# Sharpening Record No 4 - Silicon paper



## filthy paws (23 Jul 2007)

HI there. Just joined the forums and a complete newbie when it comes to woodworking tools etc so please be patient...

Just picked up my first proper hand tool in a Record No 4 plane. It's in relatively good nick and although the blade needs a sharpen everything else seems pretty good. I've read a few posts on here (you guys seem to been extremely keen on planes, sharpening etc) so hopefully this question will be easy for you.

I'm thinking of sharpening the blade using the silicon carbide method. I have a good piece of marble to use as a flat base but wondered if you can pick up mixed packs of the silicon paper, from high grits right up to 1200+.

I'm sure i saw a link to it at one time but can't seem to find it now!

cheers


----------



## Nigel (23 Jul 2007)

Welcome to the forum

Axminster sell silicon carbide paper down to 2500 grit

The scary sharp method was how I learned to put an edge on a blade 

Nigel


----------



## Scrit (23 Jul 2007)

Try your local Halfords, of all places. They do single grit silicone carbide papers down to around 1200/1500 grit. Alternatively any car paints place like AutoPaints will stock it as well

Scrit


----------



## Benchwayze (23 Jul 2007)

Welcome to the Forum.

Here in the West Mids I am lucky in having an old-fashioned ironmonger within easy reach. I can buy a single nail or screw if I want. I can also get the silicone grit papers too. If you have such a place up there in Edinburgh, they are always worth a try.

Good Luck

John


----------



## filthy paws (23 Jul 2007)

brilliant, thanks for the speedy responses... scary sharp was my goal as well.

i was sure i had seen packs of a mixture of different grits for around £15 on a woodworking website somewhere... never mind. I do have a big Hafords pretty close so will check out their section over the next day or 2.

many thanks


----------



## mr (23 Jul 2007)

filthy paws":3h2vb9kv said:


> i was sure i had seen packs of a mixture of different grits for around £15 on a woodworking website somewhere... never mind. I do have a big Hafords pretty close so will check out their section over the next day or 2.
> 
> many thanks



Did you mean this? http://www.workshopheaven.com/eStor...act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=Wetdrypack&cat=&catstr=

I investigated the scary sharp thing a while back and while it works and works well I can't see that its particularly economical in the long term. That £15 pack would, for example, probably last me less than a month. A few months and you've spent the same money as any other kind of sharpening "tool". Having said that I did find it quick, clean and easy to get good results. 
Cheers Mike


----------



## filthy paws (23 Jul 2007)

hey Mr, that is the very fellow. many thanks for posting the link. 

i only have the one plane and a couple of old chisels to sharpen up but if the bug does indeed bite i may invest in a few stones in the not too distant...

that multi-pack should keep me going in the meantime tho'

cheers

p.s. that site's sure got some nice lookin tools on it tho'


----------



## Newbie_Neil (24 Jul 2007)

Hi filthy paws

Welcome to the forum.

Cheers,
Neil


----------



## bugbear (24 Jul 2007)

mr":1aprt5f6 said:


> I investigated the scary sharp thing a while back and while it works and works well I can't see that its particularly economical in the long term.



Agreed.

But I think one of the nice aspects of scary sharp for someone "trying out" hand tools if that you can buy sharpening equipment that will give you an edge almost as good as the VERY BEST (and most expensive) systems out there for a capital outlay of under a fiver.

If you get sufficent enjoyment from using truly sharp tools, you may then move to a different system, but scary sharp provides a "low cost of entry" (as our economist friends would have it).

BugBear


----------



## mr (24 Jul 2007)

bugbear":xkduhv3l said:


> But I think one of the nice aspects of scary sharp for someone "trying out" hand tools if that you can buy sharpening equipment that will give you an edge almost as good as the VERY BEST (and most expensive) systems out there for a capital outlay of under a fiver.
> BugBear



I would go as far as to say that it gives a better result than most other methods, certainly as far as the beginner is concerned. In my own case I haven't managed to get an edge as good, as fast and as easily in any other fashion. BUT it's just too expensive long term. I think it probably is the most expensive system out there when viewed over its lifetime. Low cost of entry perhaps but huge total cost of ownership as a method  

cheers Mike


----------



## Scrit (24 Jul 2007)

mr":2c766k86 said:


> Low cost of entry perhaps but huge total cost of ownership as a method


Sounds just like my van

Scrit


----------



## mr (24 Jul 2007)

Scrit":1wnyd31c said:


> mr":1wnyd31c said:
> 
> 
> > Low cost of entry perhaps but huge total cost of ownership as a method
> ...


