C (11 Jun 2006)

Mike,

Touche, (can't find french acute sign).

I have been giving a lot of thought to these issues over the last week or so, and held back from writing about the "irritating thread title" for as long as possible. Finally cracked and knew it was almost certainly a mistake......

I am unreservedly guilty of announcing my upcoming book and dvd's, in a not very subtle way.........I feel I should apologise for that.....

However, I do try my best not to denigrate products on the internet, and do not publish reviews on the web. Most of my posts cover technique, which I'm sure you know, I am passionate about. 

The quote you have highlighted was considered, and although unwise, is still relevant to the ongoing discussion. It was partially an attempt to explain the response Derek got from some of the angrier posters. the other part is a serious question about internet "reviews". 

I have a relationship with L-N, as Thomas is a good friend and publishes my DVDs. I have passed on a couple of ideas to him about tools I would like to use as do many other professional and amateur woodworkers. I am not an employee. 

I also have great respect for Rob Lee, who I met at the APTC show, and note with interest the enthusiasm of his customers. One day I hope to write about the bevel up jack. 

Derek's recent experience, will remain burned into my mind, when and if any future reviewing is attempted.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Scott (11 Jun 2006)

David C":1wxu4lwy said:


> Touche, (can't find french acute sign).



Hold down "Alt Gr" when you hit the "e".

....and that, folks, will be the only thing I ever teach DC!  


Hardly makes up for the teaching I've had from your books and articles David but there you go! :wink: 

Cheers


----------



## deirdre (11 Jun 2006)

David C":1o5d7cvn said:


> I am unreservedly guilty of announcing my upcoming book and dvd's, in a not very subtle way.........I feel I should apologise for that.....



Please don't -- some of us are waiting for the next installment. 



David C":1o5d7cvn said:


> I have a relationship with L-N, as Thomas is a good friend and publishes my DVDs. I have passed on a couple of ideas to him about tools I would like to use as do many other professional and amateur woodworkers. I am not an employee.



I'm always interested to see what they'll come up with next.


----------



## MikeW (11 Jun 2006)

David C":3bwsiymk said:


> Mike,
> ...
> I am unreservedly guilty of announcing my upcoming book and dvd's, in a not very subtle way.........I feel I should apologise for that.....


I on the other hand do not feel you owe anyone an apology--part of the evil of business is promotion. I feel the manner in which most people self-promote doesn't cross ethical boundries. If anyone were to judge these matters, I would probably be found more wanting than you.


> However, I do try my best not to denigrate products on the internet, and do not publish reviews on the web. Most of my posts cover technique, which I'm sure you know, I am passionate about.


Aye, and I think your passion is infectious in a good way. Enthusiasm makes for a good teacher.


> ...I also have great respect for Rob Lee, who I met at the APTC show, and note with interest the enthusiasm of his customers. One day I hope to write about the bevel up jack.
> 
> Derek's recent experience, will remain burned into my mind, when and if any future reviewing is attempted.


And that was the crux of why I responded. It appeared that in the attempt to respond to Derek's circumstances, Rob's ethics were being called into question. Quite the opposite of respect--but that is only my understanding of how I read the post. I probably took exception simply because there is a well known plane maker who cannot help from saying repeatedly that LV basically pays for the press it receives. While that is an issue which could be debated, my own thinking is it is merely a different business model of development and feedback. My own experience in giving feedback is there are no strings implied or attached. People writing the impressions of a tool are doing so on their own accord.

Anyway, as always, I wish you the best. I enjoy the quality of the body of your work. It speaks well of you.

Take care, Mike

edited because I could not string words together in a coherent manner <g>. No bears were harmed in the production of this message...


