# Flattening, polishing and friction.



## Jacob (16 Mar 2013)

You can't have too many flattening threads IMHO!
I thought I'd post this as it came up somewhere else and could save someone a lot of bother.
Basically you don't need to flatten and polish to reduce friction (if this is an issue).
Frinstance if you take an old plane and flatten it a bit on say 40 grit it'll be a bit snatchy on the workpiece. 
To make it run smoothly you can go straight from the 40 grit to 400 grit. What this does is take off the sharp edges of the scratches (the tops of the ridges) but leaves most of the scratch (the furrows) behind. It'll now slide smoothly over the workpiece. Might even be an advantage as the scratches could hold candle wax I suppose.
NB if you do this it's better if the scratches go straight for and aft rather than across.
Same with a rusty pitted sole - you only need to take off the high points to make it slide nicely, the pits can stay.
Ditto a new plane or chisel with machine marks.


----------



## jimi43 (16 Mar 2013)

Agree totally! Why else would corrugated planes have sold...the ultimate in coarse scratches.

Along the plane is a given but flattening I would say has to be done to the extent that the rear...front and before and aft of the mouth region are "in the same plane"....... :mrgreen: 

Or should it be "on the same plane!!!" :wink: 

I don't think that warrants a coat does it Jacob....no....don't think so! :mrgreen: 

Jim

PS...of course...the sole will rust like hell with coarse scratches all over it! :wink:


----------



## LJM (21 Mar 2013)

Obvious when you think about it! Nice tip, thanks


----------



## GazPal (21 Mar 2013)

Jacob":311xtkt3 said:


> You can't have too many flattening threads IMHO!
> I thought I'd post this as it came up somewhere else and could save someone a lot of bother.
> Basically you don't need to flatten and polish to reduce friction (if this is an issue).
> Frinstance if you take an old plane and flatten it a bit on say 40 grit it'll be a bit snatchy on the workpiece.
> ...



100% Jacob  

------------

Your's truly - during his apprenticeship - used to be given the task of loading corrugated plane soles with molten candle wax whenever we were dealing with resinous/sticky timbers such as teak. I used to melt the wax in bulk and spread it roughly into the corrugations and allow it to cool thoroughly before scraping flush with the main surface of the sole. The wax releases steadily and it makes planing awkward timbers less of a chore, plus reduces the time normally spent having to remove resin/sap from your plane during and after use.

Lacking wax, you can always source a lidded container (e.g. a large tobacco tin) and pack it with an old rag before carefully saturating it's contents with mineral oil. DO NOT USE ANYTHING OTHER THAN MINERAL OIL AS YOU CAN BE PRESENTED WITH A FIRE HAZARD IF USING SOMETHING AKIN TO LINSEED OIL. With the open tin nearby you can lightly brush the sole of your plane across it's un-lidded contents and coat it with oil as a means of reducing friction. The same tin can be attached to your workbench by clicking it's base into a spare tin lid of the same type and size. I typically keep such a tin set within the tool well on my bench, but you'll doubtless find a practical means of locating the same type of thing on a bench without a well.

Ensuring a plane's toe, mouth and heel are co-planar is an absolute, but if there's too much concavity present between the three points you can sometimes find yourself with problems planing shorter work elements. If in doubt, leave it out and ask.

Once a sole has been flattened or fresh metal is exposed it should be oiled/waxed immediately to prevent flash rusting. I use either 3 in 1 oil or unscented mineral oil from the chemist/pharmacy and allow it to saturate the newly exposed surface before removing surplus oil. When my children were small I used to pinch their baby oil and the scent never raised any eyebrows at work, as most of us had found the same solution.  Although I've nothing against using special preparations, there's no real need to pay through the nose, because inexpensive options will work just as well. Just try to avoid vegetable oils and non-rendered animal fats as they can become rancid and lead to rusting. Bacon rind or fat is a definite no-no due to the salt present.

I hope this helps in some way.


----------



## marcros (22 Mar 2013)

did the corrogated soled planes sell well? I am surprised that Lie Nielsen et al havent reproduced them if they were proven to be effective.


----------



## bugbear (22 Mar 2013)

marcros":gn8oxucx said:


> did the corrogated soled planes sell well? I am surprised that Lie Nielsen et al havent reproduced them if they were proven to be effective.



I've seen the Stanley claim to reduced friction repeated, but (unusually) it's often in the form "these were claimed to reduce friction".

I don't recall anyone actually doing either a rough "give it a try" experiment or actually measuring the friction.

BugBear


----------



## carlb40 (22 Mar 2013)

marcros":2dych0m5 said:


> did the corrogated soled planes sell well? I am surprised that Lie Nielsen et al havent reproduced them if they were proven to be effective.


Apparently they make / made one. There is one on ebay ay the moment :shock:


----------



## GazPal (22 Mar 2013)

Record produced planes with corrugated soles from 1931 until 1993, so I assume they proved more popular than the #08 which was discontinued in 1982. A 62 year history of manufacture must say something regarding demand and their usefulness prior to being superseded by mechanisation, otherwise they would have been discontinued much sooner. 

The best way to uncover differences between the two types of sole is to put them to use side by side, in direct comparison and working the same billet of resinous timber. A plane is more likely to adhere to an underlying surface as it becomes more refined and in spite of the plane being in motion. Stiction is more easily overcome by reducing surface tension and this is where longitudinal corrugation and surface contact reduction come into play when dealing with resinous timbers.


----------



## Vann (22 Mar 2013)

marcros":v2k7mdza said:


> did the corrogated soled planes sell well? I am surprised that Lie Nielsen et al havent reproduced them if they were proven to be effective.


All Lie-Nielsen bench planes are available with corrigated bases for $US35 extra (except the No.10¼). I don't know if they're cast or machined corrigations. These are listed in the printed cattledog, as well as online.

I don't believe Veritas or Clifton offer the option.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## GazPal (22 Mar 2013)

Vann":z4kvdpx4 said:


> marcros":z4kvdpx4 said:
> 
> 
> > did the corrogated soled planes sell well? I am surprised that Lie Nielsen et al havent reproduced them if they were proven to be effective.
> ...




I'd expect they mill the corrugations into stock planes in much the same way Record machined their examples.


----------



## Graham Orm (26 Apr 2013)

Re-done including quotation below.


----------



## Graham Orm (26 Apr 2013)

Jacob":716sth2k said:


> You can't have too many flattening threads IMHO!
> I thought I'd post this as it came up somewhere else and could save someone a lot of bother.
> Basically you don't need to flatten and polish to reduce friction (if this is an issue).
> Frinstance if you take an old plane and flatten it a bit on say 40 grit it'll be a bit snatchy on the workpiece.
> ...



There's always one......and that's me I'm afraid in this instance. 