Alas the two things often go hand in hand. 
Cheers Mike


----------



## lurker (24 Jul 2007)

Check out Screw fix prices for paper (under wet & dry abrasives)

10 sheets for less than 3 quid

Its good stuff - better than Halfords for sure

I find I get a near mirror finish with 600 but it does go down to 1200 if you have time to waste.


----------



## Benchwayze (26 Jul 2007)

This 'scary-sharp' idea intrigues me. (I prefer 'wicked-sharp'!) 

I am still trying to figure out if 'scary-sharp' means ' as sharp as an iron should be' or if it is just the fact that you can shave the hairs off your forearm with a honed edge. 

I've been able to do that without resorting to silicon-carbide paper, though I can see the advantage in always having a flat surface on which to hone, or for lapping a blade or plane-sole.

I will try this 'scary-sharp' method of sharpening, but I am a little dubious as to the need for a 'mirror finish' all over the back of a plane iron.

David Charlesworth shows superb examples, but as this is all hidden behind the chip breaker, surely an inch or so of polished blade is sufficient to give a truly sharp edge? In any case, the first time you need to give an iron a quick strop or a lick on a stone to bring it back, you'll lose the mirror finish, when you remove the wire-edge. 

For me, as long as I see no light between iron and chipbreaker and the chipbreaker curve is polished, then my 'scary-sharp' blade will work just as well. The biggest problem is the grain size of modern metals used for irons. Short of replacing with Hock or similar irons, the ultimate edge is not really achievable anyway. 

As to fettling the leading edge of the plane-mouth:
if one-thou shavings are the aim, surely they will pass through the mouth of the plane, without the need for a slope on the front of the mouth, thus weakening the edge of the casting. 
(Sorry to question David Charlesworth's ideas. I'm not saying he is wrong, but I do wonder if the castings on his modified planes will stand the test of time, as have many standard, unfettled castings.)
Just my opinion! David might like to comment.


John


----------



## ByronBlack (26 Jul 2007)

John, DC uses his 'ruler trick' to only flatten the first few mm on the back of the plane blade this is a very quick process and means you don't have to polish the entire back of the plane blade - chisels are a different matter though.


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jul 2007)

Ahem, er, I'd suggest the old fashioned "scary simple & cheap" sharpening practice of freehand with oil stone.
The big sharpening problem which takes up so much space in the woodworking media, began with the widespread use of jigs - which appear to be such a good idea but actually make sharpening much more difficult.
My chisels and plane blades have never been sharper since I returned to the stone age.
If you click on the link there are further links to the discussion.
My last brush with "scary bonkers sharpening" was a stupid mistake - I flattened my old oil stone as is so often recommended. It's now really difficult to get a camber on a plane blade. It'll take years to get the hollow back :roll: 

cheers
Jacob
PS freehand with oil stone not only gets things sharp but it does it quickly, just about as easy as sharpening a pencil.
This means you are more likely to be working with sharp tools more of the time - you can do it without thinking about it, as a little diversion from the main task.


----------



## Benchwayze (26 Jul 2007)

Hi Jacob,

Precisely my point, when I mentioned Japanese Chisels and so on. How did we manage before they reached our shores? Judging from the work in stately homes and various museums, quite well I would say! 
Not that I might never try them out of course.

John :lol:


----------



## ByronBlack (26 Jul 2007)

Jacob - I printed out your article today and decided to give it ago. I had two oldish chisels that needed a little work.

The first one I did my way (freehand - but with flat bevels) and the second I tried with your method; the dipping.

My first impressions was - it's damn hard getting the dipping motion consistent as to produce a wire edge and keep the chisel moving around the stone, the second impression I had was that when a wire edge was presented (on both chisels) it was easier for me to remove this edge and go back and fourth to remove the reducing edge on the straight bevels than the round bevels as I didn't need to concern myself with the dipping motion; it seems an extra dexterous action to have to keep in mind.