----------



## sean_in_limerick (11 Jun 2006)

Well gentlemen, some incredibly well considered reponses to my initial question and i thank you all for your time. With all of the responses i decided to check the chipbreaker was making good contact with the blade and it was fitting beautifully, i then checked the back of the blade for flatness - suprisingly - it fell away near the cutting edge and along one side - 2 hours later i had the blade flat and resharpened it using the DC method ( as a novice i purchased the DC's dvd's and i still sit and gawp at the way he manages to get those wafer-thin shavings). Anyway, i flattened the back, sharpened the edge and proceeded to try and plane some red oak - and it cut's very well. However it does not give me full width shavings. 
I still have a lot of trouble when i grind, i use a Tormek and cannot get a consistent square edge across the cutting edge. I tried it today after truing the wheel to ensure it was in good condition. I ended up with the two edges protruding ever-so-slightly (but enough) from the centre of the cutting edge - meaning i get very nasty tracks when planing, i have in-effect i suppose managed to have an inverse-curved blade  
I assume this is just a question of technique on my part - but there really doesn't seem to be too much to it. I try to apply consistent pressure as i slide the blade (which is wider than the wheel in this case) across the wheel. I keep the blade moving and i have even tried using a marker pen on the grinding angle to see what part of the griding-edge is being cut. Does anybody else have trouble with the Tormek, or advice on how better to use?
As to David Charlesworth plugging his books/dvd's here - well, where better to do it. I find them invaluable and look forward to his next releases - I have no access locally to experts in hand tool use and i am trying to learn as i go (and loving every minute of it) - instructive DVD's - both David's and Rob Cosman's set the bar for me.

Sean


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jun 2006)

David C":1b8b70wo said:


> I still like to flatten *all *plane blades on an 800grit stone. There is inevitably variation of production and overall flatness across the width is important to ensure good chipbreaker contact, or good seating for bevel up planes.
> .



Hi David

I am quite a fan of yours with books and DVDs to show it. Your experience and knowledge of planes is far superior to mine.

However, I do not completely agree that ALL blades need flattening for the simple reason that my 9 LN blades cut beautifully thin shavings without wasting many hours flattening them by hand on a waterstone or whatever. 

Possibly it might be better to say that ALL blades need to be checked for flatness before use. Sure, flattening them all might improve the performance of some, but not neccesarily

I ran out CMM (coordinate measuring machine) over one of them at work some time back (same time as the LV Jointer I posted about on forum). The resolution of this is 0.5um and the total error over the entire blade was under 10um. That is less than 0.5 thou out from dead flat. My 6000 grit stone then polished the back of the cutting edge perfectly well using your ruler trick.
OK, I only tested one at random but see no reason why the others should be significantly different.


----------



## engineer one (12 Jun 2006)

sean,
as a tormek user i have to agree that plane blade offer one a 
great deal of problems. having last week seen to a couple
of blades for my nooigedagt woodies, i found that using the side
of the jig did not guarantee accuracy of sharpening.

looking carefully at the blade, and some others, i have noted that they
seem to have been guillotined to width, certainly not hot forged or
rolled to the width, and since no one ever does anything to the edges,
it is i think difficult to gurantee that when in a jig of any description
LV Mk2 or cheap hilka, stanley or the tormek one, the blade side and 
edge will be absolutely square to each other.

so i believe that the blue ink trick is extremely valuable, but there is 
also i think the problem in any device that has two screws, you can 
overtighten one nut by only a little, and it will f**k the edge.

in my experience, you need to push the plate onto the blade with your 
fingers, then tighten the nuts to just grip, then make sure that you 
tighten them down properly the same amount each side. i have wondered
about putting a bad of paint on each nut so that you rotate them the same distance each time. the same with the nuts on the support.

the other thing i have found is after grinding, and polishing, and then
removing both wire edges, i can hone a slight extra bevel on the 
blade side by lifting it on the hone a little more than the correct angle.
this makes a real difference to the cutting ability.

