# One Bevel, Two Bevels, Three Bevels, More?



## MMUK (11 Mar 2014)

Not wishing to hijack other threads, I'm curious as the the advantages/disadvantages of having differing numbers of bevels on your blades. I've only ever honed a single bevel on my plane irons and chisels and find it works for me. So, why are there variations? How does it make a difference to performance?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Mar 2014)

a secondary bevel of say 30 deg on a 25 deg plane iron just means you only have to hone a tiny strip of metal next time you sharpen. Just saves time cos less metal


----------



## MMUK (11 Mar 2014)

I guess that's the Yorkshire way then? :lol:


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Mar 2014)

Although born in Rotherham.....there is some Scottish in the family


----------



## bugbear (11 Mar 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":30cefr4o said:


> a secondary bevel of say 30 deg on a 25 deg plane iron just means you only have to hone a tiny strip of metal next time you sharpen. Just saves time cos less metal



Yeah - grind at 25, sharpen at 30. This is an old, OLD, technique.


BugBear


----------



## Jacob (11 Mar 2014)

bugbear":3vutugnw said:


> Random Orbital Bob":3vutugnw said:
> 
> 
> > a secondary bevel of say 30 deg on a 25 deg plane iron just means you only have to hone a tiny strip of metal next time you sharpen. Just saves time cos less metal
> ...


It's the basic text-book default technique and is a good starting point. It tends not to be strictly followed but any system which leaves a sharp edge at about 30º will do, except hollow grinding isn't ideal for tools which get used forcefully.


----------



## Corneel (11 Mar 2014)

Honing on your final polishing stone is an inherent slow proces of course, so it is not a bad idea to only hone the very little bit at the edge. The rest of the bevel doesn't need to be polished. So it speeds up the total sharpening procedure. But there is a caveat (as always). On the next sharpening, when you want to raise a wire edge again, you must remove this secondairy bevel with a coarser stone, which takes time. So the net savings aren't as huge as you first think. Still, honing only the secundairy bevel makes sure that you are absolutely sure that you are honing the very edge, not an area a little higher up the bevel.


----------



## Bigdanny (11 Mar 2014)

(hammer) Is this yet another sharpening thread. (hammer)


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Mar 2014)

Oh no it isn't....Look behind you etc etc ;-)


----------



## MMUK (11 Mar 2014)

Bigdanny":3svcx6x9 said:


> (hammer) Is this yet another sharpening thread. (hammer)




No, God forbid :shock: 

I was just curious as to why the differing number of bevels. I have what appears to be a reliable answer now so I don't see the need to turn this into War and Peace :lol:


----------



## DTR (11 Mar 2014)

The theory behind honing a secondary bevel makes sense, but I've seen some people advocate honing a _third_ bevel. I just can't get my head around that. Anyone have an opinion on that?


----------



## bugbear (11 Mar 2014)

DTR":2jwuvjqg said:


> The theory behind honing a secondary bevel makes sense, but I've seen some people advocate honing a _third_ bevel. I just can't get my head around that. Anyone have an opinion on that?



It just the concept of using a coarser grit, at a lower angle, to reduce the size of the metal worked by a finer grit at a steeper angle.

One could (in theory) extend this to any number of grits/angles.

I just use two; coarse grit at 25, all other grits at 30 degrees, on a secondary I keep well below 2mm.

BugBear


----------



## DTR (11 Mar 2014)

bugbear":1bpk90el said:


> DTR":1bpk90el said:
> 
> 
> > The theory behind honing a secondary bevel makes sense, but I've seen some people advocate honing a _third_ bevel. I just can't get my head around that. Anyone have an opinion on that?
> ...



That's precisely my point, the secondary is so small that there is no benefit in honing an insignificantly smaller third bevel.


----------



## CStanford (11 Mar 2014)

MMUK":219axvoy said:


> Not wishing to hijack other threads, I'm curious as the the advantages/disadvantages of having differing numbers of bevels on your blades. I've only ever honed a single bevel on my plane irons and chisels and find it works for me. So, why are there variations? How does it make a difference to performance?