My current freehand way is to lay the chisel flat at the desired angle, lock wrists and elbows on the right arm, and apply pressure with two or three left hand fingers at/near the cutting edge and then rock back and forth on my heels going in a cicular motion around the stone - I can get very accurate bevels this way and its fast.

I found your way took a little longer to get right, and the flat bevels were sharper. I tested both chisels in pine end-grain.

Maybe i'm doing something wrong, but i'll continue to try out your methods and see how I get on - any tips on keeping the dipping consistent would be most welcome.

John - certainly nothing wrong with either eastern/western chisels IMO - I actually prefer the japanese chisel because of the harder blade gives and holds a better edge for longer (IMO - I can only compare to Kirschens) and requires less flattening because of the hollow. But the easterns are more forgiving when prying, Workshop heaven have some 'black label' japanese bench chisels for about £10 each - well worth trying one out!


----------



## javali (27 Jul 2007)

ByronBlack - I guess that once you are used to your method of sharpening there is no point in changing to something else. Any method takes some practicem and comparing the results of a once of try of the round bevel with what you get after years of practice is a bit unfair. I have switched to the round bevel some time ago, and it has changed my life. The blade is as sharp as I get with the Veritas Mk-II, and it takes me much less time. I do not think I have ever had as many sharp tools as I have now. I still use the Veritas jig for bevel-up blades and some other cases, but most of the sharpening is free hand with round bevel.

Jacob - thanks.


----------



## ByronBlack (27 Jul 2007)

javali/jacob - alter ego?

BUT if I wanted to use the rounded bevel - how would you recommend to someone the process of getting a consistent 'dip' as you hone?


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jul 2007)

ByronBlack":2y46prss said:


> javali/jacob - alter ego?
> 
> BUT if I wanted to use the rounded bevel - how would you recommend to someone the process of getting a consistent 'dip' as you hone?


Answer is simple - you *don't* aim at getting a consistent dip. You don't *aim* at a dip at all, its more a case of relaxing, not trying to maintain a fixed 30deg, but having a bias towards dipping down so that you are backing off the back of the bevel slightly, every time you hone the edge. 
It's a bit "Zen and the Art of Sharpening".
Eventually you might have a rounded bevel like this one below but only after very many honings. This one below had a big chip so I had to regrind it (using belt sander) or it would be years before it looked like this.
If you start rounding the bevel on a new or conventionally sharpened chisel you will hardly see it at all except eventually the heel of the bevel will be touching the stone as well as the edge.
It's dead easy to do but quite difficult to describe.
Another detail is if you want a really scary sharp edge you hone the rounded bevel way as I've described, on your finest stone, but in very short gentle strokes just a few mm, turn over and ditto with removing the burr. The idea being that each time you make/remove the burr it is smaller than the time before. This is particularly difficult to do with a great clumsy honing jig in the way.

Thanks javali, glad to hear it works for you. Not me under assumed name, or anybody I know, honest :lol:
cheers
Jacob


----------



## bugbear (27 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":1t5rnvfk said:


> Ahem, er, I'd suggest the old fashioned "scary simple & cheap" sharpening practice of freehand with oil stone.



Yeah. that can work too. But even buying s single combination oil stone, (which doesn't have a fine enough grit to get an edge sharp enough for high quality finish planing) is much more expensive than a full set of SiC paper that will give you a much keener edge.

http://www.axminster.co.uk/product-Nort ... -22390.htm

This is why I continue to recommend SiC sharpening for people "dipping a toe in the water" of hand tools.

BugBear


----------



## mr (27 Jul 2007)

FWIW I've used waterstones and oilstones and neither have given me an edge as sharp, as quickly , as cleanly or as easily as the scary sharp thing on a bit of wet n dry. Id be quite disappointed to go to either after SiC and am quite disappointed to have to return to them (waterstones) having decided that the paper route is too expensive in the long term. 
Cheers Mike


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Jul 2007)

Mike, if you are not happy with the edge you are getting, it might be worth finishing your blades on a leather strop with jewellers rouge and Vaseline




[/url][/img]

It very quickly produces a real mirror finish to your blades.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## mr (27 Jul 2007)

Yes Paul that's on my "to try" list - You've mentioned it before but I haven't got around to it yet - I'm particularly slow moving at the moment for some reason  
Im not particularly after the mirror finish for itself more some evil sharpness as easily as possible. 

