# Back Flattening



## mudman (1 Aug 2007)

Right, whilst Mr G.'s at the beach, I feel safe enough to post on this subject. :wink: :wink: 

I have a load of pig-sticker mortice chisels that I got from ebay and by heck the backs are bad! A couple appear to have been taken to a grinder and most are approximating a banana shape.

Before going on holiday, I spent a load of time trying various metal removal devices to flatten these but wasn't getting very far very fast.

On holiday I bought a DMT x-coarse/coarse stone for $94 (£42 in our money  ) and was very impressed with the results. Really fast and I found myself actually starting to get somewhere. Finally finished flattening the one I'd started before holiday a lot faster than I would have hoped before. Then I finally got around to watching DC's video on chisel prep. Looked good I thought, completely different to what I had been doing so I tried it out. Heck of a difference. It seems to me that you need to combine the right equipment with the right techniques. Without this combination you can reach your goal but it may get a bit long-winded.

Only problem I do have is with the heavy thumb pressure, my thumbs are a bit knackered and I get a lot of pain doing that sort of thing for too long, but that's just me. Anyone else get this problem?

Anyway, I'd thoroughly recommend DC's approach. (That doesn't make me sound too much like an acolyte does it? :? )


----------



## mr (1 Aug 2007)

mudman":3odjo5xu said:


> Anyway, I'd thoroughly recommend DC's approach. (That doesn't make me sound too much like an acolyte does it? :? )


Senseless guru worship.  

Cheers Mike


----------



## Vormulac (1 Aug 2007)

Doesn't mean he's wrong! :lol: 

V.


"He *is* the Messiah, I should know, I've followed a few..."

Sorry.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (1 Aug 2007)

Way to go! Had a few test wacks with a newly arrived OBMC just last night - I'm hooked. This style feels much more comfortable/controllable to me. (Happily almost flat back though)

Last joints of index fingers worse for me. Had a monster flattening session earlier this year and found a long stick on top of the blade helped - let me use different parts of my hand as a pressure applicator. Of course, this might be a really bad idea results-wise, but seemed to help after several hours of finger abuse 

Mr C's vids are on my list.

Cheers


----------



## mudman (1 Aug 2007)

dunbarhamlin":1wvyxwvo said:


> Way to go! Had a few test wacks with a newly arrived OBMC just last night - I'm hooked. This style feels much more comfortable/controllable to me. (Happily almost flat back though)
> 
> Last joints of index fingers worse for me. Had a monster flattening session earlier this year and found a long stick on top of the blade helped - let me use different parts of my hand as a pressure applicator. Of course, this might be a really bad idea results-wise, but seemed to help after several hours of finger abuse
> 
> ...



I might try the stick idea, thanks for the tip.
I agree about the feel, you can tell that whacking out rectangular holes in wood is what these tools were created for.


----------



## engineer one (1 Aug 2007)

these days flattening definately makes my fingers hurt. not sure whether that is the long term problem, or just that holding small things so tight for so long was the reason.

paul :wink:


----------



## JesseM (2 Aug 2007)

dunbarhamlin":1fkwpak2 said:


> Way to go! Had a few test wacks with a newly arrived OBMC just last night - I'm hooked. This style feels much more comfortable/controllable to me. (Happily almost flat back though)
> Cheers


I'm glad your happy with them as I am mine. OBMC's are not common here, and this was my first introduction to them. It makes mortise chopping very enjoyable


----------



## MarcW (2 Aug 2007)

Hi all,

I do not recommend putting a stick on a chisel in order to flatten the face, commonly called back. I did this to a 2 inch Robert Sorby - which I bought for paring - and actually did not flatten the face but put a low spot on the area near the edge. The stick provides much pressure just over the edge. That and the long lever arm lift the back on the other side of the stone a tad and will cause you much more worry. DC's method works fine putting your fingertips on the chisel, no stick :wink:


----------



## bugbear (2 Aug 2007)

I will point out that flattening the back of a 1/8" wide 1/2" deep mortise chisel is "tricky"

DAMHIKT.