but of course it is not to easy to produce a radius on the tormek, so 
last week i tried my newly tormeked blades in a standard sharpening 
jig and on a "oilstone" got quite a nice extra bevel, but not much radius,
but it seemed to cut slightly better, very strange.
now i guess i have to find a wider oilstone :roll: :roll: 

not sure about your two grooves, have you properly used the diamond 
grader to true up the stone? what surface are you using for final grind,
i only use the finer surface. the other thing i have found is i get a better
edge by pressing the blade down with one finger only,
rather than as you would think, two, one on either side. 
my feeling is that one's dominant finger tends to push down more
strongly than the other, thus putting more pressure on one side
than the other. :? 

hope this helps.
paul :wink:


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Jun 2006)

sean_in_limerick":3g6491wn said:


> I still have a lot of trouble when i grind, i use a Tormek and cannot get a consistent square edge across the cutting edge.



Unless you are dealing with a damaged blade and need to remove a lot of metal from the edge, I would question whether there is a need to use a grinder at all when sharpening blades. It seems to me that they introduce a lot of potential problems in the case of those that don't run in water (that obviously does not apply to the Tormek), and problems such as the ones you have described in general.

I gave up using grinders years ago and simply use a coarse sharpening stone fairly regularly to stop the secondary bevel getting too long. I find this very quick and it prevents the sort of problems you describe.

Paul


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (12 Jun 2006)

> The quote you have highlighted was considered, and although unwise, is still relevant to the ongoing discussion. It was partially an attempt to explain the response Derek got from some of the angrier posters. the other part is a serious question about internet "reviews".


 (references here are made to unfortunate headings to some posts and the concerns about posting reviews in the forum(s))

Hi David

I would like to amplify some of Mike's comments in a effort to clarify what has been occuring on some forums, notably Wood Central. 

It is evident that there are a (small) minority of forum members there that are very vocal in expressing their opinions and indignation at what - they perceive - to be injustice. In this case, the injustice of a known toolmaker imparting gifts to procure favourable advertising, and the perceived slander of a favoured toolmaker, who is now the underdog. 

As I mentioned earlier on in this thread, I wish I had not raised the name of LN in my heading. If I had withheld the maker's name and had just described the problem, perhaps more members (more so at WC than here) might have responded intellectually and not emotionally. But this does emphasize the side-taking that occurs. 

For reasonable forum members, those that take the time to read everything carefully, not jump to conclusions, and do not actually begin with an axe to grind, there is no vitiol just frank discussion. After that the thread on the Marcou smoother I received dozens of emails from concerned members who felt distressed at the personal attacks on myself, and who distanced themselves from the anger of the participants. By-and-large, both on WC and other forums (e.g. Ubeaut, Wood Net, Sawmill Creek, Oldtools forum, and here), the feedback on the review has been very favourable. Even on Knots, the FWW forum, after a similarly aggressive set of posts (from essentially the same people from WC), the tide turned and reasonable people rejected the ravings of the dissenters as paranoid nonsense.

This is an interesting read: http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=30307.1

The point made by Mike - and I am sure that Alf will confirm - is that LV (i.e Rob Lee) does NOT give away planes to be reviewed. I have _never_ written a review for him or LV. The planes and accessories I have received have been for feedback at a pre-production stage. They are all pre-production models that function perfectly but have casting blemishes. They cannot be sold, would otherwise be scrapped, and are worth less to LV than the cost of postage (which is why we get to keep them). All reviews involving planes I earlier received from LV were either written because I chose to do so (partly to disseminate information, partly because I enjoy the creative process involved, and partly because it is a nice gloat!). In the case of Philip's plane, he contacted me with a request to write a review, and our agreement was that he would have to accept what I wrote (which Philip did). He will confirm this.

I say the above, not with the intention of trying to convince you (or others) that there was no impropriety, but to clarify that the association between parties is one thing, and that recognision of the ability to deal with bias is another. There will always be a minority who are not prepared to evaluate the latter fairly. Fortunately, the greater majority are able to do so, and it is to this group that I write. Your own writings will be treated in the same way, with the respect that you have earned, and certainly from my side you have earned plenty. I am not alone here in this opinion.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (12 Jun 2006)

Before we go any further along this road at all, can we all remember how much we don't want this to go the way of WoodCentral or Knots? With that in mind I'm reluctant to post at all, but I'm a little bit fed up with holding my tongue and if I can't post about it here then where can I?