Cheers Mike


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Jul 2007)

mr":3o8qyncd said:


> Im not particularly after the mirror finish for itself more some evil sharpness as easily as possible.



The point about the mirror finish is that honing is about using finer and finer abrasives, each one reducing the scratches produced by the previous one. Once you have a mirror finish, all the scratches have (for all practical purposes) gone and, provided you haven't rounded over the edge at all, it should be super-sharp  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Benchwayze (27 Jul 2007)

I see where you are 'coming from' bugbear. But I think the point is, that water/diamond/or oilstones will last much longer than a pack of assorted sizes in SiC paper, which are disposable and have to be renewed at approx. £15.00 a time. 

I also found using flat honing surfaces, I had to go for the 'camber' across the edge intentionally. Without a camber I would have tramlines on the work, however fine the plane is set. Grinding away the sharp corners resulted in scuff lines instead. With a stone that's slightly worn hollow, the camber is automatic. If you don't like the almost imperceptible ripple effect from a cambered blade, then you can sand flat if necessary. (I hate glass-paper!) 

As to rounded bevel, versus flat bevel, the best analogy I can come up with is to compare the the prow of a destroyer to the rounded prow of a barge. It's easy to see which cleaves the water more easily. With a chisel of course, it might depend on how much waste you have in front of the bevel.

I am going to commit a 'sin' and hone two 1" chisels, both ways. Then I am going to throw them into a piece of scrap (like a dagger) and see which chisel sticks in the easiest, and what sort of cut they leave.
I can't think of any other way of settling it! 

But I do like the idea of spending more time cutting than honing, and see no real harm in a rounded bevel, so long as the edge is 'wicked-sharp'. 

John .


----------



## Benchwayze (27 Jul 2007)

Paul Chapman":g8hc5rmt said:


> Mike, if you are not happy with the edge you are getting, it might be worth finishing your blades on a leather strop with jewellers rouge and Vaseline
> 
> [
> Paul



yes, agreed Paul.
Did you know that you can make your own Jewellers' rouge?

Get a ball of fine wire-wool, and set light to it. It doesn't flame up, but goes red hot and reduces to ferrous oxide (jewellers' rouge) in seconds. Put that in water and let it settle, and use the stuff from the top first.

(That is an old tip from when wire-wool was dirt cheap mind!  ) 
I don't need to remind you to do this in a metal tray of course! 

John


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Jul 2007)

Benchwayze":31k2q74v said:


> Did you know that you can make your own Jewellers' rouge?



That's neat, John :wink: However, given my age, that stick of rouge I have will probably see me out  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Benchwayze (27 Jul 2007)

NP Paul.
I have mine in powder form in a glass jar! Along with 7 jars of different grades of carbo-powder. 

From my telescope making days!

Cheers.
John


----------



## Benchwayze (27 Jul 2007)

Well I did my chisel-bevel test, but I can't put up the pics.
However, the rounded bevel did show a marked 'pushing aside' of the fibres both across and with the grain. The flat honed bevel showed more of a 'cutting' impression.

In the interests of safety and my chisels, I stabbed the chisels in, rather than chucking them like Steven Segal would his cooking knife! 

Regards John


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jul 2007)

bugbear":2omb6sml said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":2omb6sml said:
> 
> 
> > Ahem, er, I'd suggest the old fashioned "scary simple & cheap" sharpening practice of freehand with oil stone.
> ...


Yebbut a stone will last for life given average use. Thats why there are so many around 2nd hand, well used and ancient. OTOH 2nd hand SiC wouldn't be very desireable.
I've got 3 stones, more by chance than choice. 2 combis and 1 very fine - this gives me 5 grades. If buying new I'd recommend one average combi and one much finer. Fine does all smaller chisels, 1/2" or less, no need to grind or move up a grade. Fine a bit slow for bigger ones but still useable for extra sharp finish but you would need the coarser grit to speed things up (rounded bevel grinding at 25deg max etc).
I'm never sure what makes a reasonable compromise - harder steel means slower sharpening but holds edge longer, scalpel sharp desireable but will loose edge sooner etc etc.
Another advantage of the scary simple sytem is that you don't ask questions - you just do it as and when, casually, when you feel like a little break etc.