The reality of grinding at 25* and honing at 30* is that often in the heat of battle with lots of quick rehonings the 30* angle grows and becomes multiple bevels to boot - sort of a mess as anybody who has every bought a vintage tool can surely attest to. One lifts ever so slightly higher at each rehoning in order to produce a burr in a hurry. You can just go ahead and round it under and you'll save time and steel in the long run. This is the Paul Sellers/Jacob Butler/many past woodworkers lost to history technique. Or, alternatively, hone it on the grinding bevel with no lift - grind it at 30* and register the hollow ground edge to the stone and do not lift to put a micro on it at all. Everything happens at 30*


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Mar 2014)

I could resharpen several times on an 8,000G waterstone before I had to regrind the primary bevel. It most certainly is a time saver, although we are hardly referring to huge amounts of time. Perhaps 30 seconds here and there. 
I think the advantage of the two bevels are that you can quite easily get away with having just two grades of stones, a very coarse one and a very fine stone. As I stated on the other thread, for a number of years I simply used a hand crank and the 8,000G waterstone. It's a pretty simple and relatively low cost approach, as you also have the tool to grind out some serious nicks. The slight disadvantage is the hollow grind on the hand crank. Perhaps more of a disadvantage if you are hitting Chisels, less so with Plane blades. Using a coarse flat diamond stone (or alternative) and that disadvantage disappears.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (11 Mar 2014)

The mortise chisel is an exception, where the shallow (20°) primary bevel has a rôle in the working performance of the tool by easing penetration.


----------



## Jacob (11 Mar 2014)

Hmm. :lol: 
Mortice chisel best as rounded bevel IMHO. In fact essential. It's about leverage at the bottom of blind mortices. The rounded bevel makes for a moving fulcrum - as with many other levering tools; claw hammer, wrecking bar, nail puller etc.
It's deja vu all over again - this is where I came in burbling about rounded bevels several years ago. I found out how easy it is to sharpen rounded bevel mortice chisels and realised it was the same for most (all?) other edge tools.

To answer OP's question - the number of bevels doesn't matter in the slightest, it's just different ways of removing metal so you can get to a 30º edge. Except heavily used tools are better with one bevel (or close), for strength and resistance to vibration etc.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (12 Mar 2014)

Hehehe. Rum pipper. Though, must admit I do soften the elbow between primary and shaft by dipping at the end of the stroke.


----------



## GLFaria (2 Apr 2014)

I suppose most everybody here knows (and went through...) Brent Breach's Pages?

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/index.html

More than one could ask for (certainly much more than I ask for...), but he has some interesting reasonings for the use of multiple bevels.


----------



## Vann (2 Apr 2014)

DTR":yb8rptub said:


> The theory behind honing a secondary bevel makes sense, but I've seen some people advocate honing a _third_ bevel.


Coarse, Medium, & Fine?



Bigdanny":yb8rptub said:


> Is this yet another sharpening thread.


'fraid so - or looks like it to me (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann


----------



## Jacob (2 Apr 2014)

GLFaria":3q0z9v2d said:


> I suppose most everybody here knows (and went through...) Brent Breach's Pages?
> 
> http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/index.html
> 
> More than one could ask for (certainly much more than I ask for...), but he has some interesting reasonings for the use of multiple bevels.


Knows of; yes. Went through; no. Pseudo science. Nonsense.


----------



## bugbear (2 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1zrntg3f said:


> GLFaria":1zrntg3f said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose most everybody here knows (and went through...) Brent Breach's Pages?
> ...



You haven't read it but you're sure he's wrong.

Typical.

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I've found Brent's work to be careful, thoughtful and helpful. And like all research, incomplete.

Recommended reading, along with Steve Elliott, for those who don't think they know it all already.

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Apr 2014)

...heeeeeeeeere comes annnnnnother one...


----------



## Corneel (2 Apr 2014)

One of the conclusions of mr. Beech is the necessity to use a backbevel to get a truely sharp edge. Now, back bevels are nothing new, but the vast majority of the woodworkers from previous generations didn't bother with backbevels. They even didn't pay much attention to flattening the back. It is rare to see an old plane iron with a polished back, and I don't think I have ever read an old woodworking text where back flattening was teached. So they just sharpened the bevel, turned the iron over on the stone and smeared it around a bit to remove the wire edge. That was presumably good enough for them to do their work. 