David, I have to say I read your post shortly after you posted it with some dismay. Having urged judging a post by tone I found I was reduced to judging it on one word - _manipulate_ is a verb seldom used in a positive context, so I can only assume you view using the internet to publicise products as a Bad Thing? This is surprising, given the three DVDs you've sent expressly with the intention of my reviewing them on this forum. As it happens this is considerably further than "a particular manufacturer" has ever gone. Now <i>I'm</i> not judging you on it or condemning you for it because I believe letting potential customers know as much as possible about a product as early as possible is a real advantage of the internet over magazines and is thus a Good Thing, but apparently by your own comments you believe you've done a Bad Thing?

The self-appointed defenders of the LN name immediately make me think of The Bard. Viz; The gentlemen doth protest too much, methinks . The irony is that LN has an excellent reputation that doesn't need hourly defence; by so doing, if I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to wonder "hey up, is that reputation really that fragile? Why? What's wrong with them?". What a ridiculous situation! And LN is in danger of being inextricably linked to the nastier participants of internet forums, which is definitely a Bad Thing. It's a matter of _fact_ that LN occasionally have faulty goods. It's also a matter of _fact_ that Veritas occasionally have faulty goods. This is the real world, stuff happens, SNAFU is not a familiar acronym for nothing. The key thing is _how they make it right_, which we all know they both do time and time again, often above and beyond the call. 

Derek has asked I confirm the policy of LV with regard to review items. I'll do my best going on my experience and what I'm given to understand. There's nothing written down officially, my soul hasn't been signed over or anything like that, so I can't quote from any small print. Some things I've had very much pre-production for my private comments to Veritas R&D; not only am I asked to keep it confidential but it's not a finished product so a review of it would be pointless. Some things have been pre-production/early models for comments, initially privately but subsequently I've gone public if the model hasn't changed once the tool hits the market. Production models have sometimes been slight casting seconds and sometimes not. As far as I'm concerned they're the ones I want to review, 'cos you get the whole package, instructions, the works, as they come off the shelf, and can give a proper breakdown of what a potential buyer would be getting for their lettuce. If they're only sent at all for feedback, you might ask what's the point of sending anything already in production? LV apparently have no qualms about changing things at a very late stage or going to a "type 2" if necessary, so comments are still apparently pertinent even when ostensibly the product is in production. Naturally I don't suppose LV actually overlook the advantage of a review online either, 'cos they ain't stoopid, but *reviewing it is not a condition subject to receiving the tool*. Disposal of tools is subject to my discretion; by the time you factor in shipping costs and duty it simply isn't worth it to LV to have them back again. So I can keep 'em, donate them to a worthy cause, use 'em for a competition prize, whatever. So yes, I could pass them _all_ on and be whiter, yea whiter than snow. However I have a stubborn streak that ain't going to for a number of reasons. Firstly, because I like them and don't want to. Secondly, I reckon I earn them a few times over. Thirdly, I resent the idea that I can apparently write an unbiased review if I've bought the tool myself but not if I get to keep a tool I've had to spend a week or so analysing and trying to make sensible comments about. It's total balls and I'm just not pandering to it. 

Should any tool manufacturer at all want to use me for similar feedback, they're welcome, even Larry despite his appalling attitude. All I ask is they at least pay the shipping costs and any duty - that's it. As it happens TLN already has, but I'm not allowed to say so I couldn't shill for them even if I wanted to. Fundamentally I like tools, I'm interested in them and the different ways they go about doing their job. The more I see, the more I get to learn. I'd love to have the income to buy them all myself, but I simply can't, so doing this gives me opportunities I wouldn't otherwise have. The only downside comes if I take the trouble to share some of that information publicly, when I have the pleasure of being considered a shill and an (underpaid) advertising lackey. Frankly, if you were in my shoes, why would you bother any more? Answers on a postcard...

