# removing a back bevel



## DannyEssex (13 Apr 2014)

I picked up some nice footprint chisles from the bootsale this morning, not too bad condition, in need of a bit of a clean but there's one hell of a back bevel on all three. 

It looks as if the previous owner started grinding a new primary bevel on the backs. 

How would you go about getting them flat again with hands only? Should I concentrate on the back of the chisle or the bevel? Silly question but thought I would ask what you guys would do? 

TIA
Dan


----------



## Jacob (13 Apr 2014)

I'd grind them square on 90º until the bevel is gone and then sharpen in the usual way. 
More sensible to call your "back" the face. I don't know why people call it the back, or what name they'd choose for the top/bevel side, which I've always known as the back. You even get the face called "the back face" which presumably makes (my) back "the front face". Easier to remember (and more logical); flat = face, back = bevel.
There's a bit of a vogue for flattening faces but it's not essential (within reason). Most old chisels and plane blades end up a bit less than flat but you'd never know in use.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (13 Apr 2014)

The bevel. 
Easiest way would be if you can find someone nearby with a grinder. Failing that, best bet would be a 40 grit belt cut open and stretched along your bench. Long runs make it go quickly. Don't use too much pressure, steady stroke along the full length and vac or brush off the belt regularly.
Bear in mind it doesn't take too many belts to make up the cost of a cheap grinder


----------



## G S Haydon (13 Apr 2014)

Jacob said:


> I'd grind them square on 90º until the bevel is gone and then sharpen in the usual way.
> quote]
> 
> Danny if you have a powered grinder to hand this is the best method. You can then use the grinder to add the 25deg primary bevel.


----------



## DannyEssex (13 Apr 2014)

Cheers guys, ill leave them be until I find a grinder


----------



## matthewwh (13 Apr 2014)

David Charlesworth did a blog post a while back suggesting an alternative method for removing a back bevel. He scored the top and bottom of the blade, snapped the end off and then reground what was left. 

If you're careful (and lucky) you can get the break at an angle so there is less grinding required to restore the bevel.

Bearing in mind how easily your total of time + money invested could run to the cost of a new or better cared for set, this might be an expedient approach.


----------



## AndyT (13 Apr 2014)

Pictures would help, but it's just possible they were used by a carver and deliberately bevelled both sides. If the back bevel is going to take too much work to remove you could keep them for carving and find some others for ordinary work.


----------



## bugbear (13 Apr 2014)

AndyT":3ggfuh6b said:


> Pictures would help, but it's just possible they were used by a carver and deliberately bevelled both sides. If the back bevel is going to take too much work to remove you could keep them for carving and find some others for ordinary work.



Agreed; other wise just grind the end away (as advised).

Do NOT attempt to flatten the back to tremove the back bevel. Waste of time and effort.

BugBear


----------



## DannyEssex (13 Apr 2014)

I will post up some pictures tomorrow, I don't need these chisels as I have other better quality chisels, I just liked them and thought it would be nice to have 'spare' users  

Thanks for the advice though


----------



## DannyEssex (14 Apr 2014)

Was a bit hard to get a good picture


----------



## MMUK (14 Apr 2014)

Ouch! Looks like they were in the hands of someone without a clue.

Personally, I'd cut them down and make a set of butt chisels out of them.


----------



## NickWelford (14 Apr 2014)

Since when do carvers have a bevel on the flat side?


----------



## MMUK (14 Apr 2014)

They look like normal BE chisels to me, not carving chisels


----------



## bugbear (14 Apr 2014)

DannyEssex":1qm27w5v said:


> Was a bit hard to get a good picture



Yuck. Grinder time.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (14 Apr 2014)

NickWelford":2a5q5tpy said:


> Since when do carvers have a bevel on the flat side?



This is from "Practical Woodcarving and Gilding" by William Wheeler and Charles Hayward:


----------



## sdjp (14 Apr 2014)

NickWelford":7uffo35j said:


> Since when do carvers have a bevel on the flat side?



Well … it's quite traditional to not have a flat side for a carving chisel. For a skew chisel, there is an obvious benefit in that there is no longer a 'right' or 'left' handed skew, instead you can just flip it over.

For the square edge chisel, it's a bit more subtle. The first thing to note is that there is not really any need for a 'flat' side to a chisel when carving. Flat planes (typically the 'ground', but also other surfaces inside the carving) are done with a wide and shallow gouge - see the 'Chris Pye' range from Ashley Iles for this idea taken to 11. Generally speaking, there's rarely a need for part of carving to be flat to within millimetres - and if there is, then it's for technical purposes (e.g. joining sections via mortise and tenon), and thus would be done with the tools for that (mortise chisel etc), rather than the carving chisels. 

So, having obviated the need for a flat back, lets look at the advantages of the 'back bevel' - there must be some, else why have twice as many surfaces to sharpen each time!

The biggest difference from the typical bevel edge chisel is the sharpening angle. I generally aim for 10 -12 degrees each side, for a net 20 - 25 degrees cutting angle. This angle each side means that on a flat surface, when I hold the chisel by the blade in my off hand, it sits with the bevel pretty much parallel to the surface. This means that shifting the tip between cutting and not cutting is as fine a movement as a gentle twist - with the thumb and pinky finger both touching the surface in both positions. This hand position facilitates all types of cuts, from a two handed grip (primary hand on the wooden handle), for pushing, or slicing cuts, or a more active cut with one of the mallets.

At least for me, with the meagre experience I have, this hand positioning is the big advantage of the double bevel, as it facilitate very fine cuts. Sometimes, this leads to the back bevel being smaller (or larger) than the primary, depending on the size of ones hands and the length of the blade.

There are other ways of using a chisel, or course, where one's off hand is not resting on the surface of the work - but it is in this case that I see the major differences.

One other claimed advantage is that it puts the cutting edge in the middle of the steel, so that when one is taking large cuts with a heavy mallet, the cutting edge is less likely to roll, as it's supported on both sides. Separately, a single-beveled chisel can 'drift' a bit - which is often used to the advantage - but a back beveled chisel is claimed to be much less likely to drift. I say 'claimed' on both of those - they seem very sensible claims, but I've not done that much straight work (lettering is the classic use of it, I'm more into functional and sculptural forms) to be able to attest to it directly.

To not digress too far from the topic, these chisels do not strike me as the careful bevel selection of deliberate choice - I'd have no qualms at taking them to a grinder.


----------



## Jacob (14 Apr 2014)

sdjp":3n6kle98 said:


> .. … it's quite traditional to not have a flat side for a carving chisel. ........


And the obsession with dead flat mirror finished faces is entirely a modern invention, apart from the very few circumstances which might demand it.


----------



## Harbo (14 Apr 2014)

Define modern - 1930, 1960, 1830 ???


----------



## David C (15 Apr 2014)

Those chisels are classic. 

A little work on the backs will show how much needs grinding off the tip, square, before re defining the bevel.

David Charlesworth


----------



## jimi43 (15 Apr 2014)

Are we sure it wasn't someone doing the "ruler trick" using a brick David? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :wink: 

Jim


----------



## David C (15 Apr 2014)

Well one never knows.

David


----------



## MMUK (15 Apr 2014)

Harbo":285jvw74 said:


> Define modern - 1930, 1960, 1830 ???




1066AD. Jacob remembers it well :lol:


----------



## undergroundhunter (16 Apr 2014)

MMUK":bokw2f4y said:


> Harbo":bokw2f4y said:
> 
> 
> > Define modern - 1930, 1960, 1830 ???
> ...


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2014)

"Modern" in terms of the obsession with dead flat mirror finished faces is quite recent - the "new sharpening", say 1990s praps? Before that nobody was quite so bothered - hence all those millions of old chisel and plane blades with not very flat faces. The idea of having to "prepare" a chisel is new. A lot of beginners waste a lot of time on this flattening nonsense and risk spoiling their new chisels in the process. Normally you just pick up a new chisel, hone it and start using it 1 or 2 minutes later. If this isn't possible the chisel is defective.


----------



## David C (16 Apr 2014)

and "defective" chisels were quite common enough in the esrly seventies.

I have no idea if there was a time when they were not common.

Epidemic levels were reached by the 90's.

The bellys on old tools are caused by poor technique and hollow stones.

Your "new sharpening" obsession is a load of old cobblers.

David


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2014)

David C":3cokjzrq said:


> ..
> The bellys on old tools are caused by poor technique and hollow stones.
> ..


No they were caused by normal use. 
"Bellys" is a bit of an exaggeration for the typical slight variations in flatness we are talking about, which are not a problem and are an inevitable result of normal sharpening. Unavoidable unless you "flatten" every time. No doubt some of the new sharpeners do do this. :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Apr 2014)

](*,) Here we go again.


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2014)

:lol: Here phil.p goes again. Why does he bother?

I do think Dave worries unnecessarily about epidemics of bellies on chisel faces. Anyway the new sharpeners call them "backs" so wouldn't "hunch backs" be a better term. :lol: 
An epidemic of hunch backed chisels. :shock: :shock: shock horror.


----------



## Richard T (16 Apr 2014)

I'd recommend using a hand cranked grinder Danny, you can take it as slow as you like and control the heat build up. If it is hard work, that's ok as you will feel like stopping regularly to let them cool down. This is a good thing and not a wimp - out  

When they are ground back as far as to remove the previous "work" you can use the grinder to put the bevel back. Useful things for emergency situations.


----------



## DannyEssex (16 Apr 2014)

Thanks Richard, I think that will be the route I will take,


----------



## bugbear (16 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1qdcv8yl said:


> :lol: Here phil.p goes again. Why does he bother?
> 
> I do think Dave worries unnecessarily about epidemics of bellies on chisel faces. Anyway the new sharpeners call them "backs" so wouldn't "hunch backs" be a better term. :lol:
> An epidemic of hunch backed chisels. :shock: :shock: shock horror.



Perhaps all this ill tempered sniping could be ended in an amicable spirit by arranging a friendly
get together, where various approaches to sharpening (and the resulting edges) could be compared?

BugBear


----------



## Harbo (16 Apr 2014)

A meeting like that was held last year but sadly the main proposer of the rounded bevel didn't show!

So "modern" means after 1990 - that must mean the way I was taught to flatten and polish in the 1950's must be "traditional"? 

Rod


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Apr 2014)

Richard T":23i07rpu said:


> I'd recommend using a hand cranked grinder Danny, you can take it as slow as you like and control the heat build up. If it is hard work, that's ok as you will feel like stopping regularly to let them cool down. This is a good thing and not a wimp - out
> 
> When they are ground back as far as to remove the previous "work" you can use the grinder to put the bevel back. Useful things for emergency situations.



+1 for hand cranked grinders. A very civilised and controllable way of abrading hard steels.

A small tip for anybody looking for one - try to find one with a 6" wheel if you can. My little 4" one (inherited - and given a clean and oil looks set for another two generations or so of service) was the very divil to find replacement wheels for. You can get 6" grinding wheels almost anywhere.


----------



## Jacob (16 Apr 2014)

bugbear":qmjal1zm said:


> Jacob":qmjal1zm said:
> 
> 
> > :lol: Here phil.p goes again. Why does he bother?
> ...


What's ill tempered about it?
If anybody wants to drop in here I can do a demo of my preferred way. PM first!


----------



## David C (17 Apr 2014)

It is necessary to make the odd comment, to counter Jacob's rather crude misinformation about sharpening. 

Use does not create convexity of length on the backs of chisels. This statement is clearly absurd. Convexity is caused by hollow stones and poor sharpening technique, (if it was not there in the beginning from the manufacturer).

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (17 Apr 2014)

David C":1sgennko said:


> It is necessary to make the odd comment, to counter Jacob's rather crude misinformation about sharpening.
> 
> Use does not create convexity of length on the backs of chisels. This statement is clearly absurd. Convexity is caused by hollow stones and poor sharpening technique, (if it was not there in the beginning from the manufacturer).
> 
> David Charlesworth


If you routinely turn a chisel or plane blade to take off the burr you will slowly remove more material from the sharp end of the face, making it less than flat, unless you flatten the whole face every time.
Most (probably all) the new chisels I've ever had have been slightly concave along the length and across the width (as per the Jap chisel but less exaggerated) which makes sharpening very easy, but eventually the advantage is lost.
Not that anybody ever noticed or cared very much - it's just that the new sharpeners have made us much more analytical!

And of course, use will inevitably cause more wear at the sharp end of the face. That's why they tend to be shinier at the sharp end (unless you are a mirror finisher!) So it works two ways.


----------



## Racers (17 Apr 2014)

I only turn the chisel or plane blade over on my finest stone, so it would take a couple of life times to have any effect.
Can't you think of a proper drawback to "New Sharpening"?

Pete


----------



## Jacob (17 Apr 2014)

Racers":fdz4wtgt said:


> I only turn the chisel or plane blade over on my finest stone, so it would take a couple of life times to have any effect.
> Can't you think of a proper drawback to "New Sharpening"?
> 
> Pete


The main drawback of "New Sharpening" is the time wasted in unnecessary procedures. No-one doubts that it works but it's a time waster and involves a lot of kit.


----------



## bugbear (17 Apr 2014)

Racers":1r61drgp said:


> Can't you think of a proper drawback to "New Sharpening"?
> 
> Pete



Personally, I find the honing a small secondary bevel with an Eclipse jig is easy, fast and gives excellent edges.

I find this fashion for "feel the force" sharpening a bit new age-y myself.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (17 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2bk5acxk said:


> Racers":2bk5acxk said:
> 
> 
> > I only turn the chisel or plane blade over on my finest stone, so it would take a couple of life times to have any effect.
> ...




Mmm two water-stones an eclipse jig and a strop, can't move in my garage now!

Pete


----------



## David C (17 Apr 2014)

I discovered the snag of traditional sharpening, when I bought a new, flat, Arkansas stone. This was after about two years work. The hollow of the India stone, had imposed its shape on the backs of all my chisels, and plane blades. The wire edge could not be removed without lifting the handles of the chisels.

Considered use of waterstones, (I use two for sharpening), will maintain a minute hollow in the back, indefinitely. My method works equally well for Japanese and English chisels. one of the advantages of waterstones is that they can easily be kept flat. Oilstones can also be kept flat, the recipe of silver sand and water on a York paving stone is well known, so it seems that some traditional craftsmen considered this important. 

I have a considerable file of feedback from delighted people who have found it works for them too.

David


----------



## Jacob (17 Apr 2014)

David C":1s4ndkg3 said:


> ...
> Considered use of waterstones, (I use two for sharpening), will maintain a minute hollow in the back, indefinitely. ....