I think you've missed the point completely (pun intended). The point of polishing the back of the blade to a mirror like finish is to get rid of the scratches.....not just to make it slip through the wood. But more importantly, to make the edge of the blade straight *and fine*.

A sharp edge is where 2 surfaces meet, if one (or both) have scratches on them, then under magnification the edge where they meet will look like a bread knife and will never be as sharp as an edge where 2 highly polished surfaces meet. :wink:


----------



## Jacob (26 Apr 2013)

Grayorm":rwccn2cf said:


> Jacob":rwccn2cf said:
> 
> 
> > You can't have too many flattening threads IMHO!
> ...


There's always a sense of logic about crazy sharpening, which is why it persists. But reality is different; less interesting but also less problematic.
You really do not need to polish the whole of the face. It doesn't even need to be perfectly flat. There's a thread here which covers it pretty well flattening-chisel-backs-with-lapping-film-t68506-225.html
This is as much flattening and polishing you need on a typical chisel face:







If the face isn't sufficiently concave you have to lift the pressure on handle a bit to get a good flat area behind the edge. Think of "ruler trick" but without the ruler (which makes it a lot easier). You don't actually lift, it's more a case of applying more pressure where it counts.


----------



## Gary Morris (26 Apr 2013)

Jacob, thank you, I've been trying to get some old chisels sharp and I find that I get the exact picture as your one shows, but finding it quite a task to get the whole blade polished as there appears to be slightly higher points on the front and sides. What you say about taking the high points off, leaving grooves makes sense. It's made me very happy as I've been sitting at the kitchen table, night after night with the pc in front of me, reading posts and watching tv whilst rubbing away, I will now be able to watch the whole episode. 

Gary


----------



## Jacob (27 Apr 2013)

Gary Morris":15l4af1p said:


> .... to get the whole blade polished ,,,,,


..,,,,is a complete waste of time and makes subsequent sharpening more difficult - you lose the slight concavity which most chisels seem to have.
Ignore the shamans of sharpening and don't spoil your chisels with pointless polishing!!

I'm not saying anything new, e.g. there's a good article here 
http://logancabinetshoppe.com/blog/2011 ... p-lapping/

PS I think the shamans of sharpening have spread great deal of misinformation and wasted thousands of hours of peoples time and spoiled a lot of tools in the process. 
But we are finding our way "back to the garden" :lol: Keep it simple.


----------



## matthewwh (28 Apr 2013)

I agree, I'm dubious about lifting a chisel to hit the underside of the edge though - fine to begin with but eventually you will end up with a bump.


----------



## Jacob (28 Apr 2013)

matthewwh":rk8piq0o said:


> I agree, I'm dubious about lifting a chisel to hit the underside of the edge though - fine to begin with but eventually you will end up with a bump.


No bumps involved. :roll: You don't actually_ lift_ (you can't see air underneath) but you shift the pressure towards the edge.
As I say - the logic of crazy sharpening is very plausible but the reality of normal sharpening is quite different - easier to do (by far!) but more difficult to rationalise. Craft skills as a whole are like that - in the end can only be acquired by _doing it_, not by applying a set of procedures and rules. 
What we have with crazy sharpening is people talking themselves out of doing it - convincing themselves they are useless and blindly doing stupid things like polishing and flattening the whole face of a chisel because they have been told to do it by a self-claimed expert!!

I'm not saying anything new, e.g. there's a good article here 
http://logancabinetshoppe.com/blog/2011 ... p-lapping/

Whereas this stuff here is complete bolllox http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... g_a_chisel


----------



## Peter T (28 Apr 2013)

Jacob":2ql12k93 said:


> I'm not saying anything new, e.g. there's a good article here
> http://logancabinetshoppe.com/blog/2011 ... p-lapping/



I notice in his mortice chopping video he's using a Ray Iles chisel with a 20 degree primary bevel and a, probably, 35 degree secondary bevel!!


----------



## Jacob (28 Apr 2013)

Peter T":3ru43fxk said:


> Jacob":3ru43fxk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying anything new, e.g. there's a good article here
> ...


Yeah well nobody's perfect!! His marking out is a bit sloppy too.


----------



## Peter T (28 Apr 2013)

Jacob":29c09ssa said:


> Peter T":29c09ssa said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":29c09ssa said:
> ...



Yes, even I thought he made a bit of a meal of it!


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (28 Apr 2013)

In my experience all the real sharpening gurus say the same thing which is simply to flatten that part of the chisel that contributes to the edge that will be cutting. Ie the little "coastline" that is within 1,2,3 mm from the edge

Any more than that is just masochism. The only value of flattening more than that is to save time in the future when you've reground the bevel so many times that you've shortened it's length beyond your flat "coastline"

The sharpening principle is simple, a scratch free edge created by both mating surfaces is sharper. Both bevel and back need be scratch free but 1mm back from the back.....who cares


----------



## Jacob (28 Apr 2013)

Random Orbital Bob":3as9cczh said:


> In my experience all the real sharpening gurus say the same thing which is simply to flatten that part of the chisel that contributes to the edge that will be cutting. Ie the little "coastline" that is within 1,2,3 mm from the edge


"coastline" - well described!


> .......The only value of flattening more than that is to save time in the future .....


Except you remove that little trace of concavity (which most chisels old and new all seem to have) and actually make future sharpening more difficult. So it really is worse than useless!


----------



## Tom K (28 Apr 2013)

Jacob":1dgwe84g said:


> Random Orbital Bob":1dgwe84g said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience all the real sharpening gurus say the same thing which is simply to flatten that part of the chisel that contributes to the edge that will be cutting. Ie the little "coastline" that is within 1,2,3 mm from the edge
> ...



No it isn't removed the tide is just slightly further out. On subsequent honing the "coastline" is maintained by removing the burr.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (28 Apr 2013)

Ha....like it....tide


----------



## bugbear (29 Apr 2013)

http://logancabinetshoppe.com/blog/2011 ... p-lapping/

His justfication for a non flat back is based on his analysis of paring, which is ... poor.



> The bevel of a chisel is a wedge. The action of a wedge is such that the direction of travel as the wedge is driven is along a path that bisects the angle of the wedge.



That would only be true if driving the chisel into the middle of a piece of wood. If the workpiece is (in fact) thinner on one side than the other, the difference in material resistance will also play a part.

Now, in paring, one side of the cut is a shaving, and the other side is the pretty much the whole workpiece.

The resistance of the shaving will not drive the chisel into the workpiece. Obviously.

BugBear


----------



## Dangermouse (29 Apr 2013)

My take on this is that you need the plane sole to be a total mirror finish. Other wise I cant use it to shave with, using my rounded bevel 2 inch chisel. I thought that was why every one needed a shinny bottom. :lol: :deer


----------



## Jacob (29 Apr 2013)

bugbear":14ykjgfp said:


> .....
> The resistance of the shaving will not drive the chisel into the workpiece. Obviously.
> 
> BugBear


Except (obviously) it's not a shaving until it's been cut . Chicken & egg innit!
I'm always impressed by the struggle to make simple woodworky things complicated and incomprehensible.