Cheers, Alf


----------



## engineer one (12 Jun 2006)

bravely stated alf.

its only bloody tools for **** sake. they make our lives easier,

it is not life or death.

we are all entitled to criticise, work, tools and people we know,
if they fall below the standard we have come to expect, but
gratuitous comments, or stupid ones which claim that all
is perfect in the world will not get us continually improved
tools.

like many i feel that once it gets this personal we should all
take a step back, and review our own navels, before jumping in
to the pool which has gone from a "i had this problem what should i 
do?" to you "cannot complain at the feet of the great god."

DC we all have great respect for you , but most people study your
work, then wonder how they can approach 10 per cent of what you
do to get their own standards to lift, and enjoy what they do more.

derek, i think you have asked a question that few were prepared
to ask, and you still got the right answer from TLN.

all the partisan comments do not help the process along,
and will stop sensible comments from people who buy and
use the products being posted.

if it cuts the b****y wood then it does its job, everything else
is refinement, and how many of us can actually go the extra thou???????

and now the engineer closes down for a breather :lol: 

paul :wink:


----------



## Ian Dalziel (12 Jun 2006)

wouldnt pm's be a better way of airing some things between people, the last few replies seem to have been directed at one person in particular.......I dont want to see people disappearing from this forum because every word they say gets scrutinised, picked out then quoted....some people are far better than others at writing, putting their words down in emails without them being mis read or mis interpreted.


lets try and focus on helping sean in limerick with his blade flattening and sharpening.

Ian


----------



## sean_in_limerick (12 Jun 2006)

has anybody else given up grinding? I would consider this as i really do have problems when i come to grinding the irons (and chisels for that matter!) - i thought my troubles were over really when i opted for the Tormek - i did a lot of research to see what people thought of it and reports were generally positive - perhaps as i get more experience i will get better results - thanks everyone for the comments - i must get back to designing my kitchen (and i have a great thread going on that)


----------



## Anonymous (12 Jun 2006)

Mod note:

Please can we take any more discussion of the whys and wherefores of 'online reviewing' away from the public forum before it becomes too personal.

Thanks

Tony


----------



## Alf (12 Jun 2006)

sean_in_limerick":3luff8fz said:


> has anybody else given up grinding?


Nope, but that's because I favour honing a hollow grind. But then I don't use a Tormek so I'm probably no help anyway.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## sean_in_limerick (12 Jun 2006)

Hi Alf - you favour a hollow grind! May i ask why - i fail to see the benefit.


----------



## Anonymous (12 Jun 2006)

sean_in_limerick":1aww9dp2 said:


> Hi Alf - you favour a hollow grind! May i ask why - i fail to see the benefit.



Many favour this as it makes honing a primary bevel much quicker and easier and more honing operations can be carried out before a re-grind is required for much longer, thus less grinds per year

I have tried it on one of my blades and the benefit is real. Will probably do it to the others when they need grinding


----------



## Alf (12 Jun 2006)

It's quicker and easier - plus I find it makes freehand honing simpler too. Looking at it another way, why _wouldn't_ you do it? :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Jun 2006)

Alf":3fihjvrp said:


> It's quicker and easier - plus I find it makes freehand honing simpler too. Looking at it another way, why _wouldn't_ you do it? :wink:
> 
> Cheers, Alf



I agree with everything you say, Alf. However, Sean is having problems achieving a square edge.

When I used to grind my blades I found there were two problems. The first was the potential for overheating and ruining the blade (I didn't have a wet grinder). The second was the problem Sean is having in consistently achieving a square edge, despite using a good guide. I asked myself "Why grind at all if the blade edge is not damaged" and concluded that there was little benefit but several potential problems.