Ditto oil stones, if that's what you want. Or you can keep them flat, with careful use. 
Certainly no need ever to flatten them - waste of time and stone. If you are having to flatten them you are doing it wrong.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Apr 2014)

There's no way that a hollow stone should effect the back of a chisel. That suggests that: (a) the stone really is like the big dipper and (b) you are using far too much of the stone to remove a wire edge.
I doubt that I use much more than 1 inch of stone when removing a wire edge and often going across the narrow width.
Always a random part of the stone.


----------



## David C (17 Apr 2014)

A little thought will show that your method will also cause a belly in time.

David


----------



## Jacob (17 Apr 2014)

David C":1gkk7s2j said:


> A little thought will show that your method will also cause a belly in time.
> 
> David


No bellies on mine Dave! How do you account for that?


----------



## bugbear (17 Apr 2014)

Jacob":3bnknvcw said:


> David C":3bnknvcw said:
> 
> 
> > A little thought will show that your method will also cause a belly in time.
> ...



This stone look nice and new and flat.







Its a whole new technique - when your stone hollows, buy a new one!

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (17 Apr 2014)

Don't be silly BB.


----------



## bugbear (17 Apr 2014)

Jacob":269ikkix said:


> Don't be silly BB.



India stone with logo still showing=new.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (17 Apr 2014)

Childish. That new surface is the coarser of the two stones - I'd be honing on the other one which is fairly flat but old and never been flattened. A car boot bargain which I just happened to be using. I've got quite a few stones (trying things out etc) nearly all cheapies and second hand.


----------



## Racers (17 Apr 2014)

I think its like rock, the logo goes all the way through!

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Apr 2014)

Fwiw - If you have a brain you needn't get the waterstone (or any other stone, come to that) badly hollow in the first place.


----------



## MMUK (17 Apr 2014)




----------



## Jacob (18 Apr 2014)

phil.p":oq1pgc3c said:


> Fwiw - If you have a brain you needn't get the waterstone (or any other stone, come to that) badly hollow in the first place.



Exactly

And if you have half a brain:
you can stop increasing the angle by rounding over; once you realise this is happening the traditional solution is to _just stop doing it_ :shock: instead, round _under_ - dip the handle as you go
you easily can hit 30º freehand with a little bit of practice (minutes, not hours)
you can take off the burr on a flattish piece of a hollow stone and avoid Dave's dreadful belly problem
you can use a hollow stone to your advantage when cambering plane blades 
and so on.

Happy Easter all. I'm off down to the allotment to look at my dandelions.


----------



## CStanford (18 Apr 2014)

David C":1gkn8j7v said:


> A little thought will show that your method will also cause a belly in time.
> 
> David



You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how to back off a cutter to flip and exercise the burr. If you're moving the chisel or cutter up and down essentially the entire length of the stone, on its flat face, you are using an incorrect method.


----------



## bugbear (18 Apr 2014)

CStanford":21jqcbvl said:


> David C":21jqcbvl said:
> 
> 
> > A little thought will show that your method will also cause a belly in time.
> ...



So much for what not to do.

Anything positive or constructive to add?

BugBear


----------



## MMUK (18 Apr 2014)

FFS! Give it a rest :roll:


----------



## DannyEssex (18 Apr 2014)

Sorry for starting off one of these sharpening threads. I only wanted to know how and the best method for removing the back bevel, which I got the answer for on page 1 or 2.  

Thanks for everyone of all your views and opinions. Its all been taken on board and stored away


----------



## MIGNAL (18 Apr 2014)

:lol: It's quite alright Danny. Thanks for the post. Do come back in a few weeks time and ask a similar question! :shock: :shock:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Apr 2014)

:lol: Yes, Danny, I was wondering how many pages it would take. I await groundhog day.


----------



## CStanford (19 Apr 2014)

bugbear":334inglx said:


> CStanford":334inglx said:
> 
> 
> > David C":334inglx said:
> ...



Jacob already has - one makes short strokes when backing off the flat face. There is no need to run the entire length of the stone and it makes all of the ridiculous stone flattening (at least where oilstones are concerned) a complete waste of time. And if one just can't resist the temptation then back off on the other side of the stone, which will leave it flat essentially in perpetuity (again, where oilstones are concerned).

The only thing repetitive about these sharpening threads is how difficult the majority of people insist on making the whole process -- the formation of multiple bevels front and back, elaborate jigs and jigging, expensive and over-engineered media, imposition of 'thin' rulers (by whose definition I've always wondered), intricate and repetitive flattening and other seemingly never ending stone maintenance tasks. 

It's all quite silly when you stand back and take it in as a whole.

To hone a chisel or a plane iron that has not been damaged, one that is only blunt, all one has to do is produce a very fine burr all the way across the unit being honed. By definition, if a burr is present then one has removed metal past the area of bluntness on both front and back (the 'wear' bevel). You only have to work the beveled side to do this. Then, the burr is exercised a couple or three times front-to-back, back-to-front. A fine burr will be more than ready to release and may partially already have done so. The rest is removed and polished on a strop, untreated is fine other than for occasional treatment with leather conditioner to keep it supple. A fine, premium leather strop should not be slathered with a wax-based compound. Fine leather has silica in it to begin with. If you have to treat your leather strop with an abrasive then do it with one that is more a liquid - diamond paste or valve grinding paste. Hard rubber with AlOx powder makes an excellent strop. The Wood is Good company sells a little rig that works great with no fuss at all. It will impart a high degree of polish for those who desire a high sheen.

If one feels it is necessary, then there can be the *ever so slightest and practically imperceptible *'lift' ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CUTTER (not just the flat face) on *a swipe or two ONLY with exceedingly light pressure*, to obliterate the remaining parts of the burr and/or fine rag. This WON'T BE NECESSARY EVERY TIME. It is NEVER necessary to do this on a fine stone - the almost imperceptible lift/additional pressure at the ends that is. Let me repeat, it is NEVER necessary to do this on a stone. This is a job for the strop! The stone did it's job and should be put away after it has formed the fine burr and exercised it back and forth a few times.


----------



## David C (19 Apr 2014)

My wire edges don't get exercised! (There is a phrase to conjure with). They get honed away, in one operation on a fine waterstone.

Charles, you have clearly never read or seen any of my material, so you are not even in posession of the facts. This confirms my impression that you operate on pure prejudice.

Since you ask so nicely, the ruler I use, is narrow, stainless, six inch and 0.5mm thick.

David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2014)

CStanford":2ngsx4y7 said:


> By definition, if a burr is present then one has removed metal past the area of bluntness on both front and back (the 'wear' bevel).



That's quite untrue, "by definition" or otherwise. It's common for a burr well before the abrasion plane has reached the edge. In knife sharpening circles this is so commonly noted that they've given it a name - it's sometimes called a "false burr". Burrs are simply caused when the abraded metal doesn't detach from the workpiece, due to the malleability and ductility of the metal.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (19 Apr 2014)

David C":1aw22zj3 said:


> My wire edges don't get exercised! (There is a phrase to conjure with). They get honed away, in one operation on a fine waterstone.
> 
> Charles, you have clearly never read or seen any of my material, so you are not even in posession of the facts. This confirms my impression that you operate on pure prejudice.
> 
> ...



You may think you're honing it away, and you may be, partially. If you've ever moved the burr from back to front or vice versa then you've exercised the burr.

The only person I know that did it all from one side (honed it away rather than exercised it away) was Tage Frid when he honed chisels, bevel side only, on a running belt sander with a worn out belt and then polished the bevel with compound on a power buffer, again, all from the beveled side, until there was no trace of a burr. It can be done, but you aren't doing it.

We know that you work from both sides. I'm quite sure that you exercise the burr regardless of what you like to call it.


----------



## CStanford (19 Apr 2014)

bugbear":38h4wlye said:


> CStanford":38h4wlye said:
> 
> 
> > By definition, if a burr is present then one has removed metal past the area of bluntness on both front and back (the 'wear' bevel).
> ...



Quite true for a knife that's beveled on both sides to form the cutting edge. For knives, it also depends upon the degree of the hollow grind, the size of the wheel used to produce the grind, and whether the grinding was absolutely perfect and perfectly consistent from both edges. A knife's edge wears completely differently than a plane iron, especially one used in butchering meat where the knife is twisted and turned and even which hand the butcher uses it in. The first thing a quality knife sharpener will ask a butcher is what hand he is - right or left. A lot of this stuff is lost on guys sharpening knives these days for real, working professionals who don't do their own. A right handed butcher will hold a knife about 65+% of the time tilted away from his body and this affects how the edge wears.

In essence, it doesn't apply here.


----------



## Jacob (19 Apr 2014)

I really think it'd be a good idea if Dave (and bugbear, Brent Beach and a few others) went off and did a course with Paul Sellers or similar, with an emphasis on sharpening. It (might) give them the basic practical skills which they obviously need and stop them waffling on.
They'd still be free to indulge in "modern" hobby sharpening complexities, but with one foot in the real world!


----------



## Jacob (19 Apr 2014)

David C":2alwuhud said:


> ....
> 
> Since you ask so nicely, the ruler I use, is narrow, stainless, six inch and 0.5mm thick.
> 
> David Charlesworth


Try it without the ruler Dave - do it the normal way like everybody else. It's easier.


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1o2jjwsu said:


> I really think it'd be a good idea if Dave (and bugbear, Brent Beach and a few others) went off and did a course with Paul Sellers or similar, with an emphasis on sharpening.



If you'll pay, I'll go. Teach him a thing or two.
   

Mind you, he's a back flattening, mirror polishing, Veritas loving traitor these days...

BugBear


----------



## iNewbie (19 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1dg7api3 said:


> I really think it'd be a good idea if Dave (and bugbear, Brent Beach and a few others) went off and did a course with Paul Sellers or similar, with an emphasis on sharpening. It (might) give them the basic practical skills which they obviously need and stop them waffling on.
> They'd still be free to indulge in "modern" hobby sharpening complexities, but with one foot in the real world!



Your recommending people go see a sharpening Guru pratle-on when its a 1min job - and when we all know what you think about sharpening Guru's. I am THE walrus.... coo coo-ca-choo. :mrgreen:


----------



## Paul Chapman (19 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2d733563 said:


> stop them waffling on.



Wish we could find something that would stop you waffling on. You've been at it for years and it's just as boring now as it was when you started.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (19 Apr 2014)

CStanford":31iapp8s said:


> bugbear":31iapp8s said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":31iapp8s said:
> ...



You apear to think I'm describing a "wire edge" (much derided in knife circles, as opposed to a "true edge").

I'm not, although the fundementals are related.

What I'm describing is simply particles failing to detach (and thus forming a burr) *before* you've worn the bevel down to fully intersect the back. If you think about, it's actually _easier_ for them to cling on when the angle is less acute, which is the case earlier in the process. So the formation of a burr does not always imply that the
bevel has met the back.

bugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Apr 2014)

Well, I'd like to say how much better informed I am after reading this thread...but I'd be lying... :roll:


----------



## CStanford (19 Apr 2014)

You apear to think I'm describing a "wire edge" (much derided in knife circles, as opposed to a "true edge").

I'm not, although the fundementals are related.

What I'm describing is simply particles failing to detach (and thus forming a burr) *before* you've worn the bevel down to fully intersect the back. If you think about, it's actually _easier_ for them to cling on when the angle is less acute, which is the case earlier in the process. So the formation of a burr does not always imply that the
bevel has met the back.

bugBear[/quote]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about - particles detaching before a burr is formed. I assume these can't be felt. I feel for the burr and every time that I have identified that a burr has been formed all the way across a cutter's edge then bluntness has been removed, the edge is sharp, and all that remains is the complete removal of the burr and the polishing off of any stray rag. On a cutter in good shape, when a fine burr has been formed, the latter two steps can easily be accomplished on a strop. Again, the stone has done it's job. 

It's so simple. So very simple.

Feel for the burr with the back of your index finger - the portion between the 2nd and 3rd knuckles. If you can feel it, it isn't false. If you have any doubts, offer the cutter to your thumbnail. It will catch, nicely, even with a fine burr still there. It's sharp already. The honing stones have made it so. All you need to do is remove the burr. If you're just jack planing wood don't even bother removing the burr. It'll be gone the first pass and you'll be back to work. If you're doing fine paring with a chisel or very fine smoothing, then remove the burr and smooth the edge with your strop.


----------



## Corneel (20 Apr 2014)

That's about as good as it gets.

Another way is using a fine polishing stone instead of a strop, like an 8000 Japanese waterstone. Same principle, different media.

After raising a burr with a 1000 stone, I polish the bevel on the 8000, and then most of the burr is allready gone without attention to the back yet. You can't feel it anymore. There is still some fluff visible under a microscope (when you are silly person enough to look at edges with a microscope). A bit of back and forth between the back and the bevel removes that quickly.

There is no need for backbevels on a bevel down plane iron.


----------



## bugbear (20 Apr 2014)

CStanford":2ytb497o said:


> bugbear":2ytb497o said:
> 
> 
> > You apear to think I'm describing a "wire edge" (much derided in knife circles, as opposed to a "true edge").
> ...



I think we're describing the same thing, but in differing levels of detail.

To avoid excess ambiguity, I've drawn what I mean.







The drawing is purely of the cutting edge, starting off round (and blunt) and ending up sharp. The progress of the sharpening
is indicated by the successive lines from 1 to 5.

Oh - the particle thing? What I'm talking about is metal that has been cut (a "chip") by the abrasive. If it is removed, it ends up as
swarf. But if it isn't removed, merely moved, you get a burr. The burr
(obviously?) extends beyond the original shape of the tool, so metal _must_ have been moved. It's the same
as what happens when you file a piece of steel, just on a smaller scale.

It is obvious that the abrasive is initially parallel with the metal (line 1 is a tangent
to the round tip). It is obvious that the abrasive is at the bevel angle by the time we reach line 5 (lets call it 30°). It is obvious
that at the mid point (line 3) the abrasive is at 90 degrees to the tip.

So - to burrs. I do not know the lowest angle at which a burr can form. I don't think it can happen
at 0 degrees (line 1). Anyone who's (again) filed a block of metal knows that a burr can form at 90.
What the lowest angle is probably varies with both grit size and metallurgy.

But it would be a profound optmist who believed that burr formation just happens
to be possible for the first time at the chosen bevel angle, regardless of metal
and grit. A burr does not mean you're finished (i.e. line 5 in the diagram).