BugBear


----------



## ByronBlack (2 Aug 2007)

Is it really that beneficial to have a really flat back on a mortice chisel? It's a fairly rough/simple operation, and I would have thought a strong sharp edge is more important than a flat back - as opposed to paring/bench chisels where I can obviously see the benefits. But a mortice chisel? I'm not sure it makes a huge differece.. i'm happy to be corrected if there is something i'm missing here


----------



## mudman (2 Aug 2007)

ByronBlack":1e08mvyq said:


> Is it really that beneficial to have a really flat back on a mortice chisel? It's a fairly rough/simple operation, and I would have thought a strong sharp edge is more important than a flat back - as opposed to paring/bench chisels where I can obviously see the benefits. But a mortice chisel? I'm not sure it makes a huge differece.. i'm happy to be corrected if there is something i'm missing here



I can see what you mean and I expect that there is some truth in this. My thinking was that you need them to be reasonably flat and definitely without a belly across the width. This way the chisel itself will help to keep the mortice square and well formed. I suppose that the ends can be finished off with a paring chisel but if the mortice has been accurately prepared, then the whole mortice could be chopped out in one operation.

Anyway, my ones were/are waaaaaay out of flat. One looks like it has been attacked with a bench grinder by someone with a severe case of hiccups.


----------



## MrJay (2 Aug 2007)

Ni hao

Pig-stickers are tapered in cross section, so if you remove material from the face you also lose width. Not necessarily the end of the world, but worth keeping in mind.

Zaijien


----------



## mudman (2 Aug 2007)

MrJay":391olu85 said:


> Pig-stickers are tapered in cross section, so if you remove material from the face you also lose width. Not necessarily the end of the world, but worth keeping in mind.



Yep, I'm aware of this as you say, I don't think it is the end of the world and unfortunately unavoidable in this case.


----------



## David C (2 Aug 2007)

Without flatness of back adjacent to the cutting edge, good sharpening, i.e. honing/polishing away the wire edge , is going to be difficult.

1/8" and under, chisels are very difficult indeed. Back or flat side much more crucial than the bevel. I use movement 2 only to try and avoid rocking thin chisels.

It has always seemed to me that some tools are in too bad a state to warrant the huge time and effort required to rescue them.
Deep rust pitting is such a case. (always wanted a nice surface grinder, but can't really justify the space).

The only thing that I have found so far which helps, is something like masking tape to afford better friction, on the the top of the blade.

David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (3 Aug 2007)

David C":vo1kv4ci said:


> Without flatness of back adjacent to the cutting edge, good sharpening, i.e. honing/polishing away the wire edge , is going to be difficult.
> 
> 1/8" and under, chisels are very difficult indeed. Back or flat side much more crucial than the bevel. I use movement 2 only to try and avoid rocking thin chisels.



Agreed, in respect of "normal" 1/8" chisels. But 1/8" pig stickers are in a league of their own! They just want to "flop" over, since the driving surface is 4x as far from the worked surface as the work surface is wide.

(I jigged the pipper in my ludicrous honing guide to get the job done).
http://www.geocities.com/plybench/tour. ... pening_jig



> The only thing that I have found so far which helps, is something like masking tape to afford better friction, on the the top of the blade.



For plane blades and wide chisels, a simple dado'd bit o' scrap works well.

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/scrub.html#blade
(second photo, which needed a darker background)

BugBear


----------



## mudman (3 Aug 2007)

David C":16ntydbm said:


> It has always seemed to me that some tools are in too bad a state to warrant the huge time and effort required to rescue them.
> Deep rust pitting is such a case. (always wanted a nice surface grinder, but can't really justify the space).
> 
> David Charlesworth



I have been thinking that as well in the last couple of days. I gave up buying old carving tools as I was getting too many that had been ruined by grinding not just rust.

I think it is the deep rust that is the killer. The back can be brought to a level of flatness within a reasonable amount of time, but when you have to take metal off of the entire surface just to remove the pitting that always seems to occur close to the edge, that is when it gets tedious. I thought I'd give myself a break from mortice chisels and sort out an old Isaac Greaves drawknife that had been languishing in a drawer for a year or so. Even worse! The pitting here is quite severe but I'm getting through it and it shouldn't take much longer to produce a usable tool. Luckily it had originally been hollow ground.

If you consider the amount of time and effort, I admit that it does seem to be a bit nonsensical. However, I really enjoy bringing these old ruins back to life and when I finally get to using them, it will give me immense pleasure just to pick it up and remember its original state.