----------



## bugbear (29 Apr 2013)

Jacob":2t4vcxum said:


> bugbear":2t4vcxum said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



At the risk the being philosophical, the uncut shaving is just as thin as the cut shaving, and just as flexible.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (29 Apr 2013)

bugbear":20nvxm53 said:


> Jacob":20nvxm53 said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":20nvxm53 said:
> ...


No it isn't, it's firmly attached to the wood beneath. :roll:


----------



## bugbear (29 Apr 2013)

Jacob":2iaam3pu said:


> No it isn't, it's firmly attached to the wood beneath. :roll:



Take two 1" thick planks. Drive a chisel horizontally into the middle of one of them, and 1/64" below the top of the other. Observe what happens. See if there's any difference. Try to work out why.

You do make difficulties where there aren't any.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (29 Apr 2013)

Nah can't be bothered.


----------



## GazPal (30 Apr 2013)

bugbear":md21ccq2 said:


> Jacob":md21ccq2 said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":md21ccq2 said:
> ...



In reality, an uncut shaving remains as inflexible as the timber in which it rests. 



bugbear":md21ccq2 said:


> Jacob":md21ccq2 said:
> 
> 
> > No it isn't, it's firmly attached to the wood beneath. :roll:
> ...



Grain run, edge bevel orientation and driving force dictate the direction of split unless controlled by similar means to a plane or steered via varying degrees of vertical pressure on the chisel handle. An upward facing bevel will tend to cause a chisel to disregard grain direction and dig in more than if the bevel faces downward. End grain paring is pretty much the same, as bevel direction tends to dictate paring performance. 

Enhanced control in the cut is much the reason behind the invention of the hand plane - as it's construction sets cut depth and helps avoid the inclination for a wedge shaped edge to dive into the workpiece - and why we choose tooling to suit the work in hand.

Axe, froe, adze, plane/chisel, scraper, sandpaper.


----------



## bugbear (30 Apr 2013)

GazPal":34qcnk9w said:


> Grain run, edge bevel orientation and driving force dictate the direction of split unless controlled by similar means to a plane or steered via varying degrees of vertical pressure on the chisel handle. An upward facing bevel will tend to cause a chisel to disregard grain direction and dig in more than if the bevel faces downward. End grain paring is pretty much the same, as bevel direction tends to dictate paring performance.
> 
> Enhanced control in the cut is much the reason behind the invention of the hand plane - as it's construction sets cut depth and helps avoid the inclination for a wedge shaped edge to dive into the workpiece - and why we choose tooling to suit the work in hand.
> 
> Axe, froe, adze, plane/chisel, scraper, sandpaper.



Do you (and Jacob) really think that a chisel driven horizontally, taking a 1/64" paring cut is really driven into the solid body of the workpiece by the tiny amount of wood above the edge?

In many accounts of dovetail waste clearance (both old and new), there is clear acknowledgement that trying to remove too much waste with the chisel on the scribed line will indeed drive the chisel below the scribe line, due to the wedging action.

It is precisely for this reason that it is recommended to remove the bulk of the waste with heavy cuts (or a coping saw) *above* the scribe line, only placing the chisel in the scribe line to remove the last of the waste accurately.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (30 Apr 2013)

bugbear":1cz9jgoi said:


> GazPal":1cz9jgoi said:
> 
> 
> > Grain run, edge bevel orientation and driving force dictate the direction of split unless controlled by similar means to a plane or steered via varying degrees of vertical pressure on the chisel handle. An upward facing bevel will tend to cause a chisel to disregard grain direction and dig in more than if the bevel faces downward. End grain paring is pretty much the same, as bevel direction tends to dictate paring performance.
> ...



No. Wedging action and grain directly influence the cut and it will deepen unless guided. Timber is seldom perfectly grained or amenable to being tooled...... Hence the need for craftsmen to manipulate hand tools and wood machinists to control machinery. 

I tend toward the view that an outcome cannot be predetermined unless an edged hand tool is adequately guided. Regardless of shaving thickness, a single bevel is steered by whether it faces upward or is inverted. A fairly good example of the manner by which a paring blade can nose-dive into one's work is if you consider the way a flush plane reacts during a cut. With bevel facing upward and the main blade body resting on the workpiece, it has the propensity to nose dive into the work unless one exerts downward pressure upon the rear of the blade. 

While unable to speak for Jacob, I base my views upon extensive long-term workshop experience as a professional cabinetmaker and not solely from book reading or classroom theory. I don't doubt Jacob's experience and knowledge. You can re-program my computer and I can advise you on woodworking. :wink: 

A chisel's driving force is provided - during a cut - by pressure from behind the blade, whilst bevel and grain direction influence the route taken by an edge, unless your guiding hand steers the blade and holds it flat to the work. Blade bias is toward the edge and is the reason we need to steer a cut as it progresses.


----------



## Jacob (30 Apr 2013)

You are being trolled Gary! These sorts of ramblings can go on and on and obfuscate the real practical issues.


----------



## GazPal (30 Apr 2013)

Jacob":344837cu said:


> You are being trolled Gary! These sorts of ramblings can go on and on and obfuscate the real practical issues.




I agree, but he's your stalker Jacob. :lol: :wink: 

It's much like having an apprentice return from a two week block release and trying to tell you how this book says this or that book says that, or "but my instructor told us to....". Only to discover he's gotten nowhere in terms of hands-on, real time experience without realising you've earned your stripes through hard work and shook more saw dust out of your socks after work than he's ever made.


----------



## bugbear (30 Apr 2013)

GazPal":fdbzu6qd said:


> A fairly good example of the manner by which a paring blade can nose-dive into one's work is if you consider the way a flush plane reacts during a cut. With bevel facing upward and the main blade body resting on the workpiece, it has the propensity to nose dive into the work unless one exerts downward pressure upon the rear of the blade.



Absolutely! And in a horizontal paring cut, the same applies - the flat back of the chisel, on the already cut flat surface provides the support - and if the cut is reasonably shallow, this support is normally sufficient to guide the chisel as one intends.

But if one takes a too-deep-cut, the wedging effect is too great, and the chisel cannot be stopped from diving, hence the dovetail technique previously described.

Edit; just to add; I really like _fully_ understanding stuff. Wax on - Wax off might get the job done, but I want more than that. I can catch a thrown ball, but I learnt the laws of motion and quite a bit about the human visual cortex too.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (30 Apr 2013)

The chisel back simply braces against the workpiece, whilst control is obtained via good technique. 