These early/false burrs are quite easy to feel - but it depends on their size,
It is easy to prove to yourself that burr size definitely depends on grit and metal;
tuning a cap iron (softer steel) will show you huge burrs, far bigger than tool
steel ever shows, and visible to the naked eye.

In practise, this false burr phenomonon causes little trouble. It is avoided by simply
continuing to abrade. Leaning just what constitutes a "proper" burr,
indicating that the blade is sharp just involves trying it. A "big enough"
burr is what you're after, but defining "big enough" by any means
other than physical one-on-one demonstration is hard.

BugBear

(long ago, when sharpening/reshaping a rather soft axe with a coarse carborundum stick, I had a false burr
so big I could actually see it, albeit under magnification)


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2014)

Sharpening is so difficult nowadays (for some)! It never used to be - any fool could do it.
Somewhat paradoxical that those who find it difficult claim to know how to do it. I think they may be slightly deluded.


----------



## iNewbie (20 Apr 2014)

Delusion being your specialist subject...


----------



## Corneel (20 Apr 2014)

When you quit sharpening too soon, say at line 3, you still get a sharp edge, but with a steep, microsopic "backbevel". The remaining roundness is on the faceside of the blade.

Is is important to remember that the worn edge of a plane iron doesn't look like your picture. It looks more like this:





Picture from http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/wear_profiles.html

That means that you first remove the wearbevel on the clearance side of the blade before you can actually feel the burr. Removing this wear bevel is a big part of sharpening a plane iron. The round nose of the dull edge is very small, a radius of just a couple microns. If you dont remove all that roundness, it is not the end of the world, it is just not perfect.


----------



## bugbear (20 Apr 2014)

Corneel":4qiyrczv said:


> When you quit sharpening too soon, say at line 3, you still get a sharp edge, but with a steep, microsopic "backbevel". The remaining roundness is on the faceside of the blade.
> 
> Is is important to remember that the worn edge of a plane iron doesn't look like your picture.



All agreed - despite what people say, I was simplifying!

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (20 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2cvlhljl said:


> Sharpening is so difficult nowadays.



Don't worry, Jacob, you'll get the hang of it eventually..........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2014)

bugbear":1a5qsoza said:


> .....
> swarf. But if it isn't removed, merely moved, you get a burr. The burr
> (obviously?) extends beyond the original shape of the tool, so metal _must_ have been moved.......


I thought I'd join in the waffly burr burbling. 
The burr isn't metal which has been moved - it's just been left behind. As the honed edge approaches 5 in BB's drawing, the metal left between 4 and 5 is thin enough to be pushed out of the way rather than honed off. This is really noticeable with some laminated blades where the harder steel of the face can remain as quite a wide but very thin foil, bending upwards as the softer bevel behind it is removed. A bit like grating an apple - the soft insides get grated but bits of peel lift away and remains as a flap still attached (sometimes).


----------



## Woodmonkey (20 Apr 2014)

There must be some paint somewhere that needs watching drying


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Apr 2014)

...or boards warping...


----------



## MIGNAL (20 Apr 2014)

Give me some logic guys. If you dislike these threads so much, why on earth do you continue to read them?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Apr 2014)

In the vain hope that we might actually learn something.


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2014)

Which bit don't you understand?


----------



## bugbear (20 Apr 2014)

Jacob":3kf9hgct said:


> bugbear":3kf9hgct said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Reasonable and temptingly plausible, but I don't think it's true.

If that were the case, the size of the burr would be (pretty much) the distance removed
during sharpening (which is tiny), and it's evident they're bigger than that.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2014)

bugbear":23kwf33x said:


> Jacob":23kwf33x said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":23kwf33x said:
> ...


You need to look at things more closely. You can see it clearly, especially with some blades - Stanley 5001 amongst others.
I highly recommend "looking at things" as a way of finding out about them. Often neglected in all the theorising.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2yaphbjk said:


> Which bit don't you understand?


I understand all of it. Just as I understood it last time. And the time before. And the time before that. Every sensible or innocent question about sharpening n amount of pages later ends like this.


----------



## bugbear (20 Apr 2014)

Jacob":37oqi0qz said:


> I highly recommend "looking at things" as a way of finding out about them.



Take a simple bar of metal and file the end. If you _look_ you'll see a nice big burr extending well beyond
the orignal profile of the bar. It hasn't been "left behind". It's been moved.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (20 Apr 2014)

phil.p":1mz4f3x3 said:


> Jacob":1mz4f3x3 said:
> 
> 
> > Which bit don't you understand?
> ...


Why not go and find a more interesting thread? Currently there's a fascinating one about cleaning old hinges. Might be more to your taste, something you could get to grips with?


----------



## Corneel (20 Apr 2014)

The thread would be half as long without the guys complaining about the length of the thread. Like Mignal sais, if you don't like it, read something else.

Grit removes metal in several ways, depending on the shape of the individual grit particle. It can cut the metal, like a toolbit, but it can also smear the metal, plowing through the surface. The latter creates a wall of metal ahead of the groove it plows. I imagine that is part of the burr, but of course I don't really know. 

Why does the burr disapear, mostly, when you switch to a polishing stone? I guess you polish through the root of the burr, so it cuts lose. At the same time you create a new very fine burr, which you can't feel anymore.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2014)

If the burr was formed by metal being "moved" it'd be behind the heel of the bevel, not in front at the edge (assuming you are sharpening in the normal forwards way). 
The burr is metal left behind as the thinning edge bends away - differently with different metals. You can see it if you look. Try it with a Stanley 5001. Others similarly, depending on how tough/springy the steel is.


----------



## bugbear (21 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1t7ukdzx said:


> If the burr was formed by metal being "moved" it'd be behind the heel of the bevel, not in front at the edge (assuming you are sharpening in the normal forwards way).



I think it's usual to sharpen with a back and forth motion - I don't think any body lifts on the back stroke.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

There you've got a point. I've never looked for a burr at the heel of the bevel. I move the iron back and forth on the stone, so you would expect a burr on both sides. Unless it is indeed like you say.

So that means, when the burr is raised you are not quite there yet. But that would be taken care of with the polishing step of honing.

At the other hand, when you are filing or sanding a square bit of steel, you also get a burr.

I just went out to the shop. Indeed, no burrs on the heels of any of my tools, chisels or planes. But the angle is so wide, about 150 degrees usually, that a burr is unlikely to form.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2014)

bugbear":29nf5fvq said:


> Jacob":29nf5fvq said:
> 
> 
> > If the burr was formed by metal being "moved" it'd be behind the heel of the bevel, not in front at the edge (assuming you are sharpening in the normal forwards way).
> ...


Normal freehand sharpening all the force is in the forwards thrust with the edge only briefly in contact with the stone, as you dip the handle. Followed by a gentle back stroke, if at all. There is no way metal could find its way forwards to hang off the edge.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Apr 2014)

Jacob":3u5fzqoc said:


> Normal freehand sharpening all the force is in the forwards thrust with the edge only briefly in contact with the stone, as you dip the handle. Followed by a gentle back stroke, if at all. There is no way metal could find its way forwards to hang off the edge.




Hello,

Wow, just dipped in to see if anything interesting was being posted and found another sharpening debate. Nice to see nothing has changed (hammer) 

Are you identifying yet another inefficiency with your sharpening technique, Jacob? Arm flapping just allows the bit of the blade you want sharp contact the stone a tiny percentage of the stroke anyway, but now you are saying you don't do anything at all on the back stroke. Most sharpeners, jig or otherwise use both forward and backward strokes to sharpen, doubling efficiency. Try it, you might find things go quicker.

Burrs will form from moving forwards only on the stone. And it _is_ a movement of metal, this is nothing new, it has been observed as long as people have abraded metal. If the physics as to how things can be moved forwards on this way eludes you, don't argue the point. It demonstrably does happen if you just look. 

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

But what is a burr?

Is it a deformation, like in this picture?







Or is it because of the plowing effect of the grit particles? In other words, is it the material removed?


----------



## bugbear (21 Apr 2014)

Corneel":1y20fa9t said:


> I just went out to the shop. Indeed, no burrs on the heels of any of my tools, chisels or planes. But the angle is so wide, about 150 degrees usually, that a burr is unlikely to form.



Yes - the angle precludes it, I think.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":88e87cyy said:


> ....
> 
> Burrs will form from moving forwards only on the stone. And it _is_ a movement of metal, this is nothing new, it has been observed as long as people have abraded metal. If the physics as to how things can be moved forwards on this way eludes you, don't argue the point. It demonstrably does happen if you just look.
> 
> Mike.


Burrs will form but not from metal moving against the direction of the grinding action. That is impossible and doesn't happen. If you bother to look closely you can actually SEE what happens, but idle theorising is obviously preferred, as ever. :roll: 
The new sharpening is very "Alice through the Looking Glass" which is why all these threads go on and on I suppose.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2014)

Corneel":1dqsmeis said:


> But what is a burr?
> 
> Is it a deformation, like in this picture?
> 
> ...


This diagram doesn't seem to have anything to do with sharpening. I think it's just a tease! :lol:


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

No, it's just randomly picked from the internet. The right hand shows how the metal on the edge deforms in front of a sharp tool. A grinding stone is in fact just a lot of very small edge tools. 

I still don't know what happens exactly when a burr forms. And a bit of googling around didn't really give me an answer either. All research in this direction has been done with rotating grinding stones anyway, not with flat stones. Not that it really matters, just curiosity.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2014)

Corneel":1yaowfgv said:


> No, it's just randomly picked from the internet. The right hand shows how the metal on the edge deforms in front of a sharp tool. A grinding stone is in fact just a lot of very small edge tools.
> 
> I still don't know what happens exactly when a burr forms. And a bit of googling around didn't really give me an answer either. All research in this direction has been done with rotating grinding stones anyway, not with flat stones. Not that it really matters, just curiosity.


But with normal sharpening the edge would be to the left. I can see that if you reversed the process and ground away from yourself and the tool handle, you would move metal and possibly form a burr at the edge, but that's not what we do (most of the time anyway).


----------



## woodbrains (21 Apr 2014)

Hello,

The grains of metal at the sharp end are supported by progressively thicker, layer upon layer of more metal grains. The ones that are not abraded away have to move somewhere and it cannot be backwards into the rest of the steel, so has to be forwards and upwards; it is simply the only way it _can_ go. The energy from the system has to be dissipated somewhere, it will not go away. The deformation of the metal moves along the path of least resistance. Particles unsupported at the front can and do move forwards. Think of cuing a snooker ball into a tightly formed pack; many of the balls will shoot forwards. 

Also, it is commonly asserted that sharpening with, and especially fine oilstones, steel is abraded and consolidated. Consolidate suggesting moving steel around to fill in voids in the grain structure. Metal will move, and in all directions.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":1qmsvpv5 said:


> Hello,
> 
> The grains of metal at the sharp end are supported by progressively thicker, layer upon layer of more metal grains. The ones that are not abraded away have to move somewhere and it cannot be backwards into the rest of the steel, so has to be forwards and upwards; it is simply the only way it _can_ go. .....


That's close to what I was saying in the first place, which was that the metal not abraded away stays in place and/or bends upwards to form a burr. No metal is _added on_ to the edge, it is simply not all removed.
Though I can see it might be added if you were grinding towards the edge rather than the heel.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Apr 2014)

Hello,

If it stayed where it was, it would not form a burr, would it? There would just be scratches on the surface and the mean height of the surface would remain the same. Subsequent passes on the stone might eventually abrade away these high points, but this does not explain how a burr forms. This is likely the main part of the story with a brittle material like chalk, say, but steel is ductile. Corneel's diagram with a plastic phase, is an understandable explanation. I don't understand the opposition to the displacement of steel. Burrs form, this is undeniable and they tend to be larger than you would expect from the removal of such tiny amounts of steel.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

In a scientific article (google for "burr formation grinding") where they study surfface grinding, I read that the burr is mostly formed by plastic deformation. The metal is pushed ahead in front of the tool (grit particle) in a plastic deformation zone. At the edge the deformation zone isn't supported anymore and the metal is pushed "over the edge". A bit like the right hand part of the picture above.

I can't read the entire article at home, but tomorow at work I'll be able to read all of it.

Mike, where did you get the knowledge about fine abreassives? Do they do something different from coarser abrassives? And about what size are you thinking?

BTW, when sharpening I put most pressure on the backstroke, allthough my 1000 grit waterstone is quite hard. The 8000 is much softer and would easilly dig in the edge when i put a lot of pressure on the forward stroke. The picture above is about an "exit burr". An entry burr is also being described, but they are usually much smaller.


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

I think Mike and Jacob are in agreement! Just another way to describe the same process.


----------



## Jacob (21 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":2px4j7jr said:


> Hello,
> 
> If it stayed where it was, it would not form a burr, would it? ....
> ..


It stays in place as a thin bendy little filament, which may curl up or spring back. "Wire edges" are not round they are flat and thin. Many variations of course.

You can simulate the process by sanding off a bevel on the end of a piece of timber at say 30º, on a belt sander. When you get close to completing the bevel up to the top surface it may well spring up slightly and form a bit of a nib which doesn't get sanded off but instead rides up the face of the sander. Depends on the material and the sander.


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

You mean like in the pictures at the end of this article? Very nice thin wiry burrs, some are curling others are quite straight and the extend quite a bit beyond the egde of the metal.

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-050908-095350/unrestricted/CAD1106.pdf


These are on a square block of 440C toolsteel. So it is not so much the fine curring edge that is the culprit, it happens on a square edge just the same.

EDIT: But that looks like it not JUST plastic deformation of the edge, but also swarf which was grinded and pushed beyond the edge.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Apr 2014)

Corneel":yzod8rr2 said:


> I think Mike and Jacob are in agreement! Just another way to describe the same process.



Hello,

Don't quite see how you come to that conclusion, I'm saying the steel will move to form a burr, as I think your diagram shows. Jacob does not think this is the case.

Anyway, years ago I bought a Welsh mica slate polishing stone. There was in the literature info on honing with the stone and there was reference to steel consolidation. I seem to have read similar about Translucent and Black Arkansas stones also. Over the years of using these, I have noticed that there seems to be a finer edge attainable than the grit size of the abrasive should logically allow. This must be due to steel consolidation. It is a phenomenon that I have not observed with Japanese waterstones. I would contend that friable abrasives 'cut' to a fine edge and non-friable ones consolidate to a fine edge. There is an amount of both going on, of course, but coarser oilstones abrade more and have little if any consolidation taking place, the finer the oil stones the more significant the consolidation becomes. There are references in books, to taking longer on the finest oil stone being a good thing. I interpret this as to allow the movement of metal to take place.