I don't bother with all that obsessive face flattening either. The face becomes flat with use and honing. If you don't use the tool much then it doesn't matter if you haven't flattened and polished it :lol:


> Well I did my chisel-bevel test, but I can't put up the pics.
> However, the rounded bevel did show a marked 'pushing aside' of the fibres both across and with the grain. The flat honed bevel showed more of a 'cutting' impression.
> In the interests of safety and my chisels, I stabbed the chisels in, rather than chucking them like Steven Segal would his cooking knife!
> Regards John


The only test which counts is how it works while you are doing the job. You can have too much theoretical woodwork IMHO :roll: 
cheers
Jacob
PS What I'm on about basically is a cheap, quick and practical sharpening regime for someone actually doing woodwork. What I'm not bothered about is how to get a mirrored finish, shavings 1 micron thick, lovely looking bevels, shaving hair off my body etc etc


----------



## bugbear (27 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":27kfab6l said:


> Yebbut a stone will last for life given average use. Thats why there are so many around 2nd hand, well used and ancient. OTOH 2nd hand SiC wouldn't be very desireable.



Did you not understand my point about the low initial cost being desirable for a new comer, or are you ignoring because it's incovenient?

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (27 Jul 2007)

Benchwayze":3k0uatg9 said:


> I also found using flat honing surfaces, I had to go for the 'camber' across the edge intentionally. Without a camber I would have tramlines on the work, however fine the plane is set. Grinding away the sharp corners resulted in scuff lines instead. With a stone that's slightly worn hollow, the camber is automatic.



I bet I can get a cambered edge off a flat surface (slight pressure on the sides) better than I can get a straight edge (e.g. for rebate plane) off a hollowed surface!!

BugBear


----------



## ByronBlack (27 Jul 2007)

> Jacob:
> 
> mirrored finish, shavings 1 micron thick, lovely looking bevels, shaving hair off my body



But they are all factors of a good sharp chisel/plane that will allow one to succesfully 'do' woodworking rather than struggling by with a half-sharp one. IMHO.


----------



## Benchwayze (27 Jul 2007)

bugbear":19rgwr6m said:


> I bet I can get a cambered edge off a flat surface (slight pressure on the sides) better than I can get a straight edge (e.g. for rebate plane) off a hollowed surface!!
> 
> BugBear



Of that I am sure, That's why I also have a diamond whetstone. Shame that I bet only on the horses. And then only on Good Friday!

Cheers Bugbear

John


----------



## Benchwayze (27 Jul 2007)

bugbear":3vsvclrt said:


> Benchwayze":3vsvclrt said:
> 
> 
> > I also found using flat honing surfaces, I had to go for the 'camber' across the edge intentionally. Without a camber I would have tramlines on the work, however fine the plane is set. Grinding away the sharp corners resulted in scuff lines instead. With a stone that's slightly worn hollow, the camber is automatic.
> ...



I have just realised what you meant. I find that pressure on the sides gives a straight cutting edge, but a curved honed area. 

What works for me, is to angle the blade across the stone as I hone; first one side, then the other, until the camber is there and the bevel is of equal width all across the blade. That's when it's sharp enough to do the job. 
But then again, some say a glob of spit works better than water. I always use water myself.
:lol: John


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jul 2007)

bugbear":gfrwabrg said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":gfrwabrg said:
> 
> 
> > Yebbut a stone will last for life given average use. Thats why there are so many around 2nd hand, well used and ancient. OTOH 2nd hand SiC wouldn't be very desireable.
> ...


Neither - I overlooked it. But come to think it's nonsense anyway. You can get a stone for next to nothing from a car boot, or Screwfix
and anyway the APTC option isn't that pricey. Soon pay for itself unless the newcomer gives up at the first attempt!

cheers
Jacob


----------



## javali (27 Jul 2007)

Benchwayze":2s0o1s0n said:


> Well I did my chisel-bevel test, but I can't put up the pics.
> However, the rounded bevel did show a marked 'pushing aside' of the fibres both across and with the grain. The flat honed bevel showed more of a 'cutting' impression.



Well, John, For a comparison of the round and flat bevel you should ensure that the tangent of the round bevel and the grinding angle of the flat bevel are the same. Otherwise you are just comparing different honing angles and we know the effect of changing the honing angle. If you started with a flat or hollow ground chisel and just added a round bevel to it you are most likely to have added 5 to 10 degrees to the honing angle. I assume you have used the same set of stones for sharpening both ways. Did you remember to dip the blade while stropping? Failing to strop the very tip of the round bevel will result in a less sharp chisel. 