What I now do is use a primary bevel of 25 degrees most of the time and a secondary bevel of 30 degrees. Every half dozen or so honings, I run the primary bevel over a coarse diamond stone and I find that prevents the secondary bevel ever getting too long. I use an Eclipse honing guide most of the time and a Veritas mark one when the Eclipse is unsuitable, and find the whole operation very quick and problem-free. I certainly no longer get any problems with un-square edges.

Hope this is of some help :wink: 

Paul


----------



## sean_in_limerick (12 Jun 2006)

i also find that getting a consistent 25' primary bevel is no easy task on the Tormek - i know that the actual angle doesn't really matter but i have found that it's difficult to setup accurately even with the angle setting guide that Tormek supply. What grit do you consider a 'course' stone Paul? 

Sean


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Jun 2006)

Hi Sean,

My honing regime is now as follows:

DMT polka dot stones in coarse (blue), fine (red) and extra fine (green). I use the 8 inch stones and use them with WD40 (can't stand water).

I use the blue coarse stone only for initial flattening of backs and for maintaining the primary bevel. I use the red fine and green extra fine for honing then finish off on a leather strop with polishing compound. The leather strop and polishing compound is important because the extra fine diamond stone does not give a sufficiently polished finish to the blade.

Hope this is of help although there is a danger now of kicking off a whole new debate :roll: :wink: 

Paul


----------



## engineer one (12 Jun 2006)

sean,
lets see how i can make this better from wembley to limerick.

i bought my tormek with two specific stone accessories,
the grader, and the diamond device for bringing the stone back to 
round etc.
the grader is two surfaces a coarse and a smooth. 
it is a block which you move across the surface whilst it the wheel is
rotating. 

next have you got the support bar, and the aluminium blade holder 
designed for planes and chisels, plus the angle jig???

assuming you have all three, drop the bar into the two piece holder
on the top of the stone, with the overhang over the side where the wheel is. next set up the plastic jig so that the wheel size is what you can read off on the scale on the machine, but lets say 260, that is the black plastic dodad which is at the left hand end of the plastic jig, now move the other one to 25degrees. that is the one with the flat foot.

slip the blade into the holder with about 40 mm of metal sticking out,
make sure that of the two holders that go on the bar, the inset one is
on the left, and the blade is sticking out almost above this.

slide this on to the bar, and then set the jig so it touches the wheel with the round black foot, and the flat foot is on the back of your blade, which should be polished. move the nuts up or down until the two feet are
flat, one on the wheel, the other on the blade. this should be 25 degrees
give or take. now lift it up, and use the marker, then run the wheel by hand
and see where it touches, adjust the blade in the holder to get it square,
then check that the blade is at the right angle, then grind.

thinking about it, i wonder whether your grooves are due to the
stone not having been re-shaped by the diamond cutter.

does this make it any clearer sean, if not pm me
and we'll see how we can get better.

paul :wink:


----------



## Alf (12 Jun 2006)

Paul Chapman":3tjhdi9y said:


> When I used to grind my blades I found there were two problems. The first was the potential for overheating and ruining the blade (I didn't have a wet grinder). The second was the problem Sean is having in consistently achieving a square edge, despite using a good guide.


Both of which are largely, or wholly solved with practice. Over-heating is also helped by correct choice of wheel (in my case a hand cranked grinder and a coarse wheel solved things in that respect). But practice at grinding is needed - just like everything else, no-one's born with the ability to use a grinder successfully. The difference is that some things we _like_ to practice, like planing, whereas grinding blades is seldom in the top ten of fun things to do. :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## sean_in_limerick (12 Jun 2006)

you are sooooo right Alf, i hate grinding - it can be a painful experience as well if you finger slips off the blade! Certainly i need more practice i'm just hoping that i pick something up from how other people do things.