I wanted to put this forward on a post a long while ago, but obviously sharpening threads get sidetracked, and I didn't want to waste my time getting lots of abuse. My conclusion to my experiments would be a question, since I cannot be certain without fancy test equipment, to a pool of knowledge such as here to find some sort of consensus. I hold faint hope for this, but here goes: 'do edges formed from consolidated sharpening such as I have observed with _FINE_ oilstones last longer than finely abraded ones, due to micro work hardening of the edge?

To have any hope of finding an answer, there needs to be Input from woodworkers who actively use both methods and have the objectivity to tell if there is any difference to edges made in these ways. Reliable, measurable consistency will be needed, if any conclusions can be made.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

Would you strop after the fine oilstone? How do you remove any remnants of the burr?

Oilstones seem to have carser grit then the manmade ones, but the shape of the grit is quite different. It is not so much the grit itself that does the grinding, but its sharp corners. In manmade stones, AlOx for example, these edges are larger and more agressive. A Belgium hone has a quite large grain size, but these grains are very round, so they don't act like large ones. Grit with very sharp edges can really cut the steel, while the rounder ones are more or less plowing through the steel. All this makes oilstones acting finer then their gritsize suggests, especiallywhen they wear in and the grit particels get rounded over more and more.

Is this plowing effect in the steel what you mean with consolidated sharpening?


----------



## woodbrains (21 Apr 2014)

Corneel":12kkn8j6 said:


> Is this plowing effect in the steel what you mean with consolidated sharpening?



Hello,

Yes, I think we are talking about the same thing. However, I do maintain that the oil stones need to be fine (as they can be for oilstones) as abrasive particles that are too large will leave big sctatches, just with rounded bottoms, if you pardon the expression. At some point, the particles will be fine enough to make fine enough scratches that the roundness of the abrasives will then fill in the ploughed furrows, if you like, with steel in its plastic state. There is only so far the plastic state can be moved, so over a certain grit size, this will not happen and the abrasion is more significant than the consolidation.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (21 Apr 2014)

I think I understand what you mean. A plowing particle will create walls of steel ahead of the particel and to the sides. If the particle is small enough these sidewalls could fill in the groove, behind the particle, they just spring back. At least, that would be a hypothesis. Pretty difficult to prove without a scanning electron microscope.

Regaring your idea about a test, it's worthwhile to experiment a bit. But I am not sure yet how you would measure wear. If there is a difference at all between fine manmade and fine oilstones, the difference will be small, I guess. And which ones do you compare? Black Arkansas against which grit of waterstone?


----------



## woodbrains (21 Apr 2014)

Hello,

I don't think we need be too specific, just a subjective test, from a lot of people would show some sort of consensus. I think hard Arky is about 9 micron and 8000 Japanese stone is about 1.2. But is my contention (yours too, I guess) that the consolidation of the oilstone gives an apparent level of finer sharpening, then I think comparing the two would be fair enough. I do not know what my slate is particle size wise, but. Think it is comparable to fine Arkansas. Stropping after the oilstones would have to be a separate sub test. I think off the stones is a good start, to give a feel as to if there is a greater longevity to edges, or not, attained by oilstone consolidation. If there is, it is likely to be due to micro work hardening, I could not think what else it could be, but I'm open to suggestions.

Obviously the test would need to be done with the same brand if tools, too.

Mike.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Apr 2014)

Couple of things.

Firstly, an observation. A few months ago I bought a 'Dragon's Tongue' hone fron Inigo Jones - a Welsh mica slate stone. It's given me the finest edges I've ever been able to produce; better than a stropped edge. The technique I used was to hone on a fine Norton India until I had a good wire edge, then move to the slate (lubricated with the same oil as the India) and using a very slightly higher honing angle than on the India stone, draw the edge back along the stone five or six times. Then turn over, back off by drawing the tool backwards once, then turn over again and draw the edge back again once, then the flat face once, then the bevel once and repeat about six times in all. That's it. I can't explain the theory, but by heck the edge is keen after that.

Second, a bit of engineering theory, which might inform the debate. Most metals behave like elastic up to a point (the yield point) and plastically beyond it to the point where the metal breaks - 'fails catastrophically' - at it's ultimate point. In the case of hardened tool steels, the elastic range is large compared to the plastic, but there is still a plastic range. That range will be greater the more the steel is tempered back from full hardness, though will not be anywhere near the range of the same steel in it's annealed (soft) condition.

So in sharpening a tool using an abrasive (which is effectively lots of little very hard cutting tools) some plastic deformation of the steel will take place between abrasive and abraded surface. The exact nature of that deformation will in all probability vary greatly depending on the particular conditions.


----------



## CStanford (21 Apr 2014)

At some microscopic level I'm sure that even the type of stone lubricant matters. That's a bridge a bit too far for me. I do know what a burr looks like when peeled off and laid onto a stone as a whole. It doesn't happen often but when it does it looks more like Jacob's description than anybody else's.

I do know that the resulting edge is very sharp (by use, not microscopic examination) as long as one doesn't strop too much or too heavily and ruin it. Two or three strokes down the strop is enough in this instance.


----------



## Vann (21 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":37ee892g said:


> Anyway, years ago I bought a Welsh mica slate polishing stone. There was in the literature info on honing with the stone and there was reference to steel consolidation. I seem to have read similar about Translucent and Black Arkansas stones also. Over the years of using these, I have noticed that there seems to be a finer edge attainable than the grit size of the abrasive should logically allow. This must be due to steel consolidation. It is a phenomenon that I have not observed with Japanese waterstones. I would contend that friable abrasives 'cut' to a fine edge and non-friable ones consolidate to a fine edge. There is an amount of both going on, of course, but coarser oilstones abrade more and have little if any consolidation taking place, the finer the oil stones the more significant the consolidation becomes. There are references in books, to taking longer on the finest oil stone being a good thing. I interpret this as to allow the movement of metal to take place.


I interpret what you've written as suggesting a _burnished_ finish. Very interesting.

So a consolidated (burnished) finish from a slower cutting stone would give a better wearing edge than the raw abraded edge from a faster cutting waterstone. That would give a whole new outlook to fine sharpening :idea: 

So finally, after ploughing through 8 pages of bickering (I was about to give up on the thread - only visited for the entertainment (hammer) ), I've learnt something new. Thanks.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## woodbrains (21 Apr 2014)

Vann":1quzp6vs said:


> So a consolidated (burnished) finish from a slower cutting stone would give a better wearing edge than the raw abraded edge from a faster cutting waterstone. That would give a whole new outlook to fine sharpening :idea:
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



Hello,

The better wearing edge is only a feeling I've got, but not a theoretical one entirely. Over more than 30 years of sharpening, I have a notion that there is some sort of longer lasting edge from a consolidated sharpening than a purely abraded one. It is just that there are so many variables from blade to blade and in working characteristics from wood etc. etc. that I think it has yet to be conclusively proved. Could even one woodworkers lifetime be a big enough survey to prove a point, unless one goes down the route of making the test the sole objective. I want to work wood not test steel exclusively, which is why other perspectives might show a trend.

The dragons tongue stones, I suspect, are the same as the one I have used for many years. They are very good indeed. They give a keen edge, quicker than translucent Arkansas and without the rapid wear of the Japanese waterstone. It is a happy medium of speed and low maintenance and I think gives a really long lasting edge.

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (22 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":ciu0higm said:


> I seem to have read similar about Translucent and Black Arkansas stones also. Over the years of using these, I have noticed that there seems to be a finer edge attainable than the grit size of the abrasive should logically allow. This must be due to steel consolidation. It is a phenomenon that I have not observed with Japanese waterstones. I would contend that friable abrasives 'cut' to a fine edge and non-friable ones consolidate to a fine edge.



It would (surely?) require a very careful and subtle experiment to tell the difference between a fine abrasive making a smooth surface and a fine compound(?) consolidating a surface into smoothness, especially since the resulting shiny surfaces are difficult
to micrograph without very special lighting or a SEM.

It is common experience that finer abrasives make smoother surfaces (no dung Sherlock!). To prove that a fine abrasive is making a smoother surface than expected from the grit size would require a _quantitative_ experiment, which sounds (and I use a technical term) "tricky". It is well known that while grit size is the most important factor in edge generation, many other factors have an effect (particle shape, bonding, lubricant etc)

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (22 Apr 2014)

Vann":3ci1i4mq said:


> So a consolidated (burnished) finish from a slower cutting stone would give a better wearing edge than the raw abraded edge from a faster cutting waterstone. That would give a whole new outlook to fine sharpening :idea:



It's interestingly analagous to what chefs and butchers (in Europe) do with a coarse sharpening stone and a smooth(*) steel.

BugBear

(*) a proper steel is NOT a file. Don't be fooled by some of the crud offered in the cookware section of your local department store


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":fntev286 said:


> ....
> The better wearing edge is only a feeling I've got, but not a theoretical one entirely. Over more than 30 years of sharpening, I have a notion that there is some sort of longer lasting edge from a consolidated sharpening than a purely abraded one. It is just that there are so many variables from blade to blade and in working characteristics from wood etc. etc. that I think it has yet to be conclusively proved. Could even one woodworkers lifetime be a big enough survey to prove a point, unless one goes down the route of making the test the sole objective. I want to work wood not test steel exclusively, which is why other perspectives might show a trend.....


It (whatever it is) will never be proved, for the reason you give (too many variables) and also because it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the practical needs of a working woodworker i.e. sharpening isn't much of a problem. 
No need to devote a woodworkers lifetime to the topic - we have the experience of generations/millions of woodworkers to fall back on. 
Personally I think this thread has reached escape velocity and is well on the way to another planet!


----------



## woodbrains (22 Apr 2014)

Hello,

Ahh, but Jacob, of all the millions of past woodworkers from which to draw knowledge, no one that I am aware of, has ever put forward the idea that sharpening on certain media might actually increase the longevity of the sharpened edge. It is clear, despite resistance from a few here, that metal is persuaded to move about, whilst in a plastic state. Couldn't this work harden the edge? Bending a piece of steel causes the same plastic state, the grains are moved and realigned, and the steel at the bend is hardened enough to prevent it being bent back. The reason I am not saying it definitely hapens is because I only feel there has been a tendancy for fine oilstone sharpened tools to hold their edges longer. I thought up the idea of work hardening to explain what I was experiencing. Since I know quite well that Bugbear is correct in his assumption that a quantitative test would be needed and would be 'tricky' I was hoping for a few others who might have experienced similar to explain what they have observed.

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (22 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":1f1krnnb said:


> Hello,
> 
> Ahh, but Jacob, of all the millions of past woodworkers from which to draw knowledge, no one that I am aware of, has ever put forward the idea that sharpening on certain media might actually increase the longevity of the sharpened edge.



Well, there's this careful experiment, by the UK Forest Products Research Lab.

http://www.amgron.clara.net/page72.html

But I think the experimental design assumes that grit size is an adequate measure.

It does show that finer edges do last longer,
which is a slightly counter intuitive but very gratifying result.

BugBear


----------



## MMUK (22 Apr 2014)

May as well break out the BBQ and the popcorn guys, this one's going for a while.....


----------



## Corneel (22 Apr 2014)

So, I could look up some interesting articles today on burr formation. The most interesting one is this one:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S000785060760...t=1398150907_6565a83e1710f5de5d6a90a1c8c94608

If you can't download the PDF, but are still very much interested, send me a PM.

They studied burr formation when using a reciprocating surface grinder. A big grinding wheel is penduling over the top surface of a metal block. One thing completely different from our use is that they actually leave the surface with the grinding wheel, while we keep the iron all the time in contact with the grinding stone. Another difference is the much higher speed and higher temperatures, despite the use of coolant.

I don't understand everything, but plastic zones play a role. The metal becomes plasticy and can be smeared out. This plastic zone is increased under higher temperatures.

An interesting sentence from the article:
A section at the end of the exit edge, which is theoretically removed by the wheel depth of cut, remains at the edge. The burr is develloped mainly by this uncut section.

So, in other words, the small bit at the very edge isn't removed by grinding, but becomes plastic and is elongated, out of reach from the grinding wheel and folds over the edge. 

Another factor is the angle of the edge. The very acute angle we are grinding gives much less support, so burrs are larger.

The high temperatures at the edge, due to the grinder speed cause local hardening. This means that the edge reaches temperatures above 800 degrees. I don't believe that is a factor in grinding an iron on a sharpening stone by hand. Not even on an oil stone, where the fluid cools much less effective then on a waterstone.

I think everyone was a little bit correct and a little bit wrong in explaining the burr. Some part of the formation of the burr comes from moving metal from the bevel side through plastic deformation. But the acute angle of the edge also leads to a larger burr, through lack of support, so some material from the edge itself is bended too.

Any way, I think we can safely conclude that you can feel the burr before enough material is removed to form a perfect pointy edge. But that is unavoidable, the burr is a serious deformation of the edge, and grinding for a longer time isn't going to change that. The only way to reach an aproximation of a perfect point edge is using finer abrassives.


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":34n9gur7 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Ahh, but Jacob, of all the millions of past woodworkers from which to draw knowledge, no one that I am aware of, has ever put forward the idea that sharpening on certain media might actually increase the longevity of the sharpened edge. ...


I think they would have hit on it by now, if there was any practical value in the idea. 
They have of course put a lot of effort into increase the longevity of the sharpened edge mainly by metallurgical development and design details such as laminating, right from day one (end of the stone age).


----------



## woodbrains (22 Apr 2014)

> But I think the experimental design assumes that grit size is an adequate measure.
> 
> It does show that finer edges do last longer,
> which is a slightly counter intuitive but very gratifying result.
> ...



Hello,

I realise finer edges last longer, I have always thought so, but I'm actually talking about the stone possibly modifying the grain structure of the steel to add hardness, too.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (22 Apr 2014)

Jacob":kf67y1qp said:


> I think they would have hit on it by now, if there was any practical value in the idea.
> They have of course put a lot of effort into increase the longevity of the sharpened edge mainly by metallurgical development and design details such as laminating, right from day one (end of the stone age).



Hello,

You are assuming things are static and nothing new can be found, which is a narrow minded point to make. Metallurgical development is advancing continually, so why can't we? After all, very few of us actually still use steel as it was 100 years ago except for the antique tool users, no modern steel is like it used to be. We all have to advance as new products advance.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":22bhe1he said:


> Jacob":22bhe1he said:
> 
> 
> > I think they would have hit on it by now, if there was any practical value in the idea.
> ...