----------



## mudman (3 Aug 2007)

ByronBlack":3g0m3d8u said:


> Is it really that beneficial to have a really flat back on a mortice chisel? It's a fairly rough/simple operation, and I would have thought a strong sharp edge is more important than a flat back - as opposed to paring/bench chisels where I can obviously see the benefits. But a mortice chisel? I'm not sure it makes a huge differece.. i'm happy to be corrected if there is something i'm missing here



Funnily enough I've been reading an article on FWW (thanks for the tip Alf) about morticing methods. In it, Brian Boggs says:


> The
> quality of the mortise depends largely on how the chisel is tuned.
> Boggs told of the occasion when a student who could not chop a
> good mortise borrowed his chisel and had no further problems.
> ...



This sort of makes me feel happier and a bit vindicated about the quest for flatness.


----------



## ByronBlack (3 Aug 2007)

mudman - that does make sense (the second part of your quote) as i've noticed that a certain mortice chisel I have seems to always twist in the cut, which can get quite annoying - despite it being razor sharp. I can certainly see the appeal of LN chisels - no hassle


----------



## David C (3 Aug 2007)

BugBear,
That's quite a feat, here's an alternative suggestion, for working up the backs of old mis-shapen OBMs 

It occured to me some time last night that a good option would be to hold a narrow mortice chisel in a machine vice or equivalent with the flat side uppermost and horizontal. Some shims may be required if the chisel has tapered crossection.

Measure height of flat side from bench surface.

Then create a pyramidal wooden prop, with a smooth slightly domed "point" i.e.not pointed at all!

The base of this pyramid is about the width of a large benchstone.

This prop is used upside down, i.e. domed head running on bench top, with the broad end supporting one end of bench stone, (preferably diamond to start with).

One can then hone away to one's hearts content, with the opposite end of the stone working the back of the chisel, knowing that the bench stone is moving in a fixed plane. ~;-)#

I like this set up and have used it before for bevelling the long edges of Japanese chisels, for getting into corners of dovetails.

What do you think?

David Charlesworth


----------



## Anonymous (4 Aug 2007)

"Tune" an OBM? :lol: :lol: 
Just needs to be sharp. Doesn't matter about flat face, although needs to be geometrically regular in section as someone pointed out, otherwise it could twist I suppose.
I find all this tuning stuff a bit odd, it's as though every newly aquired tool should be re-machined as though it's just an unformed bit of steel.
In reality most things just need a quick sharpen and you are off. Rust and pitting disappear with use unless extreme.
PS


> *Boggs*: The bottom and sides of the blade
> must be flat and square (the top of the blade is irrelevant).


He's wrong, ideally the side are tapered, so not sqaure with the face, the back matters too i.e. has to be parallel to the face as the face/back wedging action is essential part of using an OBM, unlike most other chisels.
I am a bit mystified by the new Ray Iles OBM design with a rounded back. Can't be a good idea IMHO.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## David C (4 Aug 2007)

If I am not mistaken, this thread was about rescuing old tools where the back was in a dreadful state.

David C


----------



## Joel Moskowitz (4 Aug 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":36d6wk3s said:


> I am a bit mystified by the new Ray Iles OBM design with a rounded back. Can't be a good idea IMHO.
> 
> cheers
> Jacob



Inless you are using the term "back" differently than i the backs of the Ray Iles Mortise chisels are flat. The front above the bevel are slightly rounded for comfort but they as they are above the bevel they do not interfere with cutting - and in fact are a historical detail you sometimes find on very old (18th century) mortise chisels.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (5 Aug 2007)

The primary bevels of one Ray Iles chisel I have is decidedly askew (lines drawn perpendicularly across the face and bevel would not be parallel) though the original secondary bevels were such that the cutting edges were true. Am nibbling away at one side of the primary each time I sharpen to try and remedy, as it does indeed seem to it them prone to consistently damage one side of the mortice when prying out. It doesn't seem to affect direction of cut much, though I am using soft stuff at the mo, and I don't believe it is a technique issue as another is not so afflicted and doesn't show the same tendency.


----------



## Anonymous (5 Aug 2007)

Joel Moskowitz":eylqj6wu said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":eylqj6wu said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit mystified by the new Ray Iles OBM design with a rounded back. Can't be a good idea IMHO.
> ...