Depth could equate to a gnat's whisker in thickness and you'd still find the blade's bevel meets resistance forcing the edge downward as it's driven forward in the cut. Direction of travel is governed by the single bevel as it wedges itself into the cut. Reducing the bevel angle below 20 deg greatly improves control when paring and lessens this downward trend, but - again - technique plays a massive part in end results.

IMHO cranked paring chisels work best, as you can flex the blade in the cut.


----------



## Jacob (30 Apr 2013)

bugbear":fiwjkgfm said:


> ......I can catch a thrown ball, but I learnt the laws of motion and quite a bit about the human visual cortex too.
> 
> BugBear


No amount of knowledge about laws of motion and brain activity would be the slightest help in catching a ball. Similarly being skilful catching a ball is possible with zero knowledge of laws of motion and brain activity, though the practice might help towards the knowledge, if that was what you wanted.
Craft work is very similar.


----------



## David C (30 Apr 2013)

I don't know what I'm missing here, but if a fine enough cut, is taken with a sharp enough chisel, with good technique and a nice flat back, it will not dive.

This applies to end grain, and cross grain. Long grain will depend on fibre orientation,

Simple eh? I have been doing this for 40 years, though it might not always have gone quite right in the beginning!.....

David Charlesworth


----------



## bobbybirds (30 Apr 2013)

David C":2mydu5vf said:


> I don't know what I'm missing here, but if a fine enough cut, is taken with a sharp enough chisel, with good technique and a nice flat back, it will not dive.
> 
> This applies to end grain, and cross grain. Long grain will depend on fibre orientation,
> 
> ...



If I didn't know better, I would think you were Canadian eh! :lol:


----------



## GazPal (30 Apr 2013)

David C":1ge6gzs1 said:


> I don't know what I'm missing here, but if a fine enough cut, is taken with a sharp enough chisel, with good technique and a nice flat back, it will not dive.
> 
> This applies to end grain, and cross grain. Long grain will depend on fibre orientation,
> 
> ...



Hence my emphasis upon good technique and it is as simple as that. A flat back and poor technique........ well.......

------------

An example of how an edge can dive/drift into a workpiece can be found when paring mortise end grain to a line. The blade can drift if one is not careful, or technique is lacking. Regardless of flat or sharpness.


----------



## David C (30 Apr 2013)

Bobbybirds,

Are you refering to my friend Mr Cosman?

David


----------



## G S Haydon (30 Apr 2013)

Wow!

David C, nice to see you sharing you knowledge here!


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

David C":1672lohu said:


> I don't know what I'm missing here, but if a fine enough cut, is taken with a sharp enough chisel, with good technique and a nice flat back, it will not dive.


That's what is known as a self evident truth - a lot of "ifs". But we all know that in reality it's easy to over do it paring along or across the grain with a chisel. Flatness has only little to do with it, nothing at all if convex - it's about technique more than anything.
Cosman burbles on about flattening here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOvkNuwO_YM but when it comes to the paring demo his chisel dives and he cuts a deep notch!! What lot of tosh!
PS expanding on that - he says all chisels need "preparing" This isn't true, they are "prepared" by the maker (if not, send them back) they just need sharpening. He doesn't explain why they need "preparing" and finally fails to demonstrate any point in "preparing". In spite of this many people spend many hours "preparing" (and sometimes spoiling) chisels, even old ones which may have been well used for many years without ever having needed "preparing". Madness! :lol:


----------



## G S Haydon (1 May 2013)

After making a return to woodworking for pleasure as well as doing it for a living I am in the throws of putting together a second set of tools that will only be used for my pleasure http://gshaydon.co.uk/blog/tool-chest-done/. Life is tough for my job tools, I could be out repairing or installing or at the bench making. Before returning to the craft for enjoyment all my cutting tools were hollow ground on a tormek and finished up on the polishing wheel attached to the machine. I never even thought about flatness or the ideal angles for my cutting tools, I just clamped the chisel in and set it using the plastic jig provided sharpened away. I never had a problem and my tools were sharp.

Now looking into the finer details of sharpening I have started to examine my cutting tools more closely. I have a set of budget faithful blue handled chisels for my second set of tools and some vintage Record bench planes which are all being prepared at the moment. All of these tools will be freehand sharpened on diamond plates.

All the chisels are slightly concave on the back and I have tried to flatten them a little. But it's hard going, so much so I am resigned to just leveling them off a touch. In the ideal world I would like them to be flat on the back just like David mentions (I would also like a nice set of LN socket chisels so I wouldn't have to bother flattening at all ) . But I figure that over time the chisels will become flatter and flatter as I sharpen them and remove the burr.

On the plane blades I tried to lap the whole of the blade and quickly decided that Davids ruler method would be the best approach. Sure beats lapping!

Like anything though, it's all about finding something that works for you and the type of work you do. I will most likely stay with the tormek for job tools and spend the extra time on my personal tools as they will have to work on finer and more intricate work.


----------



## bugbear (1 May 2013)

David C":3mwwteu7 said:


> I don't know what I'm missing here, but if a fine enough cut, is taken with a sharp enough chisel, with good technique and a nice flat back, it will not dive.
> 
> This applies to end grain, and cross grain. Long grain will depend on fibre orientation,
> 
> ...



Indeed, it's rather difficult to visualise how it could.







Like a fluking whale?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

G S Haydon":2t7h47jk said:


> ......
> All the chisels are slightly concave on the back and I have tried to flatten them a little.


That's how the are supposed to be. They make them like that. It makes sharpening easier. If you flatten them it makes subsequent sharpening more difficult
You really do not need to polish the whole of the face. It doesn't even need to be perfectly flat. There's a thread here which covers it pretty well flattening-chisel-backs-with-lapping-film-t68506-225.html
This is as much flattening and polishing you need on a typical chisel face:




.


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

bugbear":3q7j20w1 said:


> David C":3q7j20w1 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what I'm missing here, but if a fine enough cut, is taken with a sharp enough chisel, with good technique and a nice flat back, it will not dive.
> ...


Why don't you try it BB instead of theorising about it? Try and remove a long chisel-width paring from a long grain surface, keeping it uniformly 1/16" thick. Let us know how you get on.


----------



## GazPal (1 May 2013)

Sharpening methods. technique and end results should always suit the end user's needs. So much depends on how often you're likely to use the full chisel length to pare instead of a plane. From personal experience I tend to find paring is more typically used as an intermediate step - e.g. housing joints - in the overall process and often followed up by planing or using abrasive papers.

One factor regarding the current flatness fad is the fact that chisel and plane iron backs virtually flatten by themselves through repeated honing as the burr is wiped from the refreshed edge on the stone. Common sense tends to dictate the need to remove residual manufacturer's machine marks, but it's seldom necessary to treat the entire blade length.

If a new blade is warped or bent, return it for exchange or refund, but by all means bring an old chisel of plane iron back into use using whichever method and style you see fit.