Because I like to use old tools, I have to do the dreaded back flattening procedure more often then I like, because of pitting of the steel. Pitting seriously disturbs a sharp edge. But that's a typical problem of old tools, not so much when they were new.


----------



## David C (2 Apr 2014)

Brent Beach is a much recommended read.

Good stuff.

David


----------



## GLFaria (3 Apr 2014)

"One of the conclusions of mr. Beech is the necessity to use a backbevel to get a truely sharp edge..."

I dont't see it so. What I believe Mr. Beach means is that a back bevel is needed for a sharp edge to stay sharp for as long as possible, which is quite different. A question of efficiency.

Given his resoning, I believe he is probably right (although I am probably not going to start putting back-bevels on my irons - I'm not good enough with a plane, nor do I work with such hard woods, to possibly feel that much of a difference)


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

When you sharpen a plane or a chisel you effectively put a "back bevel" on every time, unless you flatten the face every time, which would be totally impractical. The back bevel will be barely noticeable unless you are having to do a steeper one to take out pits etc.
BBeach says:
_Everyone uses a jig. Some prefer to use the jig that is the human body. They have devised ways of locking their wrists and hands, rocking from heel to toe, etc._ 
This is nonsense and shows that he doesn't know the first thing about sharpening, quite literally; the first thing being how to sharpen without a gadget, in the traditional way, as done by millions past and present.

He shares our own BB's belief that traditional sharpening is impossible - "Unless you happen to have an uncanny ability to judge and hold a desired angle freehand, some kind of assistance is definitely called for. BugBear" and everything he says is based on this one mistake.


----------



## Mr T (3 Apr 2014)

As others have said the second bevel means less time honing, you should be able to re-hone the edge in less than 30 seconds. As well as saving time it also means you are likely to resharpen more often. There can be a tendency to struggle on with a blunt tool if re-honing is a chore.

Chris


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

Mr T":1srtcvj8 said:


> As others have said the second bevel means less time honing, you should be able to re-hone the edge in less than 30 seconds. As well as saving time it also means you are likely to resharpen more often. There can be a tendency to struggle on with a blunt tool if re-honing is a chore.
> 
> Chris


Yes but honing gets progressively more difficult and eventually you have to sharpen the secondary bevel, so it doesn't save time in the longer term. 
Honing and all the bevel is taken care of in one operation if you do it the Paul Sellers (and my) way.


----------



## Corneel (3 Apr 2014)

GLFaria":akuqrgsv said:


> "One of the conclusions of mr. Beech is the necessity to use a backbevel to get a truely sharp edge..."
> 
> I dont't see it so. What I believe Mr. Beach means is that a back bevel is needed for a sharp edge to stay sharp for as long as possible, which is quite different. A question of efficiency.



While commuting in the train I quickly scanned through his website (which is very chaotic BTW!). I don't see Brent testing the longevity of differently sharpened edges anywhere. I do see this quote from the home page of his website:



> Sharpening using a jig like mine will quickly return the tool to the sharp state. Other methods probably won't. For example, any freehand method will instead take you somewhere between sharp and dull (closer to dull). Any jig that does not do back bevels will get you somewhere between sharp and dull.



That's complete nonsence of course. Generations before us have created a complete living environment out of wood, often to astonishingly high quality levels. They used handplanes, they didn't use jigs or backbevels. Since we handplane users are only hobbyists, fumbling around a bit in our tinshed in the backgarden, we shouldn't ever forget this heritage. Any research (which is fascinating subject!) should start from that tradition. They are our reference.

Brent focuses a lot on the wear bevel on the upper side of the edge, where the shaving is rubbing over the steel. His idea is that to get a truely sharp edge you need to remove the wear bevels on both sides of the edge and the roundness of the edge itself. He drew all his conclusions from looking at the length of these wearbevels through a microscope. While this is an interesting detail, it doesn't tell us much about the actual shape of these wearbevels. All about his ideas you can find on this webpage: http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/bevels.html#lowerwear