I was taught to call them face/back rather than back/front. As it seems more logical I thought I'd stick with it.
Yes I suppose the rounded back won't affect the cut as all the wedging action is at the bevel end even when the chisel is buried in the mortice. Don't see what it has to do with comfort though, as you don't let go of the handle in use. 

cheers
Jacob


----------



## mudman (5 Aug 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3qcicl2c said:


> "Tune" an OBM? :lol: :lol:
> Just needs to be sharp. Doesn't matter about flat face, although needs to be geometrically regular in section as someone pointed out, otherwise it could twist I suppose.
> I find all this tuning stuff a bit odd, it's as though every newly aquired tool should be re-machined as though it's just an unformed bit of steel.
> In reality most things just need a quick sharpen and you are off. Rust and pitting disappear with use unless extreme.
> ...



Edited to remove original posting as I don't want to start any arguements.

Suffice to say.
Chisels = knackered = lots of work to put right = satisfaction at end of day.


----------



## mudman (5 Aug 2007)

David C":2b8x8cdx said:


> If I am not mistaken, this thread was about rescuing old tools where the back was in a dreadful state.
> 
> David C



Thank you David, that is exactly what this thread is about.


----------



## Anonymous (5 Aug 2007)

mudman":37pf8hls said:


> snip
> Chisels = knackered = lots of work to put right = satisfaction at end of day.


That's alright then if it keeps you happy :lol: 
Wouldn't bother myself - if that knackered I'd bin them, they don't cost a lot.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Aug 2007)

I would like to add a few nuggets to this discussion.

And, as David noted, this is about rehabbing old mortice chisels. I have done a bunch over the years and this is what I recommend.

The back of the chisel must be flat, not rounded. You cannot get a sharp edge otherwise. What you will instead find is a permanent wire edge (burr) identical to the effect of a wear bevel on a plane blade. The presence of this wire edge after you have done the usual tghings to remove it indicates that the back is not flat enough.

The problem is (1) getting the back flat with the least of effort, and (2) maintaining the "squareness", that is, bearing in mind that the sides of an OBMC are tapered.

Lapping the back is done using sandpaper, as per my article at
http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/z_art/lappingBlade/lappBlade1.asp

I usually start with 80 or 120 grit, depending on how much needs to be removed. I would not use an Extra Coarse DMT (I do have one) as this is 220 grit, and you will find it too slow (and just wear out the DMT). 

The more difficult/crucial aspect of the OBM variety is keeping the tapered sides centred. This translates to keeping the backs flat on the sandpaper - not tilting them one way or another. 

In my article I only have to deal with square sided plane blades. I used a magnetic base to hold the blade. I do the same with chisels. The rectangle provides a decent reference to gauge whether I am level. 

A variant to the is to add a cross bar to the top (or to the chisel back - especially the narrow 1/8" ones). I recall BB writing up this tip when sharpening saw blades.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## MikeW (6 Aug 2007)

Wanna have some fun?

Quick--everyone here do a *short* non-argumentitive, non-wordy definition of:

Back = ******
Face = ******

*On a chisel*.

No fair looking in your favorite reference. Really: NO LOOKING.

In other words, state which side of a *chisel *is the _*face*_, which is the _*back*_.

Replace the asterisks above with two simple words:

Beveled side
Non-beveled side

I think some of the confusion/argument is due to these definitions.

Take care, Mike


----------



## MarcW (6 Aug 2007)

MikeW":2alzkzvc said:


> ...
> Back = ******
> Face = ******
> ...
> ...



Hi Mike,

Thought that too... that's why I earlier gave a hint in this thread. We had that problem some time ago...

back-seat-driver mode out now

Face = non-beveled side, i.e. the side that has to be flattened

Cheers,

Marc


----------



## Anonymous (6 Aug 2007)

MarcW":1p1vdsx0 said:


> snip
> Face = non-beveled side, i.e. the side that has to be flattened
> 
> Cheers,
> ...


Agree. Same with plane blade, similar with saw i.e. _back_ is opposite the cutting edge.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## David C (6 Aug 2007)

Hampton & Clifford in "Planecraft" use face,

Garrett Hack uses back,

So far I can find nothing in Joyce!