----------



## G S Haydon (1 May 2013)

I totally accept the ideal should be flat on the back or very slightly concave. Over time my chisels will get flatter and flatter with sharpening and burr removal. When I was college the old boy said you should never BB a chisel "It is a chisel, not a screwdriver" he would say. He pointed out the difficulty in paring with this type of detail. But like anything, if it works for you, great. I don't see myself applying a BB to a chisel any time soon. 

On plane blades Davids ruler method seems perfect, much more fun than all that lapping!


----------



## David C (1 May 2013)

I do find Jacob's breathtaking miss information quite extraordinary.

He needs to watch that Cosman video again.

The long paring cuts are straight. (He even states they are "downhill").

The information imparted is sound. whatever Jacob may think. 

David


----------



## GazPal (1 May 2013)

David C":ouxofmhy said:


> I don't know what I'm missing here, but if a fine enough cut, is taken with a sharp enough chisel, with good technique and a nice flat back, it will not dive.
> 
> This applies to end grain, and cross grain. Long grain will depend on fibre orientation,
> 
> ...




I'd have replied with more detail in my previous reply but was short on available time. I've been doing this for a wee bit longer than you David and most probably made the same initial mistakes as yourself, but seldom find myself needing to pare end or long grain to a finish using the full reach of a paring chisel.



bugbear":ouxofmhy said:


> Indeed, it's rather difficult to visualise how it could.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You must be taking the water.

If your diagram doesn't confirm the presence of factors that make setting a blade within a solid frame to maintain depth of cut and prevent it from nose-diving (Didn't they invent the hand plane for this precise purpose? :roll: ), you lack experience and need to attend a woodworking course or get on with some practical fidgeting about with paring chisels and timber in your shed/garage.

Per your drawing:
You need to counter balance the leading edge by adding weight to the trailing end of the blade. This in turn applies downward force and prevents the wedge from digging itself deeper than necessary as the edge bites. If the blade were bevel up you'd need the apply upward pressure on the trailing edge in order to keep the edge aligned and prevent it from scooping the cut.

Enter a chisel edge horizontally into end, cross, or long grain timber and drive it forward without downward pressure on blade or handle. With bevel up you'll find the blade has a tendency to nose dive into the cut and your 1/64" soon becomes 1/8" in depth, while bevel down will have the chisel rise out of the cut and your original 1/64" depth tapers to 0.


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

:shock: What's this whale stuff about?


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

David C":2zpoyyzk said:


> I do find Jacob's breathtaking miss information quite extraordinary.


Don't hold your breath too long!


> ...
> The information imparted is sound....


Very misleading IMHO. Resulting in lots of people wasting lots of time doing silly unnecessary things. It comes up all the time; "I'm struggling to flatten my new LN chisel backs, I've worked through 25 grit grades and 2 water-stones..... etc etc". Very silly.

This is as much flattening and polishing you need on a typical chisel face:


----------



## Racers (1 May 2013)

.
The information imparted is sound....[/quote]Very misleading IMHO. Resulting in lots of people wasting lots of time doing silly unnecessary things. It comes up all the time; "I'm struggling to flatten my new LN chisel backs, I've worked through 25 grit grades and 2 water-stones..... etc etc". Very silly.





Can you link to any examples of this Jacob?

Pete


----------



## G S Haydon (1 May 2013)

I must admit as a new member to UKWorkshop this thread does not encourage me too much. I'm finding some of the posting her a little aggressive and confrontational over something than can be treated, as most things in life, something to take or leave.
I'm all for various approaches and sharing what works well for each of us, perhaps that should be as far as it goes?


----------



## bugbear (1 May 2013)

Jacob":wfw6akij said:


> :shock: What's this whale stuff about?



Google fluking and learn, if you want to. I thought the metaphor rather apt.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

Racers":185nlu8z said:


> .
> The information imparted is sound....Very misleading IMHO. Resulting in lots of people wasting lots of time doing silly unnecessary things. It comes up all the time; "I'm struggling to flatten my new LN chisel backs, I've worked through 25 grit grades and 2 water-stones..... etc etc". Very silly.
> 
> 
> ...


Nearest one (typical, but not word for word) is in this thread above flattening-polishing-and-friction-t68962.html (Gary Morris). Often repeated with variations - whole threads devoted to the problem of flattening.


----------



## Racers (1 May 2013)

Jacob":4xt0t04h said:


> Racers":4xt0t04h said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




So most are just your impression from one or two posts you have misinterpreted in your usual way, or am I misinterpreting.


Pete


----------



## Modernist (1 May 2013)

Maybe this is of interest. No point in re-inventing the wheel http://goo.gl/ITVZa


----------



## G S Haydon (1 May 2013)

Sweet set of chisels. Some day....... My preparation was just the same on my budget blue handled faithfuls. Just enough to create a decent flat behind the cutting edge. 
Perhaps you could help me on steel. Do the old tools have a carbon steel (wooden plane blades) like your chisels? I have preparing a big old framing chisel and the steel feels and reacts differently to newer stuff. Is carbon softer and easy to sharpen but looses it's edge a little quicker?


----------



## carlb40 (1 May 2013)

G S Haydon":2btf0ccz said:


> I must admit as a new member to UKWorkshop this thread does not encourage me too much. I'm finding some of the posting her a little aggressive and confrontational over something than can be treated, as most things in life, something to take or leave.
> I'm all for various approaches and sharing what works well for each of us, perhaps that should be as far as it goes?




Hence why i asked about a sharpening sticky, so none of this would happen. I can see clearly how some members and their comments can put off new members. Which is a shame as it spoils it for everyone.


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

Racers":2w7kpb9n said:


> So most are just your impression from one or two posts you have misinterpreted in your usual way, or am I misinterpreting.
> 
> 
> Pete


Misinterpreting in your usual way. 
Start here search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=flattening&start=2505


----------



## Racers (1 May 2013)

jacob most of those refer to flatening plane soles


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

Racers":qxwb022c said:


> jacob most of those refer to flatening plane soles


Read the ones which refer to chisels if that's what you want to do. 2516 matches for "flattening" going back to 2002.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (1 May 2013)

G S Haydon":19zhms26 said:


> I must admit ... this thread does not encourage me too much. I'm finding some of the posting her a little aggressive and confrontational ...


GS, you've expressed at least good reason why I seldom bother getting involved in a meaningful way in threads on plane and chisel, etc sharpening, and related subjects such as flattening the front/back face (depending on your preferred terminology) of said chisels, plane irons, and even the subject of flattening plane soles. 