While a round bevel is not difficult to make, it does take SOME practice. A little more than the first chisel you grab.



Mr_Grimsdale":2s0o1s0n said:


> What I'm not bothered about is how to get a mirrored finish, shavings 1 micron thick, lovely looking bevels, shaving hair off my body etc etc



I do not know about you, but I get a mirror finish, I love the way my bevels look, and they do shave the hair off my body. I have no idea how thick the shavings are.


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jul 2007)

Sorry not trying to bump this thread but someone just asked me what's the difference between a rounded bevel and a single flat bevel. 
The answer is; not a lot to look at, the rounded bevel may only be very slightly convex, so little that you hardly notice.
But the big difference is in how you do it. A flat bevel means carefully holding the fixed angle of 30 deg, which is quite difficult freehand, and has to be done cautiously
A rounded bevel means starting off cautiously at 30 deg, but after a few mm then dipping slightly at which point you throw caution to the wind and can press down hard and stab the chisel forward quickly and energetically. This is why it is so much quicker than all the other hand methods.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Jul 2007)

Jacob, any chance of a video of you demonstrating this?


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jul 2007)

ByronBlack":1ftaaaeg said:


> Jacob, any chance of a video of you demonstrating this?


Byron, can't do it haven't got the kit. My kids have though, I'll try and get them on the job.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Benchwayze (29 Jul 2007)

Right folks,

All I can go on is what I was taught, and what has always served me.

In the 1950's I got a 'lecture' from my Woodwork teacher, until I could hone freehand and maintain a flat bevel. It isn't easy.
When I asked why the bevel should be flat, said teacher gave me the 'ship's prow' analogy. he explained that a flat bevelled chisel cuts better than a rounded bevel, because in effect, both sides of the chisel edge can CUT rather than BULLNOSE through the fibres. 

Now that I am my own man I still prefer a flat bevel.

As to my test, the fact still remains, both chisels had the same test. The rounded part of the curved-bevel chisel showed *crushing* of the fibres. The other showed a *cutting* action on both sides. 

Finally, so far, no one but my Woodwork Teacher and my first foreman ever sent back any of my work.

Fin... And all the best on this one!

John


----------



## Benchwayze (29 Jul 2007)

javali":1hxk782i said:


> I do not know about you, but I get a mirror finish, I love the way my bevels look, and they do shave the hair off my body. I have no idea how thick the shavings are.



I am assuming you mean shaving off the hairs on your wrist/forearm Javali!!!!

I once wondered if I could shave with a plane iron, but I decided it would be a waste of a good edge! In any case, I can cut myself with 'safety' razor blades! reckon I'll grow a beard.  :shock:  :shock: 

Happy Woodworking and be lucky
John


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jul 2007)

I can't see any logic in the ships bow analogy. Bows tend to be rounded anyway, not to mention the bulbous bottle thing which most ships have just below the waterline at the pointy end!.
Anyway it's not about pseudo scientific tests it's about what works in practice, and my re-discovered rounded bevel technique works brilliantly without a doubt, which is why I keep blagging on about it, I'm not just trolling you know. :roll:
I say "re-discovered" cos I'm sure this was how it was always done before people started thinking too hard about it.
It's a bit like riding a bike - nobody tells you how to do it and infact many cyclists haven't the foggiest idea what keeps them upright, so couldn't tell you anyway. So they added stabilisers - very similar to honing jigs; no use at all :lol:

cheers
Jacob


----------



## bugbear (30 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":20ns4a9k said:


> A rounded bevel means starting off cautiously at 30 deg, but after a few mm then dipping slightly at which point you throw caution to the wind and can press down hard and stab the chisel forward quickly and energetically.



... and achieve nothing except altering the relief angle for the next sharpening. What a waste of time!

I see no benefit in working at an angle below 30 for any abrasive other that the first (coarsest).

No "double beveller" would dream of wasting time working the primary bevel with a fine grit - this seem self-evident. Perhaps the rounded bevel obscures this truth.