David C


----------



## MarcW (6 Aug 2007)

Robert Sorby mentions in their catalogue 05/06:



> ...The face of each chisel has an indentation point...



The indentation is on the side that has to be flattened... at least on my RS chisels. 

Cheers,


----------



## Anonymous (6 Aug 2007)

George Ellis uses _back_ and _face_ i.e. flat side for face, on plane irons. Doesn't seem to mention chisel sharpening, but that was in the days when sharpening wasn't really a problem.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Aug 2007)

I always thought that the back-face distinction was thus:







Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Anonymous (6 Aug 2007)

Derek
What would you call the (side) opposite to your _back_? Front? Top?
Why call the bevel _face_ as well?

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Aug 2007)

Hi Jacob

I think that the "face" and the "bevel" are not completely interchangeable. Almost but not completely. 

We could talk of the "bevel face" to mean the entire area comprising the bevel. For example, the bevel face is hollow ground, or the bevel face is flat ground. 

So why then not just use bevel or face? Because we could also talk of the "bevel edge" to mean the intersection between the bevel face and the back of the blade. 

Is there a "front"? I think so (the opposing side to the "back").

Similarly, I often use "shoulders" to refer to the sides of a blade, particularly when describing the nature of the bevel here, such as dovetail verses firmer chisels. I think of "narrow shoulders" or "shallow shoulders" verses "full shoulders". 

I emphasize that this is my terminological logic (if there is such a word/phrase  ) - it is interesting that others see this differently. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Sgian Dubh (6 Aug 2007)

Far too much anal nit-picking going on in this thread. 

Just flatten the bloody things on the back a bit if needed, the flat bit opposite the honed edge, then just sharp'n'go so to speak.

How is it possible to make such a common or garden task so blasted involved? If there's any more analysing and debating of minor details goes on I swear we'll be attempting to raise this straightforward maintenance task into one of the worlds most involved and mysterious arts; an art that requires groups of priests, incantations, zen like chanting and swinging incense holders to achieve. 

It's all getting just plain silly. Slainte.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (6 Aug 2007)

> How is it possible to make such a common or garden task so blasted involved?



Actually I wasn't aware that defining sections of a blade was anything more than an attempt at simplifying communication. Or should we go back to grunts? :lol: 

What we do with, or how we use, this information is another thing of course. That is where anality can enter the picture.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## dunbarhamlin (6 Aug 2007)

Problem is when meanings are reversed it makes communication unreliable.

I'd rather my assets were decimated than halved, but misuse of 'decimate' (reduce by one tenth) has rendered this a foolish assertion in the eye of the majority. Which is right? Both - but common ground must be established before meaningful discourse can proceed.

Steve


----------



## Anonymous (6 Aug 2007)

Sgian Dubh":1pjqywpk said:


> Far too much anal nit-picking going on in this thread.
> 
> Just flatten the bloody things on the back a bit if needed, the flat bit opposite the honed edge, then just sharp'n'go so to speak.
> 
> ...


Do you get anal nits too? :lol: 
I agree with you SD but we _are_ trying to get back to common sense - don't be impatient :shock: 

cheers
Jacob


----------



## bugbear (6 Aug 2007)

dunbarhamlin":21tlhr6s said:


> Problem is when meanings are reversed it makes communication unreliable.
> 
> I'd rather my assets were decimated than halved, but misuse of 'decimate' (reduce by one tenth) has rendered this a foolish assertion in the eye of the majority. Which is right? Both - but common ground must be established before meaningful discourse can proceed.
> 
> Steve



Complete agreed. We do have some humpty dumpty's amongst us.

BugBear


----------



## MikeW (6 Aug 2007)

> Far too much anal nit-picking going on in this thread.


I rarely get involved in such threads--which is why I plopped something like a "define this" so late in the game.

Point is, the unbeveled surface is the face of a chisel, the back is the surface from which the bevel is formed. I know this seems counter intuitive, but this is how my books (older ones) thus define these surfaces.

So I thought there was just a bit of confusion as people were using the terms opposite of the other.

Take care, Mike
back to avoiding such threads...but as is obvious I am not the only person to read through threads such as this nonetheless. Slainte


----------



## Paul Kierstead (6 Aug 2007)

MikeW":2zpgv528 said:


> Point is, the unbeveled surface is the face of a chisel, the back is the surface from which the bevel is formed. I know this seems counter intuitive, but this is how my books (older ones) thus define these surfaces.