They're generally just so darned polarising, fractious, repetitive, frequently confusing for the inexperienced woodworker, and tend to become tedious very quickly unless, like me, you get some enjoyment out of watching the same old winnerless fights, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## Modernist (1 May 2013)

G S Haydon":3olg3s5c said:


> Sweet set of chisels. Some day....... My preparation was just the same on my budget blue handled faithfuls. Just enough to create a decent flat behind the cutting edge.
> Perhaps you could help me on steel. Do the old tools have a carbon steel (wooden plane blades) like your chisels? I have preparing a big old framing chisel and the steel feels and reacts differently to newer stuff. Is carbon softer and easy to sharpen but looses it's edge a little quicker?



Old chisels often had laminated blades, (much like modern Japanese ones but much cheaper!) as did some wooden plane irons. You can usually see this if you clean up the side. They are both carbon steel but the thinner cutting edge is harder and holds and edge better whilst the softer backing steel provides support.

Modern chisels are available in either A2 (very similar to high speed steel) as used by Lie Nielsen etc or A1 which is traditional carbon steel. The A2 holds the edge longer but does not hold such a fine edge and sometimes needs to be sharpened at an extra couple of degrees say 32 deg to prevent crumbling. This is not always the case and there seems to be some variation betwen manufacturers and even between batches.

My own solution is to use A2 for high angle planes, where the extra wear life is useful, and A1 or similar for everything else. A2 is a bit harder to sharpen but I don't find this a problem on my waterstones. You may find references to W1 and O1 which I think are water quenched versions of A1 and behave in a similar fashion.

There are other issues, such as the blade section, and the Ashley Isles are great tools but designed for fine work where the thin blades are useful and I use some basic Stanleys and Records for mallet use. Apart from dovetailing I think thin blades can be a problem owing to flexing, which can lead to curved paring cuts, esepecially on long paring chisels and I have had this problem on my Sorby 1/2" recently. Narrow blades need a bit of depth to keep them rigid.

HTH


----------



## Jacob (1 May 2013)

Sgian Dubh":3qcz4ua0 said:


> .......
> They're generally just so darned polarising, fractious, repetitive,


 Repetitive? Never! :lol: Actually for me it has been a long drawn out process of finding out. I was a crazy sharpener once, but not very good at it as I found the jigs tedious and inconvenient


> frequently confusing for the inexperienced woodworker,


Agree, and the best argument for keeping it simple and doing as little as possible. Flattening, polishing, micro bevelling, jigs, complicated systems etc are not for beginners. Or anybody necessarily.


> and tend to become tedious very quickly unless, like me, you get some enjoyment out of watching the same old winnerless fights, ha, ha. Slainte.


I quite enjoy it on the whole. Perhaps I should try to get out more.


----------



## Graham Orm (1 May 2013)

Sgian Dubh":dpgv0dbt said:


> G S Haydon":dpgv0dbt said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit ... this thread does not encourage me too much. I'm finding some of the posting her a little aggressive and confrontational ...
> ...



+1...I'm lovin it. (homer)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 May 2013)

Yes, and at the end of it all, I shall do exactly as I did before it started. It works well enough for me and what I do. I don't really care much whether other people do the same.


----------



## powertools (1 May 2013)

G S Haydon":2ja4p3g0 said:


> I must admit as a new member to UKWorkshop this thread does not encourage me too much. I'm finding some of the posting her a little aggressive and confrontational over something than can be treated, as most things in life, something to take or leave.
> I'm all for various approaches and sharing what works well for each of us, perhaps that should be as far as it goes?



Don't be put off by this sort of rubbish the forum has changed a lot over the years and some of the best information can be found by searching back through the threads from several years ago. Then in the main there were some experts who offered sound advice on most things but most of them don't seem to post now.


----------



## Vann (2 May 2013)

G S Haydon":21mvbjcv said:


> I must admit as a new member to UKWorkshop this thread does not encourage me too much. I'm finding some of the posting her a little aggressive and confrontational over something than can be treated, as most things in life, something to take or leave.


I agree. Jacob is like a dog with a bone, and that can get tedious and people get cheesed off.

That's not to say he's wrong. Until I saw this photo, I thought Jacob was completely against flattening backs. 







I've never thought anyone was advocating flattening the entire back of chisels or plane blades, just the first 1/4" or less. But with Jacob constantly rubbishing anyone who suggests flattening backs I figured he must be wrong. Now it seems he's actually in agreement with many he agrues with. But then... 


Jacob":21mvbjcv said:


> I quite enjoy it on the whole. Perhaps I should try to get out more.,


Maybe he should try to get out more.

And then we have the rounded bevel debate. Over the last week I've looked back through my apprenticeship theory notes (from 1973-75) and I see that rounded bevels were considered to be sloppy practice. Same goes for an old text book I picked up years ago (published in 1923). But I have to admit - nearly every old plane and chisel I've bought second-hand has a rounded bevel. Is Jacob wrong, or right but just sloppy, or is this best practice? Who cares? I'll do what I'm comfortable with until I'm no longer comfortable with it. But I do feel sorry for those just starting off...



Sgian Dubh":21mvbjcv said:


> ...They're generally just so darned polarising, fractious, repetitive, *frequently confusing for the inexperienced woodworker,* and tend to become tedious very quickly unless, like me, you get some enjoyment out of watching the same old winnerless fights, ha, ha. Slainte.


Entertaining? Sometimes. But more often just tedious.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## G S Haydon (2 May 2013)

Hi Vann,

Thanks for the measured response. I too have read that a convex bevel is sloppy practice (George Ellis - Modern Practical Joinery) but as you said nearly all old tools have some degree of convex to them. Sadly my free hand is a little convex, but they work just fine. All about striking a balance and what works for you.
On flattening, the chisel in the photo does look like mine, although mine has a little more flat because I took 5 mins to flatten the back a little more. If the back of the chisel is concave this flattening happens naturally when the burr is removed any way.
This should be made a "sticky" topic for sure.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 May 2013)

Nearly all old tools have some degree of convex...........nearly all old tools you come across are blunt. Doesn't mean they were designed to be blunt.


----------



## Dangermouse (2 May 2013)

:| :?   :shock: :evil: :twisted: :deer (hammer)


----------



## MIGNAL (2 May 2013)

A few months ago I came across a Guitar that I had made over 30 years ago. T'was like seeing an old friend again. I think it was the 5 th or 6 th one that I had made, of Rosewood, Ebony and a Mahogany Neck. Back then I really hadn't read very many woodworking books, I was still rather fresh from the woodwork class at school. It was before I discovered Japanese waterstones and sharpening guides. All my blades were convex beveled. I could hardly prevent that convex bevel (not that I tried). It was simply a consequence of sharpening by hand and after all I was very young, inexperienced and naive.
30 years later I bumped into my old friend again. Such moments can leave one somewhat embarrassed. This time however I simply smiled, shook my head and wondered how on earth I had managed to create such a decent effort with a Stanley plastic handled No.5, a saw that cost me £1, a set of junk chisels and such a cr*p sharpening system.