Another hobby researcher, Steve Eliott, looked at the side of the edge from a rebatting plane with a much better microscope. This gives us a better idea of the actual shape of the worn edge. The Japanese research from Kato has similar images.
http://bladetest.infillplane.com/html/wear_profiles.html
He concluded that the wear bevel on the clearance side of the edge forms a bulge which is lifting the edge out of the cut. This is bad for the performance of the plane, this is what makes us wanting to sharpen the edge after a while. It needs to be removed through honing the bevel of the blade. Another feature of the worn edge is the round nose of the edge. Roundness is not as nice as sharp of course. And finally the wear bevel on the upper side of the edge. This is officially called the rake side, thus we can call this the rake wear bevel. Something peculiar is happening with this rake wear bevel. First, because of its shape it reduces the roundness of the edge. It removes material from the upper side of this roundness, thus decreasing the radius. The Japanese call this the self sharpening effect.

Another peculiar thing about the rake wear bevel is that it is actually highly polished. We can even see this with our naked eyes. We can see a gleaming line along the edge on the rake side of a dull blade. That is the the rake wear bevel. It is as if the wood strops this side of the blade. When I look at it with a microscope I can see that it has a better finish then my Naniwa SS 8000 stone!

So, looking at all these images I come to a carefull conclusion (bearing in mind that there is still loads we don't know). Polishing the rake side of the blade isn't necessary. The wood allready polished it. Of course we need to remove the burr from sharpening the bevel. This is something that still intrueges me. But we surely don't need to remove all of the rake side wear bevel.

All this is about bevel down planes. I know nothing about bevel up planes.


----------



## bugbear (3 Apr 2014)

GLFaria":cynvyemm said:


> "One of the conclusions of mr. Beech is the necessity to use a backbevel to get a truely sharp edge..."
> 
> I dont't see it so. What I believe Mr. Beach means is that a back bevel is needed for a sharp edge to stay sharp for as long as possible, which is quite different. A question of efficiency.
> 
> Given his resoning, I believe he is probably right (although I am probably not going to start putting back-bevels on my irons - I'm not good enough with a plane, nor do I work with such hard woods, to possibly feel that much of a difference)



Brent's experiments and results are more trustworthy than his extrapolations and conclusions.

Nobody's perfect  

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (3 Apr 2014)

The 'quickest' overall sharpening method is probably the one that removes metal fastest. That'll be grinding on an offhand grinder or coarse belt linisher, leaving as little work as possible to refine a working edge by honing on oilstones, diamond plates, lapping films, doorsteps or whatever. When it starts to take too long to restore the working edge on the said oilstones, diamond plates etc., zap a bit more off with the grinder, leaving a sliver of edge to refine on the stones.

Grinding bulk metal off on stones, however coarse, by hand is bound to be slower than zapping bulk waste off with a grinder. 'Bulk waste' is any metal behind the immediate cutting edge - it has to come off to preserve the tool's cutting geometry.

You can generally get several honings - maybe ten or so - before the secondary bevel becomes large enough to take too long to rehone on the stones. You can either regrind 'little and often' (every five honings, say) or hone on and have a heavy session on the grinder now and again. Individual circumstances will probably dictate which approach is more appropriate.


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

One of the most hilariously daft things which BB says is _".....any freehand method will instead take you somewhere between sharp and dull (closer to dull)...."_
Does he really think that no craftsmen, from the stone age onwards, could sharpen tools, until the advent of BBeach? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":13nbnax6 said:


> ......You can either regrind 'little and often' (every five honings, say) or hone on and have a heavy session on the grinder now and again. .....


Or you do it the trad way and "regrind" with every sharpening and never go near a grind wheel except for repair/reshape etc.
I prefer this method because every sharpening is done the same way, with no slow-down fine-honing a progressively extending primary bevel, and then having to start again with a regrind.


----------



## bugbear (3 Apr 2014)

Jacob":3a449zuh said:


> Cheshirechappie":3a449zuh said:
> 
> 
> > ......You can either regrind 'little and often' (every five honings, say) or hone on and have a heavy session on the grinder now and again. .....
> ...



Many adjectives can be justifiably applied to your *round bevel made on a fairly coarse india stone* technique, but "trad" isn't one of them.

In the good old days of Charnley Forrest stones, double bevel was the practical way to get things done.

Still, it's always interesting to hear about your particular technique. :roll: 

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (3 Apr 2014)

As an interruption to the theorising maybe I could just offer an example of an approach to grinding and sharpening which clearly suited one experienced professional woodworker...