OK Mike - let us know when you get there!


----------



## MIGNAL (22 Apr 2014)

I use steel from over 100 years ago. I use steel made a few months ago. I don't notice much difference at all. Get the things sharp and off you go!


----------



## CStanford (22 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":2k2qefyz said:


> Jacob":2k2qefyz said:
> 
> 
> > I think they would have hit on it by now, if there was any practical value in the idea.
> ...



Mike, but what does this advancement actually look like in the context of a serious hobbyist's or professional shop? As far as I can tell it means spending more money on highly engineered sharpening media combined with much more intricate methodologies - multiple bevels, back bevels, etc. While the edges may last marginally longer, I don't believe there is any proof that the surface quality achieved, on an actual article of furniture, is any better than that of 250 years ago. 

Edge longevity is being oversold because it's the only thing to sell. And improvements in it are clearly at the margin, regardless of what the tool manufacturers and their advance-men tout. One usually spends more time sharpening these new steels or is forced to buy new media to sharpen it. Seems like practically a wash to me.


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2014)

I think edge longevity has become a priority since sharpening itself became so prolonged. All that effort and the thing needs doing again a few minutes later!
No prob for a trad sharpener* but hell if you've got to get all your kit out, flatten stones, etc etc. :lol: :lol: 

*no prob, even a good thing to keep having to freshen up an edge, as long as it's easy to do.


----------



## Racers (22 Apr 2014)

The quest for knowledge is a good thing, admittedly some times it can focus on a very narrow field but that's still a good thing.

So I hope this thread dose carry on in the recent vein, its very thought provoking and interesting.

Pete


----------



## woodbrains (22 Apr 2014)

CStanford":1pix7ehh said:


> Mike, but what does this advancement actually look like in the context of a serious hobbyist's or professional shop? As far as I can tell it means spending more money on highly engineered sharpening media combined with much more intricate methodologies - multiple bevels, back bevels, etc. While the edges may last marginally longer, I don't believe there is any proof that the surface quality achieved, on an actual article of furniture, is any better than that of 250 years ago.
> 
> Edge longevity is being oversold because it's the only thing to sell. And improvements in it are clearly at the margin, regardless of what the tool manufacturers and their advance-men tout. One usually spends more time sharpening these new steels or is forced to buy new media to sharpen it. Seems like practically a wash to me.



Hello,

Despite others commenting to the contrary,(how do they know?) mine and most people's sharpening regimen is quite simple. I use 2 stones and a grinder. I started with oilstones and then switched to Japanese waterstones. Still just 2 stones. I don't want to go down the line of debating sharpening stones, this has been done ad nauseum. But don't mistake a questioning attitude with unnecessary complication.

I also use old tools and lots of different new steels too. There are subtle and noticeable differences in them all. For instance A2 steel does produce a more tenacious burr than old cast steel or T10 or O1. Ultimately it does not matter too much, my method of removing the burr leaves a clean, sharp edge, but the difference is there and it does indicate performance differences in the steel. 

Mike.


----------



## bugbear (22 Apr 2014)

Jacob":bma2t7p0 said:


> I think edge longevity has become a priority since sharpening itself became so prolonged. All that effort and the thing needs doing again a few minutes later!
> No prob for a trad sharpener* but hell if you've got to get all your kit out, flatten stones, etc etc. :lol: :lol:
> 
> *no prob, even a good thing to keep having to freshen up an edge, as long as it's easy to do.



In order to help you, I'll gladly swap an ordinary 2" Stanley plane blade
for your laminated one (Smoothcut or Samurai I imagine) - I'll even pay the postage.

I'd hate to think of you missing out on all that "freshening" due to
having an edge with unnecessary longevity.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (22 Apr 2014)

bugbear":2nxubkqb said:


> Jacob":2nxubkqb said:
> 
> 
> > I think edge longevity has become a priority since sharpening itself became so prolonged. All that effort and the thing needs doing again a few minutes later!
> ...


You've missed the point somewhat. The laminated Smoothcut, Record, Stanley, etc speed up sharpening by having softer metal behind. Really noticeable with the Smoothcut - as you dip the blade the soft backing really drags on the stone as a lot of metal is (more easily) removed.
And the second reason modern sharpening is more prolonged is the fashion for pointlessly thick blades.


----------



## bugbear (22 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1x0u7pag said:


> bugbear":1x0u7pag said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1x0u7pag said:
> ...



In my experience the edges on the Japanese blades greatly outlast the edges ordinary Record/Stanley, hence my friendly and helpful offer.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (22 Apr 2014)

BugBear[/quote]
You've missed the point somewhat. The laminated Smoothcut, Record, Stanley, etc speed up sharpening by having softer metal behind. [/quote]

In my experience the edges on the Japanese blades greatly outlast the edges ordinary Record/Stanley, hence my friendly and helpful offer.

BugBear[/quote]

Honing and stropping an edge that has just gone off takes two to three minutes, tops. Let's say you save four of these rehonings per working day by having Japanese blades (or the new steels) whose edges "last longer." That's a savings of less than fifteen minutes per working day. 

Other than for a rare few, I frankly doubt that anybody planes that continuously, day in and day out, for any of this to even come into play on a realistic basis.

Edge longevity is oversold. It is being put forth as a quality marker when in fact none of these steels take a better edge, if even as good an edge, as plain high-carbon steel. It's all sales puffery. People are being sold edge longevity when they don't even use the tools enough for it to matter. And even if they did it still doesn't matter. They would barely save enough time for one good smoke break or break for tea. It's all so silly.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Apr 2014)

Just thinking out loud, as it were.

I wonder if the particle shape of the abrasive has a significant effect? 

A stone made up of hard, sharp-edged particles would tend to act mostly as a cutting tool, shearing metal off the sharpened surface, leaving gullies and peaks on the abraded surface. A stone made of hard, rounded particles wouldn't cut so much, it would burnish a sharpened surface by smearing metal (plastic deformation) - perhaps tending to compress the high points left by the previous stone into the gullies it leaves as well.

So, whilst the abrasive particles of the two stones may be of similar size, the two stones would behave very differently in sharpening, and give different edge qualities. One rather cut and ragged, the other more burnished or polished.


----------



## Richard T (23 Apr 2014)

So ... Danny, how are your chisels coming on?


----------



## DannyEssex (23 Apr 2014)

Richard T":gnk1pztj said:


> So ... Danny, how are your chisels coming on?



I got lost by page 7 :|  I am going to get a bench grinder and do as suggested. Im in no rush though


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

That's a pitty, it just started to become interesting after page 7!


----------



## bugbear (23 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2x1dqbze said:


> Just thinking out loud, as it were.
> 
> I wonder if the particle shape of the abrasive has a significant effect?



Yes - particle shape is probably second in importance to particle size.

What's surprising is how non-edged the particles are, and yet how effectively the cutting action
is. Counter-intuitive, which is always interesting.

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2ztyl1yn said:


> Just thinking out loud, as it were.
> 
> I wonder if the particle shape of the abrasive has a significant effect?
> 
> ...



Hello,

This is part of what I've been driving at; the fact that some stones sharpen finer than their particle size would suggest. Cal it burnishing, consolidation or whatever, there is obviously a movement of the steel and a smoothing element in the sharpening with such stones.

I have thought about it some more, and my idea of this causing work hardening might not be the only explanation as to why there might be a better edge retention to the tool. There might be some sort of healing effect. I have said in previous posts, and bugbear on this thread has highlighted an article which says the same; but micro fractures at the sharp end is the cause for the edge dulling in use. Essentially these fractures are stress raisers, which allow the steel to further break down in use. The reason finer stones give a longer lasting edge is due to the fact that these fractures are smaller than ones produced by the less fine stone. (After a little use of the tool, the sharper one will get to the same level of less-keenness as the one which was slightly less sharp to begin with, but the finer fractures on the first will keep it lasting longer from this point onwards)

Now what if the stone with rounded abrasive, giving the consolidation effect, actually moves the steel to fill in some of these fractures, essentially healing the stress raisers somewhat, and this is what imparts the longevity. Consolidation is the perfect word for the effect, if this is the case.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

I'm not so sure about the fractures being the major cause for edge dulling. As far as I can see, a worn edge is very rounded. When you get nicks in the edge, you should enlarge the sharpening angle. A well wearing toolsteel in a handplane with a large enough sharpening angle shows very rounded shapes after using it a lot. In my opinion, abrasion is the main cause of edge dulling.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Apr 2014)

Danny started the thread to ask a perfectly sensible question, which received some perfectly sensible and satisfactory answers. The conversation then morphed into a 'my method of sharpening is better than yours and you're an silly person for not doing it my way' phase (which didn't interest me) and then further morphed into a 'we know it works, but why and how does it work?' phase which is rather more interesting.

Mankind has evolved his knowledge fast since the stone age. Part of the reason for this, particularly in the last couple of centuries, is that some people were prepared to ask 'why'. Through that questioning and investigation, they often found better ways of doing it. If everybody had been content to just accept what works with no care as to why, we'd still be in the stone age.

I fully accept that some people have a way of honing edge tools that works for them to their satisfaction, and they really don't particularly care why or how it works. Fine - don't bother reading this thread, then. But I'm quite interested in why it works, and how. I think it's a legitimate subject for discussion, even if we don't answer all the questions.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Corneel":iilumeda said:


> I'm not so sure about the fractures being the major cause for edge dulling. As far as I can see, a worn edge is very rounded. When you get nicks in the edge, you should enlarge the sharpening angle. A well wearing toolsteel in a handplane with a large enough sharpening angle shows very rounded shapes after using it a lot. In my opinion, abrasion is the main cause of edge dulling.



Hello,

There is plenty of documentary evidence to explain that the fractures are the cause of edge dulling. Unless you are talking about exotic timbers with significant silica content, there is very little in wood which is abrasive enough to dull steel. It is the steel failing due to stress which is part of the reason. Once the steel fails a bit, heat will build up and as I understand it the steel actually loses hardness locally ( the temper is actually drawn) and then the dulling becomes more rapid. The sharper the tool initially, the less heat is generated and the edge lasts longer. The rounding over is the last phase in the dulling process. But then again, you are reinforcing the fact that steel will move in a plastic state , it is just not as helpful during blunting the tool as when sharpening.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

What documentary? The stuff I have been reading is quite universally agreeing about abrassion. In some kinds of wood chemical abrassion plays a role, especially with carbide cutters, but that is hardly interesting for us.

A good summary of a lot of research in the fireld of wood cutting and tool wear is: Klamecki, A review of wood cutting tool wear literature.
Edge wear is all about abrasion, yes, even in wood which seems to be so soft compared to steel.

Catastrophic edge failure with cracks and nicks is the result of poor tool selection or use.


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

Another reference:
http://www.ncsu.edu/bioresources/Bi...y_Review_Wood_Machining_Focus_Sawing_3847.pdf

"Abrassive wear plays the largest role in the edge recessionof tools"
"Further study has shown that the silica residue within the wood cell walls plays a very small role"

If you can't read these documents, then send me a PM with your email and I'll send you a copy.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Hello,

Not 'a documentary', evidence in document form, there is plenty on the Internet. 

The word micro fracture is salient here, I'm not talking about ones that can be seen because of too low a sharpening angle, or whatever. I mean fractures in the grain structure of the steel. 

What do you think abrasion means? There is a mechanism to it on the microscopic level. A soft material can only abrade a harder one if there is some defect in the hard one to allow the particle failure. The micro fractures being stress raising points is part of the mechanism. Abrasion is just a word unless you define the mechanism that is causing it.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Hello,

I was not talking of silica in the cell walls, either, I was referring to exotics that actuall have silica crystal inclusions throughout the wood itself. I had already inferred that the wood we normally see is too soft for that to be significant.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

Do you have any pointers?


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

A quick search reveals load sof studies to cemented tungsten carbide tools. The main wear mechanism seems to be removal of the cobalt biner between the carbide cristals, indeed through mechanical wear and micro cracking. In wet wood chemical attack of the steel plays an important role. And high silica content increases the mechanical wear. High temperatures are weaking the steel, but I don't think that plays a role in handtools

But I can't find anything yet about carbon tool steels. Handtools don't use cemented tungsten carbide.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Corneel":3ovzk2u7 said:


> A quick search reveals load sof studies to cemented tungsten carbide tools. The main wear mechanism seems to be removal of the cobalt biner between the carbide cristals, indeed through mechanical wear and micro cracking. In wet wood chemical attack of the steel plays an important role. And high silica content increases the mechanical wear. High temperatures are weaking the steel, but I don't think that plays a role in handtools
> 
> But I can't find anything yet about carbon tool steels. Handtools don't use cemented tungsten carbide.



Hello,

You just wrote this, why do you not believe it. You can't just write a whole load of stuff, which is all I have been saying, and decide it does not apply. Why do you not think it applies to hand tools? You can't just have doubts without foundation, we are not dealing with magic here. The forces and temperatures generated at the tiny cutting tip of a hand plane or whatever is absolutely immense. In the order of tons or even hundreds of tons per square inch. Just because some cutting tools are attached to spinny things is really not that relevant. Nor is the braze on TCT tools. That is completely out of any context here.

Mike.

Translated from hedgehog to something approximating English in the edit!


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

Wait a moment, I'm completely confused at the moment. Not arguing, just looking for information. Micro cracking is indeed a mechanism in cemented tungsten carbide tool wear. But carbon tools teel isn't the same. So I am looking around trying to find all the documentary evidence you wrote about.

(But I have to do some real work first).


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2014)

Corneel":1fv54u8b said:


> Wait a moment, I'm completely confused at the moment. ...


Really?


woodbrains":1fv54u8b said:


> ..... The forces and temperatures generated at the tiny clotting tip of a hand plane or ........
> re attached to spiny things ....
> Mike.


Wos this "clotting" tip? 
"Spiney things" - are we talking hedgehogs?

We have arrived at another planet! I knew we would. It's planet Steampunk.
Seriously though, "steampunk" is 90% of modern sharpening. The other 10% is hedgehogs.

Have you seen the Veritas Mk III yet? Being demo'd here by woodbrains:


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Hello,

He is using his eye lenses to detect micro fractures on a newly sharpened edge. :lol: 

Jacob, you should like steampunk. They have a preference for red metals over iron. They truly are in the Bronze Age.