----------



## Jacob (2 May 2013)

Vann":1dyfllhy said:


> ..... Jacob is like a dog with a bone,


it's an important bone - it is key to the whole of woodwork


> That's not to say he's wrong. Until I saw this photo, I thought Jacob was completely against flattening backs.
> 
> I've never thought anyone was advocating flattening the entire back of chisels or plane blades,


Watch the Cosman video. That is exactly what he advocates. Mirror finish, optically accurate. :roll: And others do too. Not sure what DC's view is I haven't bought the video/done the course but it's a well established notion and lots of people are at it.
And this is pure nonsense too. http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... g_a_chisel


> .... constantly rubbishing anyone who suggests flattening backs


yes and no. I certainly don't rate the cosman approach and I do think that flattening is usually achieved sufficiently every time you turn a chisel over to remove the burr - but sometimes a little more is necessary


> And then we have the rounded bevel debate. ....


Thats for another thread. I'm happy to explain it yet again for anybody who still hasn't got it!


----------



## bugbear (2 May 2013)

Jacob":1p3j8dox said:


> ...I do think that flattening is usually achieved sufficiently every time you turn a chisel over to remove the burr -



Unless your stone were to have a hollow, in which case you're creating a convex back as well as a convex bevel. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (2 May 2013)

bugbear":1vdc08ss said:


> Jacob":1vdc08ss said:
> 
> 
> > ...I do think that flattening is usually achieved sufficiently every time you turn a chisel over to remove the burr -
> ...


1 You'd use a flattish bit of the stone. Hand and eye - it's all in your control. The "reference surface" is in your brain.
2 It wouldn't matter anyway, within reason.


----------



## Graham Orm (5 May 2013)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Plasplugs...t=UK_Hand_Tools_Equipment&hash=item3f24a6fd7c

(homer) :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (5 May 2013)

At last; the answer to all our problems!


----------



## wem (11 May 2013)

bugbear":1assqebb said:


> Jacob":1assqebb said:
> 
> 
> > ...I do think that flattening is usually achieved sufficiently every time you turn a chisel over to remove the burr -
> ...



I've been thinking about this a bit recently and would a slightly concave arkansas/waterstone give the desired camber to a blade that we emulate with jigs, techniques?


----------



## Jacob (11 May 2013)

wem":1lc2gi1q said:


> bugbear":1lc2gi1q said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1lc2gi1q said:
> ...


Certainly would. A nicely hollowed out stone can produce the camber you need really easily. I found this out when I once flattened a stone (experiment) and suddenly found sharpening got slightly more difficult. OK for chisels too - the shallow camber you have on plane blades works fine on a chisel though I imagine there are circumstances when you might want a dead straight edge, but I can't quite think what they would be.


----------



## Jelly (11 May 2013)

Jacob, I actually have a situation in which it can be useful to have a flat bevel (none of this primary & secondary nonsense)... if you flip your chisel over and use it bevel down (I do this fairly often when tidying up stray fibers at the bottom internal corners of stopped rebates, mortices and the like) then being able to make the chisel ride on that flat makes it that little bit easier, I have a few narrow chisels which are sharpened nice and flat for that reason... For doing the work of a chisel (rather than an improvised router plane) it doesn't seem to matter what shape the bevel is, so long as there is one, it's not ridiculously steep and it ends in a sharp bit.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 May 2013)

Jelly":1qrnl41p said:


> Jacob, I actually have a situation in which it can be useful to have a flat bevel (none of this primary & secondary nonsense)... if you flip your chisel over and use it bevel down (I do this fairly often when tidying up stray fibers at the bottom internal corners of stopped rebates, mortices and the like) then being able to make the chisel ride on that flat makes it that little bit easier, I have a few narrow chisels which are sharpened nice and flat for that reason... For doing the work of a chisel (rather than an improvised router plane) it doesn't seem to matter what shape the bevel is, so long as there is one, it's not ridiculously steep and it ends in a sharp bit.



 Yes Yes Yes. Really pleased you posted this. I have been trialing freehand instead of using the tormek and it's been fine. But as you pointed out I was cleaning a large recess and found that the chisel felt a little awkward when compared to the hollow grind of the tormek (and no my free hand is not a crazy convex). For some this might be fine and that's cool but as you point out it's not a positive as a flat bevel. I will be practicing the flattest bevel I can free hand. "the movement should be steady to avoid a rocking motion" Joinery & Carpentry Vol 1 1931 New Era Publishing "An undulating motion must be avoided as this will produce a round edge" Modern Practical Joinery, George Ellis 1902. Old knowledge is often the best


----------



## matthewwh (12 May 2013)

You can't avoid the rocking motion with freehand honing, in fact you will achieve far greater speed and consistency by going with nature and finding a comfortable flowing movement than you will by fighting it and trying to achieve a flat bevel. In 1902 they also believed that lefthandedness could be 'cured' by caning children and strapping their arm to their side...!

If you want flat primary and secondary bevels, these can be achieved very easily by using a honing guide.


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2013)

matthewwh":9s3uebx1 said:


> You can't avoid the rocking motion with freehand honing, in fact you will achieve far greater speed and consistency by going with nature and finding a comfortable flowing movement than you will by fighting it and trying to achieve a flat bevel. ........


Exactly what I have been saying for some time now! 
It's fine as long as you dip rather than lift and round over the edge. Could be called "rounding under" - rounded bevel but edge stays at 30º. Fast, easy, precise.
If you want to you can achieve a reasonably flat single bevel freehand by being more careful (but slower).


----------



## wem (12 May 2013)

Thanks Jacob. I have also been reading Krenov's books and he achieves a secondary bevel by relying on a *concave* grind from the wheel, this he rests on his stone and hones using small left to right or circular movements, nothing more, only the outer edges of the hollow grind contact. I have found this gives me much better results that last longer than any primary/secondary honing guide system. I suppose it is whatever works for you? Unfortunately it can be an expensive learning curve.

Edited because i meant concave.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 May 2013)

Concave grind from the wheel?


----------



## Peter Sefton (12 May 2013)

That's what it sounds like to me.


----------



## Jelly (12 May 2013)

I can't be the only woodworker out there who doesn't have a grinding wheel right? I don't get all of this "off the wheel" stuff, I've never come across a way to damage a chisel or plane iron (used properly) so badly that I couldn't get back to a decent edge with a coarse stone.

In fact I've probably only re-ground 3 chisels in all the time i've been woodworking (which actually belonged to work and were discovered being used as glorified tin openers), I moved the tool rest round to the side and used the flat side of the wheel to take the concavity out after taking the material off.