One could guess that the usage arose for plane blades, where the unbeveled surface is "forward facing" (in bevel down planes of course). The usage probably carried over to chisels. Of course, I am just making **** up here; guessing.


----------



## Anonymous (7 Aug 2007)

To confuse things further - in place of "bevel" Ellis uses "basil" which is a corruption of "bezel"; an established alternative acc. to my dictionary


----------



## bugbear (7 Aug 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":21mcfobe said:


> To confuse things further - in place of "bevel" Ellis uses "basil" which is a corruption of "bezel"; an established alternative acc. to my dictionary



IIRC Moxon uses "basil", making the usage quite established.

BugBear


----------



## mudman (8 Aug 2007)

Oooh, I go a way for a couple of days and look what happens, lots of confusion around faces and backs.

I've always used back to be the flat part of the chisel that registers against the wood. Actually, I might also use the term face to mean the same thing but prefix it with 'flat'.

Not so sure we are making this so involved though. I only need myself to flatten a back so that simplifies things a bit. I'm only wondering if other people can make the task less onerous. Currently I am starting off with a period of meditation upon the meaning of flatness. Then I sprinkle some iron filings that have been energised within the living wood of a yew tree around the sharpening station. This is an ancient measure designed to ward off rust in the freshly sharpened steel. I then proceed to use the holy movements on the sharpening stone reciting the "Protection Against the Hollowed Stone" mantra. Once flatness starts to appear, I'll perform the Shine Invocation. A new thing I've been trying with some success is to dowse the back of the chisel with a small plumbbob made from mistletoe wood. This will go to and fro if the back is flat but will rotate over areas that are out of true. Seems to be working very well.

This seems to be working well for me, does anyone else do anything different?

I am having some trouble sharpening though, I don't think my pyramid has quite the right dimensions.


----------



## David C (10 Aug 2007)

tsk tsk,

no allignment with ley lines or divination for propitious phases of the moon?

David C


----------



## mudman (10 Aug 2007)

David C":1s8pe5qn said:


> tsk tsk,
> 
> no allignment with ley lines or divination for propitious phases of the moon?
> 
> David C



You make a good point there David, if alignment of the tool with a ley line should give better results but to get the best effect you need to clamp the tool in the correct orientation and then move the sharpening stone instead. This can lead to some problems and the need for an Invocation of Stability which has been know to backfire on the user at times so can be a touch dodgy.
You are right about the moon phases though as the Shine Invocation is affected by this giving a better result around the time of the full moon.

BTW, did I mention that the process needs to be performed naked except for a laurel wreath?


----------



## mr (10 Aug 2007)

mudman":5w2qvakl said:


> I am having some trouble sharpening though, I don't think my pyramid has quite the right dimensions.



You must be very careful with an incorrectly sized Pyramid, Electromagnetic frequencies affected by imperfect Pyramidic shape can cause the Pyramid to act as an accumulator which will in turn change the frequencies into a new form of energy which might have unseen consequences. Having said that if you manage to stop the flow of time please let me know as it would help considerably with my current work load  

Cheers Mike


----------



## pam niedermayer (10 Aug 2007)

"Ley" line? Ley is defined as arable land used temporarily for hay or grazing, a variant of "lea." Please help me with this, then we can proceed to "Bob's your uncle." 

Pam


----------



## mudman (10 Aug 2007)

pam niedermayer":2cb0157k said:


> "Ley" line? Ley is defined as arable land used temporarily for hay or grazing, a variant of "lea." Please help me with this, then we can proceed to "Bob's your uncle."
> 
> Pam



Pam,

Here you go

You can detect and follow them by dowsing using rods or plumb bobs.

Always a good idea to determine if you have any important intersections in your workshop. :wink:


----------



## pam niedermayer (10 Aug 2007)

Thanks for the Wikipedia link, Barry. I suppose David was referring to their mystical use.

Pam


----------



## mudman (10 Aug 2007)

pam niedermayer":2zf5u8vm said:


> Thanks for the Wikipedia link, Barry. I suppose David was referring to their mystical use.
> 
> Pam



Yep, he sure was.
Although the alternative definition has given me this image of herds of gently grazing OBM Chisels. :?


----------