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (30 Jul 2007)

bugbear":19d3tkit said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":19d3tkit said:
> 
> 
> > A rounded bevel means starting off cautiously at 30 deg, but after a few mm then dipping slightly at which point you throw caution to the wind and can press down hard and stab the chisel forward quickly and energetically.
> ...


Bugbear I think you've got it  "altering the relief angle for the next sharpening". A waste of time yes - until you come to "the next sharpening". And done in one step instead of two. Is also "altering the relief angle for the next" pass during the current sharpening, which is what speeds things up so much.
So it's win win - you have only to look a few seconds ahead to see what the gain is.


> I see no benefit in working at an angle below 30 for any abrasive other that the first (coarsest).
> 
> No "double beveller" would dream of wasting time working the primary bevel with a fine grit - this seem self-evident.


It is self evident I agree, if you are a "double beveller" that is. If on the other hand you are a "rounded single beveller" it saves time and is easier. Bigger blades or chisels still means moving up a grade or two however, but grinding also a rounded bevel ('cos it saves time and is quicker).


> Perhaps the rounded bevel obscures this truth.
> 
> BugBear


Err, dunno, praps :lol: 

cheers
Jacob


----------



## bugbear (30 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":2x5zf1pi said:


> bugbear":2x5zf1pi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr_Grimsdale":2x5zf1pi said:
> ...



There's clearly no point dipping/rounding/dubbing below 30 degrees when using an abrasive too fine (and thus slow) to create any useful relief. Any such strokes are simply wasted, regardless of "vigour".

Conversely, any stray steep strokes when using the coarse abrasive will remove far more material than is desirable from the precious tip.

If care is taken that strokes when using the coarse abrasive are kept in a "lowish" range, and strokes when using finer abrasives are kept in a "highish range", all will be well.

Of course, at this point, we're simply talking about a varient of good ol' double bevelled sharpening.

BugBear


----------



## javali (30 Jul 2007)

Benchwayze":opg4n9ds said:


> As to my test, the fact still remains, both chisels had the same test. The rounded part of the curved-bevel chisel showed *crushing* of the fibres. The other showed a *cutting* action on both sides.



OK, so I had my test. Sharpened my Stanley #3 blade with a round bevel. put it in, tuned, and it takes full width gossamer shavings. Put the blade in the veritas Mk II jig, ground a flat bevel, back to the plane, and however I set the blade, it skids over the timber. No shavings at all.

For the record, the grinding angle was 50 degrees, and we all know that it is not the best bevel angle for a Stanley #3, but the fact still remains, both planes had the same test. The round bevel takes fine shavings, while the flat bevel does not take any shavings.

So, do we agree that flat bevel is better for chisels while round bevel is essential for planes? :roll: 



bugbear":opg4n9ds said:


> Conversely, any stray steep strokes when using the coarse abrasive will remove far more material than is desirable from the precious tip.


Just out of curiousity, how many of your blades have reached the end of their useful life in the past 10 years? How many times a week do you sharpen a blade?


----------



## bugbear (30 Jul 2007)

javali":1zzimwoo said:


> For the record, the grinding angle was 50 degrees, and we all know that it is not the best bevel angle for a Stanley #3



Assuming we're talking about a bevel down, 45 degree frog sort of #3 (i.e. a normal one) a 50 degree tip bevel will indeed skid, no matter how it was created. This is because part of the blade behind the edge is lower than the edge, and will hit the wood first. (draw a diagram).



> So, do we agree that flat bevel is better for chisels while round bevel is essential for planes? :roll:



Actually, it's about the difference between bevel down and bevel up. Chisels are normally used bevel up, whilst plane quite commonly come in both flavours.



> bugbear":1zzimwoo said:
> 
> 
> > Conversely, any stray steep strokes when using the coarse abrasive will remove far more material than is desirable from the precious tip.
> ...



My concern is not "using up" the blade.

The end of the chisel is kept "narrow", so that even fine abrasives can work quikly and effectively. This narrowness means that a coarse abrasive will remove metal at a hell of a rate.

This consequently means that to keep the ratio consistent (double bevel) or the shape consistent (rounded bevel) a good deal of metal needs to be removed from the "primary"/"top part".

But in double bevel sharpening, either hand or jig, one NEVER (deliberately...) uses the coarse abrasive on the tip, whereas (as I understand it) Jacob's approach involves deliberately doing exactly that.

With a jig, of course, such a separation is absolute.