----------



## Jacob (12 May 2013)

Jelly":24fi8804 said:


> I can't be the only woodworker out there who doesn't have a grinding wheel right? I don't get all of this "off the wheel" stuff, I've never come across a way to damage a chisel or plane iron (used properly) so badly that I couldn't get back to a decent edge with a coarse stone.
> 
> In fact I've probably only re-ground 3 chisels in all the time i've been woodworking (which actually belonged to work and were discovered being used as glorified tin openers), I moved the tool rest round to the side and used the flat side of the wheel to take the concavity out after taking the material off.


Over the years I've wrecked a few chisels, usually on site - if a fine bevel edged parer is all you have in the box that's what you have to use (to get the lid off etc etc. :roll: ). It's only a fairly cheap tool and the job is usually worth a lt more.
So I've ground a few - never on a small wheel (too hot and too hollow ground) nor a large one (I haven't got one) but on a belt sander, lately up graded to a Sorby Proedge. On a flat stone only when there is absolutely no alternative.


----------



## Jelly (12 May 2013)

Jacob":1sk12zoh said:


> Over the years I've wrecked a few chisels, usually on site - if a fine bevel edged parer is all you have in the box that's what you have to use (to get the lid off etc etc. :roll: ). It's only a fairly cheap tool and the job is usually worth a lt more.



I can see how it happens to tools, but I still don't see how a grinder becomes part of a normal sharpening process... Rather than something that sits in the corner gathering dust for most of the time (the fact that you persisted with a belt sander for some time before getting a purpose built linisher illustrates that lack of use pretty well).


----------



## G S Haydon (12 May 2013)

Jelly":1l6vzzhn said:


> I can't be the only woodworker out there who doesn't have a grinding wheel right? I don't get all of this "off the wheel" stuff, I've never come across a way to damage a chisel or plane iron (used properly) so badly that I couldn't get back to a decent edge with a coarse stone.
> 
> In fact I've probably only re-ground 3 chisels in all the time i've been woodworking (which actually belonged to work and were discovered being used as glorified tin openers), I moved the tool rest round to the side and used the flat side of the wheel to take the concavity out after taking the material off.



Like Jacob said it depends on the work you do. If you are repairing joinery or working with reclaimed s'@! can happen!


----------



## G S Haydon (12 May 2013)

In 1902 they also believed that lefthandedness could be 'cured' by caning children and strapping their arm to their side...!  

If you want flat primary and secondary bevels, these can be achieved very easily by using a honing guide.[/quote]

Hi Matthew, I think honing guides are great for the reason you said. I guess I want to try an get a flat bevel free hand (without getting OCD) and I think it will come with practice. Wax on, Wax Off, Wax On, Wax Off.......................................
Also from a personal interest point of view an really enjoying the vibe of the old school stuff (corrective strapping aside  ). It's a nice tonic to a busy day :wink:


----------



## Racers (12 May 2013)

1902? I was at secondary school (I am now 54) with a boy who was forced to change hands, he was at a private school at the time.

Pete


----------



## jhwbigley (12 May 2013)

Jelly":18hm174i said:


> I moved the tool rest round to the side and used the flat side of the wheel to take the concavity out after taking the material off.



Grinding on the side of the wheel is bad news. Unless the wheel is designed for it, which very few are. 

If you really want a flat grind- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Viceroy-Sharp ... 20c88fc357

Clocked a good few hours on one of those, messy bloody horrible thing...

JH


----------



## Racers (12 May 2013)

Hi, JH

I borrow the one at work for chipped plane and chisel blades, its a pain to use but takes the out hard work.

Pete


----------



## jhwbigley (12 May 2013)

Racers":dudgvtqa said:


> Hi, JH
> 
> I borrow the one at work for chipped plane and chisel blades, its a pain to use but takes the out hard work.
> 
> Pete



They are good, just not so keen on the oil!

JH


----------



## bugbear (13 May 2013)

wem":1ztufowm said:


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



If the hollow were uniform for the full length of the stone, *and* just the right size for the blade camber you desire, *and* you want the same camber on each and every one of your planes, that might work well.  

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (13 May 2013)

bugbear":3l8wzx5q said:


> wem":3l8wzx5q said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":3l8wzx5q said:
> ...


Doesn't have to be so specific. In reality, if you are actually doing these things, they work out differently. Not least because a hollowed out stone tends to be hollow in the middle but flatter at the ends and edges, like a shallow bath. Which means all sorts of things are possible including accurate flattening - across the top of the bath as it were. 
They vary depending on the user. I have one which is deeply hollowed end to end but square across. Probably used by a butcher or somebody sharpening big blades. I'll never know!


----------



## wem (13 May 2013)

phil.p":ro14eocu said:


> Concave grind from the wheel?



Yes, sorry.


----------



## wem (13 May 2013)

The illustration showing the grind and the two points of contact with the stone along the edges.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 May 2013)

That's obscene! truly pornographic! Everyone knows it should be convex, not concave!


----------



## GazPal (14 May 2013)

jhwbigley":29eyelxu said:


> Jelly":29eyelxu said:
> 
> 
> > I moved the tool rest round to the side and used the flat side of the wheel to take the concavity out after taking the material off.
> ...




Grinding on the side of a low speed wet wheel is normally safe, but never if using high rpm. The vertical approach is much the same as using a horizontally mounted wet wheel.

Ye olde worlde Viceroy flat grinders were a bonus to have around in a busy workshop, as you could basically set up a blade to grind and allow the tool to do it's job while you got on with your work. Very little mess - if any - unless set up poor or the machine was faulty.

------------


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

wem":1msw9vto said:


> Thanks Jacob. I have also been reading Krenov's books and he achieves a secondary bevel by relying on a *concave* grind from the wheel, this he rests on his stone and hones using small left to right or circular movements, nothing more, only the outer edges of the hollow grind contact. I have found this gives me much better results that last longer than any primary/secondary honing guide system. I suppose it is whatever works for you? Unfortunately it can be an expensive learning curve.
> 
> Edited because i meant concave.


Wel yes it'll work but only if you can hollow grind accurately enough to give you the 30º edge and don't mind the edge weakened by hollow grinding.
A lot of these methods are predicated on the assumption that people can't easily hit an angle of 30º freehand. I don't believe this is true and in fact most of the work these same people do is much more difficult and requires a much higher level of craft and hand/eye ability.


----------



## wem (14 May 2013)

Wel yes it'll work but only if you can hollow grind accurately enough to give you the 30º edge and don't mind the edge weakened by hollow grinding.
A lot of these methods are predicated on the assumption that people can't easily hit an angle of 30º freehand. I don't believe this is true and in fact most of the work these same people do is much more difficult and requires a much higher level of craft and hand/eye ability.[/quote]

He used a rest made from wood.


----------



## Jacob (14 May 2013)

wem":3iv9pxiq said:


> Jacob":3iv9pxiq said:
> 
> 
> > Wel yes it'll work but only if you can hollow grind accurately enough to give you the 30º edge and don't mind the edge weakened by hollow grinding.
> ...


Glad to hear it! :lol:


----------