----------



## Frank D. (12 Jun 2006)

I've actually come to like grinding, although after a few hours it does get a little tedious. I learned a trick from one of Mr. Charlesworth's articles on how to keep blade geometry when regrinding the primary bevel. He proposed not to grind right down to the edge, but to leave a hair's width of unground metal right at the cutting edge. Actually when he proposed this it was primarily not to wear down the blade prematurely, but I've found that if you start grinding with a square edge, it also has the benefit of preserving the geometry. With a little practice you can really leave just the slightest bit of the cutting edge untouched. It's the same principle as when you want to correct an edge that's out of square: you grind a flat on the cutting edge to make it square (with the blade at a 90° angle to the wheel), then you grind at the correct angle (say 25°) until the flat you previously created has just about disappeared. You shouldn't completely grind out the flat (i.e. grind all the way to the cutting edge) because it's your reference and if you did you'd risk recreating a new edge that's out of square. So leaving 1/64" or 1/100" unground along the edge makes keeping the edge square a lot easier. No jigs or engineer's squares are needed while grinding.
Mind you I don't use a Tormek, and once I set the tool rest at the appropriate angle, I do the grinding freehand. I don't know how easy this would be on the Tormek, but I assume it's possible because Mr Charleworth also uses a Tormek.


----------



## engineer one (12 Jun 2006)

frank that seems a very sensible way to do things
i must say that to me the major problem with the tormek
holding jig is that it has two screws, and you have to be careful
about tightening them down properly i have considered putting
a second piece of metal of the thickness when i am doing very 
thin chisels for instance, so that you do not skew the blade to 
some extent.

actually i would like to know from someone like DC, derek in oz, 
or even Rob Lee, and TLN about how straight and square the sides of
plane blades are. are they ground to width, or just cut on a big
machine, and therefore subject to some irregularities.

once again we are getting really technical, but it will help 
us all in the long run.

we have said it before, that first you have to learn that new tools are
not completely sharp, then learn how to get them to a stage
where you are happy with them, and get pleasure from usage.
then you start being unhappy, and look for more accuracy.
then you start to look for those methods like those of DC which
go beyond the call of duty.

most of us here are not full time cabinet makers, we all do many things
and what we are looking for is a compromise between good results,
and extreme sharpness.

i have to say that i accept i was lucky to afford the various tools i 
have bought from the dutch ones, which were really inexpensive for
the quality and range, to LB and LN, plus my tormek. but looking
at the maths, i wonder whether it is more cost effective to buy LV or LN
and not have to cost in the time value that not flattening the sole 
costs, to buying an older stanley or record, and having to spend
hours flattening the sole, and then changing the blade and maybe handles.

personal view as usual, but i would actually prefer to spend the time
woodworking which is why i have the tormek, then finish on 
either the water stones/or diamonds, and then see about getting
a camber finally.

my one hundred cents worth again.
paul :wink: 

ps if someone had not pointed it out, i would not have guessed who was being talked about, and i think many might well have been as ignorant
as me :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## deirdre (12 Jun 2006)

sean_in_limerick":uwcuyoik said:


> i also find that getting a consistent 25' primary bevel is no easy task on the Tormek - i know that the actual angle doesn't really matter but i have found that it's difficult to setup accurately even with the angle setting guide that Tormek supply.



Do you have a model with the micro adjuster? If not, that may help a lot.

http://www.sharptoolsusa.com/shop/?page ... fd4f6dceb8


----------



## engineer one (12 Jun 2006)

if it is a newer model tormek, you get this as standard.
paul :wink:


----------



## David C (12 Jun 2006)

It is odd how easily one makes exactly the sort of mistakes for which one criticizes others. Thank you Derek for your explanation.

In future I will do my best to stick to technique about which I know something!

Leaving a sliver of the previous honing is much recommended.

It is possible to grind an embryonic curve on Tormek if your guide is sloppy, and worn like wot mine is.
Just lift one side of blade while pressing down on the opposite corner. But do please watch fingers do not get trapped.

It should be possible to hone a curved edge on a narrow stone. Using point pressure, in the places where you wish to remove metal.
Speed of metal removal seems to be a function of pressure.

Tormek has some quirks which take a bit of getting used to.