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Apr 2014)

I think context is very important. I'm not sure you can make the leap of saying spindle moulder or router tooling, their uses and steels translates to hand tools. It might but evidence would be useful.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Hello,

Sorry that I don't keep a bibliography of everything I have read all my life, so I can prove what I say, but there it is. I have read things about carbon steel having micro fractures which is the point at which abrasive wear begins. I do not make stuff up, so I don't see why my word is not good enough. Fine to find stuff out for yourselves, but the assumption that I am wrong without offering reasons why is argumentative. For the sake of the discussion, we could just just assume that I have read and relayed the info and we can get back with the idea that sharpening media can affect the longevity of cutting tools.

I still don't see why a spindle cutter will dull any differently than anything else. Perhaps a variation in degree, but a completely different mechanism altogether is not likely. Micro fractures in the grain structure of metals exist, the wood is the same, the colossal forces at the cutter tip are of similar order. Why do we feel that hand tools will behave differently? And if so, someone else prove it, I have read what I have read.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

A handplane excerts something like 0.5 kgf per mm on the cutting edge. We are happy if we can take a 0.1 mm thick shaving at 1 meter/second.

A router rotates at 14000 rpm. Say, we have a bit with a 4 cm circumference. That translates to 10 meter/second. You can easilly take a shaving 10 times as thick. So the total force at the cutting edge might be 100 times as large.

No idea how that translates to pressure at the micron level. 
Tungsten carbide is quite a bit more wear resistant then carbon steel of course.

So, who knows, Mike might be right after all!  
Cracking tool steel. And when the grooves made by sharpening are less deep and less abrupt, that means less stress on the carbides. 

I still would like to see all the evidence on the Internet though.


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Apr 2014)

No need to apologize. I just like to understand things clearly. Most spindle machine tooling is carbide or HSS, it spins quickly and can often take very deep cuts. HSS and Carbide are not often found in hand tools which work under less pressure. I found it hard to draw exact parallels between the two. Yes they both remove wood but in a different fashion. I'm not saying you're wrong, some evidence might be good if anyone can find some.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Corneel":1s6v7tjs said:


> A handplane excerts something like 0.5 kgf per mm on the cutting edge. We are happy if we can take a 0.1 mm thick shaving at 1 meter/second.
> 
> A router rotates at 14000 rpm. Say, we have a bit with a 4 cm circumference. That translates to 10 meter/second. You can easilly take a shaving 10 times as thick. So the total force at the cutting edge might be 100 times as large.
> 
> ...



Hello,

This is more like it, some logical progression, not just random disbelief :shock: 

The rate of cut is not relevant here, this would be good for comparing abrasion resistance in one material to another, but not indicated in pressure at the cutter tip. I don't think shaving thickness has everything to do with this either, that indicates the power of the motor doing the pushing. I am not strong enough to make a 1 mm thick shaving with a hand plane, but a horse might; the cutter is capable of doing it, for sure. And who knows if a spindle is making a 1 mm cut, or just cutting to the depth of 1 mm in lots of little bites? My spindle makes confetti not matchsticks. The thickness of the shaving might have an effect on the pressure at the extreme edge of the cutter, but this is hard to calculate since a lot of the pressure will be exerted elsewhere on the cutter or chip breaker or whatever. From an observational point of view wood is cut by machine or hand tool in the same order of size of chips and so I think it may be sensible to contend that the cutters undergo similar amounts of pressure. I do think abrasion can be compared within reason as far as the edge of the tool is concerned.

Mike.


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":3dts6o4r said:


> From an observational point of view wood is cut by machine or hand tool in the same order of size of chips and so I think it may be sensible to contend that the cutters undergo similar amounts of pressure.



That's interesting. My extraction bags have quite a different size and type of chip when compared to my hand tool sweepings.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

G S Haydon":21ylzq1o said:


> woodbrains":21ylzq1o said:
> 
> 
> > From an observational point of view wood is cut by machine or hand tool in the same order of size of chips and so I think it may be sensible to contend that the cutters undergo similar amounts of pressure.
> ...



Hello,

But still in the same order of size, I think you'll agree, not like a pebble to a brick, or a brick to a house. All chips can be measured in tenths of mm.

The power of machines is more to do with the size of the cutter it pushes than the size of the chips produced. My planer has a 12 inch cutter. I cannot push a plane with a 12 inch iron even if the shaving is tissue thin. The planer has the power to plane a 12 inch wide board, but he shavings are not mm's thick even if it removes that much material. They are the same order of thickness.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (23 Apr 2014)

Speed is higher in powertools, which makes quite a difference in temperature. They use completely different toolsteels. Rake angles and sharpening angles are different. Just saying, always be carefull with comparing things. Another important aspect, powertool edges are sharpened with relatively coarse abrassives. Handtool owners usually take the extra effort to use a highr grit waterstone, or a strop with or without a polishing compound. Powertools are just grinded. That gives much coarser scratches, so also, maybe, more trouble with micro fracturing.

I am still not convinced that abrasive wear isn't a major factor in handtool edge wear. For several reasons. It is mentioned in every single article about toolwear in wood cutting. Not as just a word, but as a mechanism, contrasted with adhesive wear, chemical wear and fracturing. I read somewhere (forgot which article) that there is never a single wear mechanism active, so I don't rule out micro fracturing either. Another reason why I think that abrasive wear is an important factor is the removal of tool steel relatively far away from the edge. On the face side, where the shavings are just rubbing over the steel, a lot of metal disappears and a deep wearbevel is created. Temperatures are certainly a lot less up there, and the steel isn't so vulnerable as at the edge. I don't think the minerals in the wood can grind the carbides, but I think they can do something with the iron molecules making up much of the volume of carbon tool steel.

Anyway, you have a hypothesis. According to your hypothesis, a natural stone like a hard Arkansas leads to meaningfully longer edge life then a 6000 or 8000 grit waterstone. Now we only need an experiment to valuate your hypothesis. Or not.


----------



## MIGNAL (23 Apr 2014)

Even if it does give a longer lasting edge it's probably very marginal and outweighed by the Arkansas taking longer to remove metal. 
I have a 8,000G waterstone, Arkansas, slate and a few others of very fine grit. If my experience was such that one of them resulted in edges that lasted significantly longer I'd be using that one particular stone. As it is I use my waterstone and when that is finally down to nothing I'll switch to my slate.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

MIGNAL":3lw3jqus said:


> Even if it does give a longer lasting edge it's probably very marginal and outweighed by the Arkansas taking longer to remove metal.
> I have a 8,000G waterstone, Arkansas, slate and a few others of very fine grit. If my experience was such that one of them resulted in edges that lasted significantly longer I'd be using that one particular stone. As it is I use my waterstone and when that is finally down to nothing I'll switch to my slate.



Hello,

You are right, if there was a big difference it would have jumped out at me and I would not need others experiences to verify, or disprove what I think. But then again, lots of different little improvements all add up to something worth having. Forged steel such as in Clifton plane irons have a bit of an advantage because of grain alignment and the thicker iron being stiffer a little more, so additively, there may make a big difference. Or not.



Corneel":3lw3jqus said:


> Speed is higher in powertools, which makes quite a difference in temperature. They use completely different toolsteels. Rake angles and sharpening angles are different. Just saying, always be carefull with comparing things. Another important aspect, powertool edges are sharpened with relatively coarse abrassives. Handtool owners usually take the extra effort to use a highr grit waterstone, or a strop with or without a polishing compound. Powertools are just grinded. That gives much coarser scratches, so also, maybe, more trouble with micro fracturing.
> 
> I am still not convinced that abrasive wear isn't a major factor in handtool edge wear. For several reasons. It is mentioned in every single article about toolwear in wood cutting. Not as just a word, but as a mechanism, contrasted with adhesive wear, chemical wear and fracturing. I read somewhere (forgot which article) that there is never a single wear mechanism active, so I don't rule out micro fracturing either. Another reason why I think that abrasive wear is an important factor is the removal of tool steel relatively far away from the edge. On the face side, where the shavings are just rubbing over the steel, a lot of metal disappears and a deep wearbevel is created. Temperatures are certainly a lot less up there, and the steel isn't so vulnerable as at the edge. I don't think the minerals in the wood can grind the carbides, but I think they can do something with the iron molecules making up much of the volume of carbon tool steel.
> 
> Anyway, you have a hypothesis. According to your hypothesis, a natural stone like a hard Arkansas leads to meaningfully longer edge life then a 6000 or 8000 grit waterstone. Now we only need an experiment to valuate your hypothesis. Or not.



This is all true, I never denied it. I only wanted to concentrate on the micro fracture aspect and the heat aspect of tool wear because it was pertinent to the notion of consolidation and smoothing I was toying with. The rest happen regardless and in whatever degrees in whatever tools. I don't want to get bogged down with the other effects that cannot be affected by the sharpening process. For instance, sharpening can have no bearing on the cutters speed so was disregarded, I don't think sharpening could have an influence on the adhesive effect of the material either, so again disregarded. At the moment the tool is sharp from the stone, what is its condition and is it different with different sharpening media, is what I want to know. If that tool is subsequently used to butcher meat, remove paint, shave hair, carve stone, neither I nor the sharpening gear care.

Mike.


Mike.


----------



## Jacob (23 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":18yz5vdf said:


> ...... lots of different little improvements all add up to something worth having. Forged steel such as in Clifton plane irons have a bit of an advantage because of grain alignment and the thicker iron being stiffer a little more, so additively, there may make a big difference. Or not.


Hmm I think not


> I have thought about it some more, and my idea of this causing work hardening might not be the only explanation as to why there might be a better edge retention to the tool. There might be some sort of healing effect.


Interesting. There have always been, in the course of human history, people who believe in the power of various stones to have impact on the treating of many ailments, be they mental, emotional or physical. 
Sharpening too?
Is this what Stonehenge is all about? A massive centre for tool healing? :shock: 
I'm going to get on down there and rub a Stanley against a blue stone at the earliest opportunity.







Has anybody considered sharpening and the phases of the moon? It could have a bearing on grain alignment.


----------



## woodbrains (23 Apr 2014)

Hello,

Nice editing for comic effect there, Jacob! But then you've never let context get in the way of how you choose to reply. :shock: 
Mike.


----------



## Richard T (23 Apr 2014)

It's nonsense of course.


Everybody knows it's pyramids that do that.


----------



## Harbo (23 Apr 2014)

Anyway the stones are fenced off!


----------



## iNewbie (23 Apr 2014)

Jacob":21agkvqr said:



> Is this what Stonehenge is all about? A massive centre for tool healing? :shock:



Yet they found no cure for you. :mrgreen:


----------



## Carl P (24 Apr 2014)

iNewbie":3nf4o9t0 said:


> Jacob":3nf4o9t0 said:
> 
> 
> > Is this what Stonehenge is all about? A massive centre for tool healing? :shock:
> ...




I hope you're not suggesting Jacob is a bit of a tool! Still, at least we know the true meaning of stonehenge - a giant sharpening jig, they certainly had impressive tools in those days.

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Corneel (24 Apr 2014)

Nice picture Jacob!


----------



## iNewbie (24 Apr 2014)

Who me, Carl? :lol: 

He knows I'm gesting. He's a touch rabid about sharpening though.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Apr 2014)

After a bit of reflection, I think we may have some difficulties finding academic studies of the behaviour of carbon and low-alloy steels (such as O1, A2 etc.) when ground or honed. The reason for this is that industry moved away from their use as machine cutters in the metal industries about a century ago, and their use as machine cutters in the woodworking industries declined several decades ago as well. Academic studies tend to be directed to areas where there could be economic benefit, and as the vast majority of both wood and metal are machine-worked, that's where the research grants will be directed - and they tend to use harder materials such as cemented carbide inserts and the fancier cermets, even increasingly for wood-machining. The poor old hand-tool industry is 'niche', and has been for many decades, so with the occasional exception like Rob Lee self-funding an objective comparison between potential hand-tool steels, there will be very little to find.

So how do we answer questions like those posed above? Not really sure, to be honest - but some investigation of basic steel metallurgy, and the structure and chemistry of man-made and naturally-occuring stones that make good hones may yield something.

The other option is to formulate and conduct experiments and investigations ourselves. Some may enjoy that challenge, but I'm afraid it's a step too far for me - I don't want to commit the time and resources it would need. I wish anybody that does good luck, though, and I'd be fascinated by any results that did emerge.


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2j7sa4fq said:


> .... The poor old hand-tool industry is 'niche', and has been for many decades, so with the occasional exception like Rob Lee self-funding an objective comparison between potential hand-tool steels, there will be very little to find.


Paul Sellers self funded video here- comparing different planes/steels and concluding that there's not much in it. We already know that, let's face it!


> So how do we answer questions like those posed above? .......
> The other option is to formulate and conduct experiments and investigations ourselves. ......


Every time we pick up and use/sharpen a tool this is an experiment/investigation. We are all at it! Unless/until someone can demonstrate an advantage or other phenomenon worth investigating, there is nothing new to investigate.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2dqf4he3 said:


> ..... there is nothing new to investigate.



Oh come on, Jacob! The fact that people were posing questions above that we couldn't give full answers to disproves that one!

Science is a very long way indeed from knowing everything.


----------



## Corneel (24 Apr 2014)

Jacob":28e2z3jk said:


> Cheshirechappie":28e2z3jk said:
> 
> 
> > .... The poor old hand-tool industry is 'niche', and has been for many decades, so with the occasional exception like Rob Lee self-funding an objective comparison between potential hand-tool steels, there will be very little to find.
> ...



That's gaining experience. Very important and usefull, but it is not a scientific experiment. Because it is not controlled and it is subjective. Results from scientific experiments are usually very dull, only measuring one small fact under very controlled circumstances. 

The Lee Valley tool steel experiment as presented to us was a nice bit of testing, but of course not objective science. The presentation is skewed to sell as much expensive PMV11 as possible. It is not openly presenting the results in such a way that it can be verified by other researchers. It's also not objective because they have a commercial interest.


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":hglhzbao said:


> Jacob":hglhzbao said:
> 
> 
> > ..... there is nothing new to investigate.
> ...


Which of the questions raised above would you investigate if you had the time and money, and why? 
Without trailing back through the thread I don't recall anything worth looking at too closely, just a lot of vague ideas and distinctly steampunk dialogue.
The point is - most planes work really well if they are set up well and sharpened by whatever method, whatever the steel (within reason).


----------



## MMUK (24 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2ok3inuf said:


> Without trailing back through the thread I don't recall anything worth looking at too closely, just a lot of vague ideas and distinctly steampunk dialogue.