Indeed, in normal "touch up" sharpening, I only use the 30 degree angle (and comparitively fine abrasives).

When the secondary bevel becomes a little large (this is rarer event), I use a coarser abrasive, and a lower angle (normally 5 degrees lower than my desired secondary). Sometime, I do this freehand, sometime with a jig. The odd stray stroke higher than my target does no damage, as long as my error is less than 5 degrees.

I never use a fine abrasive on the primary bevel (no point), and I never use a coarse abrasive on the secondary (too fierce).

The former point is not critical, the latter is more important.

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (30 Jul 2007)

bugbear":2wo5moz0 said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":2wo5moz0 said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":2wo5moz0 said:
> ...


Strewth not sure if I can keep this up :roll: 
What you've just written is of course true - but if the grit is so fine that it won't back off the bevel, then it will be too fine to hone the flat part of the bevel.


> Conversely, any stray steep strokes when using the coarse abrasive will remove far more material than is desirable from the precious tip.
> 
> If care is taken that strokes when using the coarse abrasive are kept in a "lowish" range, and strokes when using finer abrasives are kept in a "highish range", all will be well.
> 
> ...


Well yes - as I've pointed out - one grit only will work for smaller edges, bigger ones may need 2 grits. So it is a variant if you like. But it works a lot better because it's quicker and easier.
It's no good coming up with arguments about why it won't work when it self evidently does work just as I've described, for me at least. I suggest you stop worrying about it - you do it your way and I'll do it mine  

cheers
Jacob
PS re javali's question about usage. I've been a fairly busy woodworker since I bought my first chisels and planes in about 1975. In that time I haven't worn out many blades at all except a block plane and a couple of chisels. The chisels went more through damage than normal use - having to do something desperate on site etc. 
You'd have to do a phenomenal amount of work to wear them out - or more likely a phenomenally excessive amount of sharpening - quite probable if you use a tormek or whatever :lol:
PPS


> But in double bevel sharpening, either hand or jig, one NEVER (deliberately...) uses the coarse abrasive on the tip, whereas (as I understand it) Jacob's approach involves deliberately doing exactly that.


Bugbear - I thought you had carefully read every word I have written :shock: 
No I don't use a coarse abrasive on the tip. If a fine stone is too slow I use a coarser stone but starting at 25 deg but still rounding the bevel. Although if in a hurry I might use the next to finest as the finishing grit on a wide plane blade.


----------



## bugbear (30 Jul 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":uhvi4laa said:


> It's no good coming up with arguments about why it won't work when it self evidently does work just as I've described, for me at least. I suggest you stop worrying about it - you do it your way and I'll do it mine



Interesting approach to a discussion forum, but since you want to stop...

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (30 Jul 2007)

bugbear":205mkh34 said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":205mkh34 said:
> 
> 
> > It's no good coming up with arguments about why it won't work when it self evidently does work just as I've described, for me at least. I suggest you stop worrying about it - you do it your way and I'll do it mine
> ...


Well I had to be carried off screaming from here to the sound of slow hand clapping, and I wrote it up here (needs up dating I see). Not sure if I've anything to add.
Anyway - have a go then you might see what I'm on about!

cheers
Jacob


----------



## javali (30 Jul 2007)

bugbear":3bklvwmf said:


> javali":3bklvwmf said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, the grinding angle was 50 degrees, and we all know that it is not the best bevel angle for a Stanley #3
> ...


You are absolutely right. We also know that a chisel honed at 40 degrees tends to crush wood fibers more than a chisel honed at 30 degrees. If John is allowed to ignore the honing angle, I am taking the same liberties. 



bugbear":3bklvwmf said:


> My concern is not "using up" the blade.





bugbear":3bklvwmf said:


> I never use a fine abrasive on the primary bevel (no point), and I never use a coarse abrasive on the secondary (too fierce).
> 
> The former point is not critical, the latter is more important.


Except for possibly "using up" the blade faster, why is it more important?


BTW, guys, if I read Google maps correctly, you are only about 3 hours drive away from each other. Why don't you meet on a fine weekend to have a serious evaluation of the round bevel method? Not to convince anyone to switch to round bevel - just to establish its validity, and to be able to have a discussion based more on observation than on assumptions. I would be happy to join if someone covers the airfare.


----------