I set bar at "my standard height, 9mm". Then dress stone with diamond device. I get a lighter easier cut, by inserting two layers of 240 grit W&D under the diamond cluster, when setting the restraining bar. Then I do not move the bar, as it is unlikely to be parallel to the stone surface again, if moved.
When an acceptable angle has been achieved, not the projection "for that tool." This allows repeatable grinding angles.

Narrower chisels can be difficult. Japanese are rarely parallel in crossection. The standard jig unfortunately jigs tools from the wrong side. i.e. not from the flat side.
Be prepared to fiddle with the clamping plate. It needs to be relatively parallel to the fixed plate.

Use black felt tip on the bevel to judge relationship between present grind and previous grind. Fiddle with clamping plate to home in on satisfactory grind.

Many honing guides of the wide roller & training wheel type also suffer from this problem!!!

Busy this week and next with short course, & unfortunately lost a lengthy post this morning just before sending.......

You won't be hearing from me for a while....I believe that many of the answers to common problems are already available in my books

David Charlesworth


----------



## Scott (13 Jun 2006)

David C":55ck2tl7 said:


> You won't be hearing from me for a while....



That's very "Captain Oates"!! Don't disappear completely. People respect your opinions and want to hear what you have to say!

Regards


----------



## MikeW (13 Jun 2006)

> You won't be hearing from me for a while....I believe that many of the answers to common problems are already available in my books


 :lol: 

David, I apologize for my part in your making this decision. I believe none of us is beyond scrutiny--me, you or Derek. I think we should all be able to question methods, techniques, inconsistencies and application of these in any given situation where a lack of understanding ensues. It is the attributing or assumption of moral or ethical defect which often stirs the passions.

For my part, I need to be careful in what I write at times as the pseudo-familiarity which comes from longtime exposure in a forum prompts me to treat someone as if I actually knew them and they were sitting across the table with a good bottle of red wine between us.

Part of the value of a forum is a broad range of experience. We would miss your input.

Take care, Mike


----------



## MarcW (18 Jun 2006)

David C":1hthhb2i said:


> ...
> You won't be hearing from me for a while....I believe that many of the answers to common problems are already available in my books
> ...
> David Charlesworth



David,

I learnt much from your book, yet not much enough. I watched your dvds, yet I have questions. The one that mostly intrigues... but that for later. I found this place where woodworking exchange happened and I was more than glad about it. 

Two weeks back I put some paving stones as border to help my girl-friend's brother ... well he burns electrons... It was a pleasant task and reluctant too, nobody interfered. I thought this would be a great profession, just like my grandfather, self-employed and free. I realized that my profession as teacher is quite not that gorgeous. But once settled and...

What I want to come to is... I need to do woodworking because of my profession, I - viewed as a machine - can't work without wwing. I'm in deep need to have some touchable results at the end of the day. So please tell me what the ... you're doing to flatten long stock, i.e. 3 to 7 feet long. :wink: 

Marc


----------



## Midnight (18 Jun 2006)

> So please tell me what the ... you're doing to flatten long stock, i.e. 3 to 7 feet long.



It's no secret that Mr C prefers to use woodmunchers to do the bulk of his stock prep...


----------



## David C (18 Jun 2006)

Marc,

I think you will need a long straightedge and some winding sticks.

Longer planes are hepful. but not essential. We built our workbenches with 5 1/2 s! because that was all we could afford in those days.....

In general longer stuff is flexible, and often restrained by a carcase, or corner joints, so, extreme accuracy tends to be less important.

David Charlesworth


----------



## MarcW (20 Jun 2006)

David C":pwh217fy said:


> Marc,
> 
> I think you will need a long straightedge and some winding sticks.
> 
> ...



Thanks David,

So nihil novi sub sole. That's quite a performance to plane long stuff with a jack. 

I apologize for having squeezed you to answer, it was a little late ccasion5: that evening. I'm sorry.  

So now I will go and get those dovetails done,

Marc


----------