Most of which are comments you've posted anyway :roll:


----------



## carlb40 (24 Apr 2014)

MMUK":3oc3rqjn said:


> Jacob":3oc3rqjn said:
> 
> 
> > Without trailing back through the thread I don't recall anything worth looking at too closely, just a lot of vague ideas and distinctly steampunk dialogue.
> ...


Which is always the same with any thread involving jacob. :evil:


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2014)

I get used being trailed around by the same little gang of trolls all the time. They never have anything interesting or useful to say - I don't know why they bother. Just a waste of space. Reminds me of being back in junior school.


----------



## Racers (24 Apr 2014)

So you have been a pineapple since junior school?

Pete


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2014)

There goes another one!


----------



## Racers (24 Apr 2014)

Well Jacob all the other forum members I have met have had the same opinion of you, you know your stuff but you are a right pain.

If you could just drop the latter things would be alot better round here, I might even take you off my ignore list!

Pete


----------



## Jacob (24 Apr 2014)

Please put me on your ignore list.


----------



## Racers (24 Apr 2014)

?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Apr 2014)

Corneel - you're quite right about Rob Lee's PMV-11 investigations, of course. It's not pure science, though it does seem to be about as close as anybody has come in recent years in the woodworking hand-tool field.

Jacob - if I did have unlimited time and money (ha ha!) to spend on scientific investigation, I'd look at what happens between a piece of toolsteel and a honing stone. What happens to the steel - pure abrasion, plastic deformation, or some combination of the two? - does abrasion happen by breaking of the grain boundaries, or are individual grains cut apart too? What is the effect of using different steels, or the same steel worked in different ways - multiple-strike forging, rolling, drop-forging or hydraulic pressing. I'd look at what happened to the abrasive, too; what's the influence of the abrasive, the bonding material, the different minerals in a natural stone. How exactly? Not really sure - start somewhere, and see where investigations led, I suppose. There might be some literature out there, but I haven't seen it yet.

Why? Curiosity, really. Like I said some posts ago, we know it works, but how and why? I rather doubt it would lead to much faster sharpening or better edges; such things would more than likely have been found by trial and error by now given the length of time craftsmen have been whapping tools up and down honing stones, but you never know. But - people keep making statements about tools and sharpening that have never really been properly investigated. For example, there was a slight difference of opinion in British Woodworking magazine a few months ago when David Savage stated his opinion that there has never been an equal to the old Sheffield tools for edge-taking ability. David Charlesworth begged to differ. It would be interesting to study things like that a bit, see if there's any facts to back up either's hunches. That's the beauty of science - you just never know for sure what you might find, and sometimes it might answer a few questions along those lines.


----------



## G S Haydon (24 Apr 2014)

Jacob"
The point is - most planes work really well if they are set up well and sharpened by whatever method said:


> Good point well made .


----------



## JimF. (24 Apr 2014)

+1 for Jacob. It would be much duller around here without him.
It was reading threads on sharpening that hooked me and kept me coming back to this forum. 

It's good to see the phony mystique blown away. There is an awful amount of self aggrandising twaddle spouted about sharpening - it really is not rocket science. It should be a means to an end, something to be mastered quickly so that you can get on with the interesting stuff. 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk


----------



## CStanford (24 Apr 2014)

Julian":2aqsyksu said:


> +1 for Jacob. It would be much duller around here without him.
> It was reading threads on sharpening that hooked me and kept me coming back to this forum.
> 
> It's good to see the phony mystique blown away. There is an awful amount of self aggrandising twaddle spouted about sharpening - it really is not rocket science. It should be a means to an end, something to be mastered quickly so that you can get on with the interesting stuff.
> ...



Phony mystique indeed. Great post!


----------



## Carl P (24 Apr 2014)

Julian":2aukdtek said:


> +1 for Jacob. It would be much duller around here without him.
> It was reading threads on sharpening that hooked me and kept me coming back to this forum.
> 
> It's good to see the phony mystique blown away. There is an awful amount of self aggrandising twaddle spouted about sharpening - it really is not rocket science. It should be a means to an end, something to be mastered quickly so that you can get on with the interesting stuff.
> ...




Quite agree, but I'm also interested in the science - not as just another way of saying 'nyah nyah na nyah nyah', but because it's interesting to know as well as do stuff.

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## AndyT (26 Apr 2014)

Wow!

I go away for a few days and now I see that this thread has not only grown to great length, it has managed to stay largely polite and find some new ground to wonder about and explore. I'm no metallurgist but I do want to have some idea in my head of what I am doing when I sharpen, so the discussion about how a grain of abrasive can move a tiny bit of steel is useful. The suggestion that a rounded grain will plough a groove by pushing metal aside is interesting and I can imagine it making an edge which is more coherent, with fewer tiny cracks where use will make it fail, becoming blunt.

It makes me wonder about yet another variable in different sharpening methods, the direction of rubbing, relative to the edge.

If you put a stone on the bench, short side towards you, and just push a chisel up and down the stone (away from and towards your body) all the sharpening scratches will be at right angles to the cutting edge.
If you move the chisel in a long figure of eight, some of the time you will be rubbing at less than ninety degrees to the edge. The tiny scratches, or the consolidation effect, will be along the cutting edge, like a butcher's knife sharpened on a steel. Maybe that makes a longer lasting sharp edge?

So maybe this is another variable worth experimenting on. I expect that rubbing at right angles to the edge is commonest. Wide stones (wider than a plane iron) make it look normal, as do big sheets of paper and jigs with long rollers.
But I do recall a video someone found of a Japanese sharpening jig where the blade was hitched to a post and swung from side to side in a large arc, so the rubbing was nearly parallel to the edge, and it seemed to work well.


----------



## MIGNAL (26 Apr 2014)

I think a figure eight pattern should result in scratches of multiple directions. Anyway, I abandoned figure of 8 sharpening years ago in favour of very short forward/backward strokes. The arm movement of the former being unnecessary complex. 
Certain blades (usually small thumb plane types) I do sharpen parallel. No idea if it results in a longer lasting edge, exactly the same or worse!. It's not night and day, that's for sure.


----------



## woodbrains (27 Apr 2014)

Hello,

I have been doing some research here and there, over the last few days and come up with a few interesting findings. I have bought a book on metalography too, so might find out a bit more when I have read that. 

There are a few surprising things in my initial search. It seems that almost nothing was known about the metalographical effect of abrading and polishing metal, until the 1950's, so any results obtained, good or bad, when honing tools prior to that was purely serendipitous. I'm afraid those who think that old methods are the best are slightly misguided. Some obviously were, but no one could tell why until recently, just because it was old, traditional and done by countless craftsmen does not guarantee it was effective. 

Polishing metal with abrasives on glass was documented to have been done first in about 1860. Essentially, 'scary sharp' is not a new fangled, fashion fad method of sharpening after all! 

The coarseness or fineness of sharpening abrasive has a lot to do with affecting the sub structure of steel. I'm not entirely sure until I find out more, but I think it has something to do with the plastic and elastic state of the steel during sharpening. Basically there is some sub surface distortion caused when sharpening which causes edge failure at some point. This damage is reduced with successive honing on finer grit. There is a point to sharpening with fine abrasives to gain longevity of the sharpened edge, not just getting it sharper to begin with.

Also, referencing another thread here which did not fully answer the question; micro bevels actually do have a point, other than speeding up (or over complicating depending on your view) honing the extreme edge. Increasing the angle of the last hone on the finest stone, should more effectively remove the sub surface damage of the steel, than honing on the bevel alone, so give the tool better edge retention. I don't think even David Charlesworth who actively uses multiple bevel sharpening, realised this fact on his explanation there.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains (27 Apr 2014)

Hello,

Forgot to mention, the point density of the abrasive used can have an effect on the sub surface damage. Abrasives of the same effective size, but more closely packed will cause less disruption than less densely packed ones. Perhaps this is why diamond hones always feel a bit coarser than they are rated to be. This might suggest that particle shape can have an effect also, but I have not found anything conclusive. Perhaps a round particle could cause less damage than a pyramid shaped one, of the same size, but I haven't found anything on this in detail. It may be that when particles get so small, there is little difference.

Mike.


----------



## Carl P (27 Apr 2014)

Mike,

Sounds fascinating - I'm very glad you're posting a 'digested read', it'll save my indigestion!

Looking forward to any updates,

Carl


----------



## MMUK (27 Apr 2014)

MIGNAL":2h45kfst said:


> I think a figure eight pattern should result in scratches of multiple directions.




Nah, sod that! You want a figure of 64 for ultimate sharpness :wink:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Apr 2014)

Interesting stuff, Mike. May I ask you to post any references or books you find with relevant information in?

On that note, this reference (whilst not exactly tool steels on the usual woodworker's abrasives) may offer some insights - http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/31706.pdf


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2014)

MMUK":1rfb9rj3 said:


> MIGNAL":1rfb9rj3 said:
> 
> 
> > I think a figure eight pattern should result in scratches of multiple directions.
> ...


Are you sure? I thought it was 42.


----------



## MIGNAL (27 Apr 2014)

Yes it's 42. 42 is the number of sharpening stones that I own. It's also the number of Planes that I have acquired. 42 is also the number of seconds it takes me to get ultimate sharpness, when all the atoms in the steel are in harmonious alignment thus giving me 42 seconds longer edge durability. 
42. It's a great number.


----------



## MMUK (27 Apr 2014)

64 is the number of hours before I can be bothered to re-sharpen my #5 iron :lol:


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2014)

MIGNAL":6upo8ixj said:


> Yes it's 42. 42 is the number of sharpening stones that I own. It's also the number of Planes that I have acquired. 42 is also the number of seconds it takes me to get ultimate sharpness, when all the atoms in the steel are in harmonious alignment thus giving me 42 seconds longer edge durability.
> 42. It's a great number.


Hmm, could be the answer to everything then?


----------



## CStanford (27 Apr 2014)

MIGNAL":dk3vw9j0 said:


> Yes it's 42. 42 is the number of sharpening stones that I own. It's also the number of Planes that I have acquired. 42 is also the number of seconds it takes me to get ultimate sharpness, when all the atoms in the steel are in harmonious alignment thus giving me 42 seconds longer edge durability.
> 42. It's a great number.



Words escape me...


----------



## bugbear (28 Apr 2014)

AndyT":dlugpdoq said:


> So maybe this is another variable worth experimenting on. I expect that rubbing at right angles to the edge is commonest. Wide stones (wider than a plane iron) make it look normal, as do big sheets of paper and jigs with long rollers.




Here's a side to side jig - the "Sharp Skate"

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Skate.html



AndyT":dlugpdoq said:


> But I do recall a video someone found of a Japanese sharpening jig where the blade was hitched to a post and swung from side to side in a large arc, so the rubbing was nearly parallel to the edge, and it seemed to work well.



Ooh, I dimly remember that. A nice user made bodge up, worked ok, but required a large amount of space to operate.

Can't (quickly) find the link.

BugBear


----------



## MMUK (28 Apr 2014)

Only 14 pages? Come on Jacob, you're slipping in yoru old age :lol:


----------



## Peter Sefton (28 Apr 2014)

14 pages and I haven't made a comment yet, if it gets to 18 I might start! but I am trying to not get sucked in. 
Peter


----------



## Jacob (28 Apr 2014)

We got the answer! It's 42. See above. No need for any more threads like this so we can stop at 42 pages. Just a few more to go.


----------



## woodbrains (28 Apr 2014)

Hello,

Krenov used to sharpen with a side to side action. I don't think he claimed to be unique in doing so. Perhaps he learned it when he trained in Sweden in Carl Malmsten's workshop. The College of the Redwoods certainly continue to show sharpening like this, though not exclusively. Funnily enough another method they favour is using short forward and backward strokes on the stone, which I favour when freehand sharpening.

Mike


----------



## charvercarver (28 Apr 2014)

I use a sort of side sharpening technique I got from a Krenov book. You rest the handle in your cupped right hand and press down behind the bevel with your left hand. The chisel (or whatever) pivots in your right hand while you make arcs across the stone with your left.


----------



## bugbear (29 Apr 2014)

woodbrains":g9p6s6zq said:


> Hello,
> 
> Krenov used to sharpen with a side to side action. I don't think he claimed to be unique in doing so. Perhaps he learned it when he trained in Sweden in Carl Malmsten's workshop. The College of the Redwoods certainly continue to show sharpening like this, though not exclusively. Funnily enough another method they favour is using short forward and backward strokes on the stone, which I favour when freehand sharpening.
> 
> Mike



Didn't the swiss planemaker in the video someone put up recently do side to side sharpneing?

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (29 Apr 2014)

bugbear":33rxz0qz said:


> Didn't the swiss planemaker in the video someone put up recently do side to side sharpneing?
> 
> BugBear



I was that someone, here https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/post862823.html#p862823 and he did have the oilstone 'sideways.' He moved the stone in something like a flat oval pattern, so yes, the action was more side to side than back and forth. Blink and you'll miss it!


----------



## bugbear (29 Apr 2014)

I just fell across this, which shows SEM photos of various sharpening techniques.

It's by Professor John Verhoeven.

www.bushcraftuk.com/downloads/pdf/knifeshexps.pdf

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (30 Apr 2014)

Serendipity; whilst searching for information on Carpentaire's coticule I found this series of photomicrographs
of an edge being sharpened.

http://jendeindustries.wordpress.com/20 ... ogression/

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains (30 Apr 2014)

Hello,

There is nothing truer than The phrase used on the last link; 'choose two out of the three-- fast, good, cheap'. It is certainly the case for woodwork sharpening systems, and I guess almost everything in life.

Fast, cheap sharpening will not be good; fast, good sharpening will not be cheap and good cheap sharpening will not be fast! Take your choice. :roll: 

The book on metallurgical abrasion and polishing came in the post yesterday. Only had a glance, but there seems to be some good stuff, when I digest it. The few bits I've skimmed tell me that there is always some sub surface damage during abrasion, the actual grain structure of the metal is destructively altered. I came across a phrase saying that method adopted of mechanical grinding and then subsequent manual abrading, should cause the least damage possible and this damage should be removed with subsequent stages, also minimising the new damage of each new stage. A long winded way of saying ' polish to a fine enough grit and don't make too big a leap between grits', I guess. When I get some time, I'll delve a bit more deeply. 

Incidentally, the book is called, Metallographic Polishing by Mechanical Methods, by Dr. L E Samuels.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (1 May 2014)

I suspect that there are more than a few characters in this thread that know more about sharpening and the associated metallurgy than the late great Alan Peters. Lesson in here somewhere?

Here's what happens when I rub a cutter's edge on a fine stone until I can feel a burr and then I strop the burr and the rag until I can no longer detect it by touch. 90 seconds worth of work, 120 seconds if the weather is nice and I look out the window a couple of times:

Bacon strip shaving up straight out of the mouth plucked out and laid on the board, cut clean and virtually tear-out free off highly figured rock maple (and I do mean "rock") with Record 4.5/Cliffy breaker with Hock iron. I didn't even bother to touch up the cutter (had been using the plane for twenty minutes or so). No back bevels, no Ruler Tricks, magnifying glass, or microscope, no multiple bevels on the front, no $400 thoroughbred Japanese honing stones, no fuss, no muss. No. 1 Washita to produce a burr in a few strokes (no reason to belabor moving through the bluntness). Black Arky to straighten it all up ('til the blade catches a thumbnail at a very low angle). Hard strop for a few strokes front and back. I can assure anyone reading this thread that the edges produced thusly (on plane irons, chisels, etc.) are serviceable at any time, any place, pro or amateur. This procedure leaves edges with little, if anything, to be desired.


----------



## wizard (1 May 2014)

if you need to ask how to sharpen a blade give up and take up knitting :lol:


----------



## bugbear (1 May 2014)

CStanford":2uw03hsz said:


> I suspect that there are more than a few characters in this thread that know more about sharpening and the attendant metallurgy than the late great Alan Peters. Lesson in here somewhere?



Well, I don't _need_ to sharpen at all, since woodworking is my hobby and pastime, not my job. I could stop anytime...

I enjoy knowing the _why_ of a thing something at least as much as knowing the _how_, and I enjoy knowing and comparing the _why_ of _multiple_ things most of all.

Other people's priorities may have a narrower focus than mine, to which they are (of course) welcome.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (1 May 2014)

bugbear":1fq2eisz said:


> CStanford":1fq2eisz said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that there are more than a few characters in this thread that know more about sharpening and the attendant metallurgy than the late great Alan Peters. Lesson in here somewhere?
> ...



Is the "narrower focus" sharpening up and moving on?


----------



## bugbear (1 May 2014)

CStanford":t3awjwpc said:


> bugbear":t3awjwpc said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":t3awjwpc said:
> ...



Perhaps you've misunderstood.

In my spare time I explore sharpening techniques, cook,
cycle, play Hammond organ, play guitar, do macro-photography, astro-photography, genealogy,
and wander round car boot sales, amongst other things.

Time spent on anyone of these means less time spent on woodwork.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (1 May 2014)

Oh Gracious, cooking necessarily brings up knives. 

I spent time at one of your countryman's cooking schools in the early 1980s -- Anne Willan's Ecole de Cuisine La Varenne in Paris and then LCB for pastry. We'll certainly have to take that subject up sometime soon...


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (1 May 2014)

woodbrains":38tkpyx3 said:


> Hello,
> 
> There is nothing truer than The phrase used on the last link; 'choose two out of the three-- fast, good, cheap'. It is certainly the case for woodwork sharpening systems, and I guess almost everything in life.
> 
> ...



Hi Woody

I've not been following this thread because I don't use back bevels but out of boredom just picked up on the last page. If you want to read the absolute definitive guide to sharpening then you need Leonard Lee's (of Lee Valley tools ie Veritas) seminal work "A Complete Guide to Sharpening"

Everything from correct technique to electron micrographs of various edges after different sharpening strategies have been applied. It answers Bugbears "why" in spades although its a little dry to read, somewhat like a text book. What it does it obviate the need for opinion and conjecture because its objective reality.


----------



## bugbear (1 May 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":3upe3ogu said:


> If you want to read the absolute definitive guide to sharpening then you need Leonard Lee's (of Lee Valley tools ie Veritas) seminal work "A Complete Guide to Sharpening"
> 
> Everything from correct technique to electron micrographs of various edges after different sharpening strategies have been applied. It answers Bugbears "why" in spades although its a little dry to read, somewhat like a text book. What it does it obviate the need for opinion and conjecture because its objective reality.



It's good, but I wouldn't say it's the whole story (and I didn't find it dry - quite grounded,
which may say as much about me as the book). 

If nothing else, a few more alloys
and abrasives have come along since, and rather more people have access to good/cheap microscopes.

(Prof) John Verhoeven sill finds interesting things to research.

BugBear


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (2 May 2014)

I agree that its date doesn't help as its clearly missing some of the more recent innovations. But its grounding principles are fabulous. What it needs is a modern revision to bring it up to date.


----------



## CStanford (2 May 2014)

bugbear":2h1cwvbo said:


> Random Orbital Bob":2h1cwvbo said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to read the absolute definitive guide to sharpening then you need Leonard Lee's (of Lee Valley tools ie Veritas) seminal work "A Complete Guide to Sharpening"
> ...



Well, technically not new alloys are they? Just steels that had never been put to use for woodworking hand tools right?


----------



## bugbear (2 May 2014)

CStanford":p3o0044o said:


> bugbear":p3o0044o said:
> 
> 
> > If nothing else, a few more alloys
> ...



If you can split hairs like that, you're definitely one of us. Welcome, Brother!

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (2 May 2014)

Sort of funny, but in reality I've always thought it was more marketing ploy than anything. I've used A-2, D-2, Demo'd PMVII, and none of them really beat fine Sheffield steel from its heyday. I have a Marples wooden jack with steel so good it just astounds me.

"New and Improved" have been selling products for years. New, yes (well, sort of), but not always improved.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (2 May 2014)

CStanford":clklzcfy said:


> Sort of funny, but in reality I've always thought it was more marketing ploy than anything. I've used A-2, D-2, Demo'd PMVII, and none of them really beat fine Sheffield steel from its heyday. I have a Marples wooden jack with steel so good it just astounds me.
> 
> "New and Improved" have been selling products for years. New, yes (well, sort of), but not always improved.



Well, that's your opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it.

All the steel grades used now and in the past for woodworking edge tools have their advantages and disadvantages - when you push them for the last 5 or 10 percent of performance. All of them will take and hold an edge well enough to work wood satisfactorily - or there's no point the manufacturer selling the stuff (absolute bargain basement rubbish excepted - but we're talking about reasonable quality tools here). Some may take a slightly sharper edge in some circumstances, some may hold an edge better in some circumstances (and it would be interesting to understand the metallurgical reasons why, even if only out of interest), some may be cheaper or more expensive than others for a variety of reasons. However, all will work wood to a satisfactory standard.

One of the resons that the 'old Sheffield steel' has fallen out of use is because it's a pig to deal with in manufacture. It forges fine, but because it was heat treated using a (very fast) water quench, it was very prone to distortion and quenching cracks. That meant that manufacturers were somewhat limited in the shapes of tools they could make, and had to live with a high(ish) failure rate. Use of oil-hardening steels allowed a 'softer' quench, which meant far less distortion and cracking, and thus better - more consistent - tools, and a greater range of tool shapes. The quid-pro-quo was that oil-quenched steels (according to many) don't take such a fine edge. However, the edge quality of oil-quenched steel tools is plenty good enough for almost all purposes. Air hardening steels hold an edge for even longer, but won't take such a fine edge to start with. High Speed Steels last even longer, but with a further diminution of edge quality. Some steels are easier to sharpen than others. You pays yer money, and yer takes yer choice. If you prefer one over another, go with it - and give thanks that you have a choice.

All engineering is a compromise. When someone comes up with a material that takes a razor edge, holds it indefinitely and costs next to nothing to process, we'll all be using it. But it ain't been invented yet, so we use what we've got.

Edit to add - human nature being what it is, similar arguments have probably raged for as long as there has been a choice of steels. When Benjamin Huntsman made is crucible cast steel available in the 1740s, few manufacturers in Sheffield would use it - until they were forced to by their foreign competitors adopting it's use. Craftsmen then probably debated the merits of cast steel and shear steel - Benjamin Seaton hedged his bets when stocking his new tool chest in 1797 and bought a set of chisels in each steel!


----------



## CStanford (3 May 2014)

It's probably worth remembering the depth and breadth of tools that Marples, for one, were able to execute and/or stock using some of the steels we're discussing:

http://toolemera.com/Trade%20Catalogs/t ... gs193.html

I've personally never owned, borrowed, demo'd, used, or have been associated with in any way a tool that has steel the equal of my 1930ish vintage Marples wooden jack plane.


----------



## bugbear (3 May 2014)

CStanford":33i54w6t said:


> I've personally never owned, borrowed, demo'd, used, or have been associated with in any way a tool that has steel the equal of my 1930ish vintage Marples wooden jack plane.



Interesting. I have several Marples tools, of varying vintages, and whilst the steel is "ok", it's not as good as I Sorby, Ibbotson, or Ward & Payne, at least
on the samples I own.

You either have an exceptional Marples item, or better steel yet lies ahead of you.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (3 May 2014)

woodbrains":1yr77q5r said:


> Hello,
> 
> Krenov used to sharpen with a side to side action. I don't think he claimed to be unique in doing so. Perhaps he learned it when he trained in Sweden in Carl Malmsten's workshop. The College of the Redwoods certainly continue to show sharpening like this, though not exclusively. Funnily enough another method they favour is using short forward and backward strokes on the stone, which I favour when freehand sharpening.
> 
> Mike


That's very interesting Mike. :roll: 
Nothing funny or unique about it though - if you rub a blade on a bit of stone up and down, side to side, figure of eight, figure of 42, short strokes or long, etc - as long as you keep it at or below 30º , it will sharpen.


----------



## MIGNAL (3 May 2014)

The 'best' blades that I have are both old types. A Stanley rule & level from a humble 102 block plane and a blade from an Acorn Plane. Neither of them would be considered the height of tool engineering yet both of these blades seem to be as good as any that I own. I wouldn't swap them for any of the new steel types, not that I think the newer types are poor or inferior. They just don't seem to be any better. The couple of HSS blades that I have certainly retain an edge longer but it also takes me a lot longer to get the sharpness to anywhere near the same level as the old Sheffield blades. In fact I don't think I can get HSS to quite the same level of sharpness. I probably have over 30 different Plane blades. I've only ever come across one that was junk and that obviously had been softened by overheating. The only type that I don't own is the new PMV !!! Mk 111a.


----------



## CStanford (3 May 2014)

MIGNAL":a85zph9t said:


> The 'best' blades that I have are both old types. A Stanley rule & level from a humble 102 block plane and a blade from an Acorn Plane. Neither of them would be considered the height of tool engineering yet both of these blades seem to be as good as any that I own. I wouldn't swap them for any of the new steel types, not that I think the newer types are poor or inferior. They just don't seem to be any better. The couple of HSS blades that I have certainly retain an edge longer but it also takes me a lot longer to get the sharpness to anywhere near the same level as the old Sheffield blades. In fact I don't think I can get HSS to quite the same level of sharpness. I probably have over 30 different Plane blades. I've only ever come across one that was junk and that obviously had been softened by overheating. The only type that I don't own is the new PMV !!! Mk 111a.



"...not that I think the newer types are poor or inferior. They just don't seem to be any better.

*Exactly! * And you're not missing a thing with the PMVII.


----------



## CStanford (3 May 2014)

bugbear":37huekqo said:


> CStanford":37huekqo said:
> 
> 
> > I've personally never owned, borrowed, demo'd, used, or have been associated with in any way a tool that has steel the equal of my 1930ish vintage Marples wooden jack plane.
> ...



It will remain a mystery I suppose. Other than perhaps for a few turning tools between now and end of my days, I doubt I'll be buying any more tools. I have all I need. In fact, I could probably stand to get rid of a few.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (3 May 2014)

CStanford":3arlkyls said:


> It's probably worth remembering the depth and breadth of tools that Marples, for one, were able to execute and/or stock using some of the steels we're discussing:
> 
> http://toolemera.com/Trade%20Catalogs/t ... gs193.html
> 
> I've personally never owned, borrowed, demo'd, used, or have been associated with in any way a tool that has steel the equal of my 1930ish vintage Marples wooden jack plane.



It's also worth remembering that Marples (and other Sheffield firms) made extensive use of the network of independent self-employed craftsmen (the 'Little Mesters') to supply them (Ashley Iles describes this in his autobiography, and he should know - he was there). That's one reason why their catalogue has so much depth and breadth; there will be tools in that list that carry the Marples stamp, but were never made in a Marples-owned works. It's quite possible - indeed it's a nailed-on certainty - that Marples edge tools varied a bit in edge-taking and edge-holding ability, though all will be to an acceptable standard. The Sheffield way of heat-treatment (judging the colours by eye) used at that time would also have introduced some variability in final product. They didn't really embrace instrument-monitored heat-treatment furnaces until the 1960s (Ashley Isles, again). 

It's also very probable that a 1930s Sheffield plane iron is made in O1 steel or something very like it. There was something of an explosion of research into alloy steels from about the 1880s onwards, driven partly by the new Bessemer process reducing the cost of steelmaking, and by the desire to overcome the shortcomings of straight carbon steels. There was also a rapid expansion in the use of electric arc furnaces for special steel production during the 1914-18 war, and a corresponding decline in crucible steel production, which was almost extinct by the late 1930s - the Second World War kept it going for some special steels, but it it finally ceased in the 1960s, by which time production was minute. (ref. Carr and Taplin, 'A History of the British Steel Industry', and K.C.Barraclough 'Sheffield Steel'.)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 May 2014)

Just HAD to get you to the hundred. You posts are always among the most informative.


----------



## CStanford (3 May 2014)

Very informative, CC. Thanks. I had heard that much of line was made by others to spec. Nice to know that small-shop craftsmen were involved. Perhaps that explains the fine steel I spoke of a few posts above. Somebody was on their game, that's for sure.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (3 May 2014)

phil.p":3ebv4jg1 said:


> Just HAD to get you to the hundred. You posts are always among the most informative.



 

Thank you, Phil. I'm blessed (cursed?) with the sort of mind that has to go trawling for data of all sorts if a subject piques it's interest; consequently, I have a lounge with more textbooks and reading matter stacked up in it than is (probably) strictly healthy, and a head stuffed with all sorts of useless information. I just wish it would go looking for useful information sometimes!


----------



## Jacob (3 May 2014)

You'd like "Back to the Grindstone: Personal Recollections of the Sheffield Cutlery Industry" - mostly about cutlery but the trades overlap a lot - same people same workshops (or "wheels")


----------