I know I've mentioned it more than once, but the 1983 Swiss TV film of the last hand tool makers in Geneva is worth watching more than once. If you are in a hurry, just skip to 10 minutes 35 seconds in, and watch for the next 60 seconds or so, to watch Eric Raggenbass take an old laminated iron, grind it to fit the plane it is to be used in and hone it on an oilstone, ready for use. He does have to slow down a bit, to explain what he is doing, but he is clearly doing something that he has done so many times that his actions flow naturally and economically; no motion is wasted. 

If you skip to 19:06 you can see one of his planes in use, showing that he got the results required.


http://www.rts.ch/archives/tv/culture/suisse-au-fil-du-temps/3464421-les-outils-de-bois.html


----------



## Corneel (3 Apr 2014)

Such a pitty I don't understand French.


----------



## GLFaria (3 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1lgqmh3b said:


> One of the most hilariously daft things which BB says is _".....any freehand method will instead take you somewhere between sharp and dull (closer to dull)...."_
> Does he really think that no craftsmen, from the stone age onwards, could sharpen tools, until the advent of BBeach? :lol: :lol:



I hope purists will not blast me (too much... :wink: ).
Coming from a precision mechanical production environment as I do, where the refence measurement unit was the micron, or at worst the hundredth of a millimeter, whenever I see this kind of argument I wonder where our industry would be if traditional methods of production were still in use nowadays. Speaking not only of precision, accuracy and reliability, but also the cost of tools and implements. For example, I can sharpen a drill by hand, by I know for sure that I will make it much better and accurately - and make a more perfect hole to boot - if I do it using a mechanical implement. Sharpening freehand is an expedient and convenient method, but repeatability, not to speak of precision, is never assured.

By all means go the traditional way if that is what you like, and if you are good enough to get the results you want, but no one will ever convince me that freehand will consistently get the same results as a honing guide - even though I know some very good woodworkers who say they never, ever used a honing guide in their professional life.

But, of course, to each one his own.


----------



## AndyT (3 Apr 2014)

Corneel":rkhdwwc9 said:


> Such a pitty I don't understand French.




... plenty of double Dutch on this forum! :wink:


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

GLFaria":1tmfsl8p said:


> ...., but no one will ever convince me that freehand will consistently get the same results as a honing guide ......


You are right of course, but we are talking (well I am!) about practical sharpening regimes for working woodworkers, not precision engineering. Consistently getting good enough results - optimising your efforts rather than going for ever higher degrees of sharpness. Very sharp edges become less sharp very quickly in use. There has to be a compromise somewhere between sharpness, sharpening time, edge retention.
Plus it's not easy to get a camber with a jig- it's unavoidable freehand. And you don't have to waste time (and stone) by flattening stones


----------



## Corneel (3 Apr 2014)

When I look at the Raggenbass I don't see anything like the torturing back flattening procedure that some modern authors wants us to do. He hones the bevel and swipes the bevel around on the stone a little bit. That's it.

GLFaria: There is a big difference. Using a handplane on a piece of wood isn't industrial high precision machining. Everything you need to know about using a handplane was allready known back when handplanes were a commercial important factor. Some of that knowledge is lost though, because it wasn't carefully documented. 

And sharpening a plane blade is not half as complex as a drill bit. It's just one edge you know. A jig won't give you more relevant precision then doing it freehand.


----------



## GLFaria (3 Apr 2014)

AndyT, thank you very very much indeed for that link. Beautiful, inspiring, true poetry. I am fortunate to be a good speaker of French, so I could fully follow the dialogues.

One phrase that, I think, sums up pretty well the traditional way of thinking, is when, at 5´36, after checking the plane sole with the sticks, he says "voilà, on peut considérer que c'est bon...", which means "there, we may consider it is good...". This phrase sums it all - he doesn't look for perfection, he knows it is unattainable - he is looking for "good". And then, just as naturally, he shifts to a motorised thickness planer - not really the most traditional of tools... 
There are small details to learn too - for instance, why is one grip of the bow saw longer than the other (37'40")?

Anyway, we should keep in mind that, historically, artisans who lived by their trade took advantage of any new process they could find to get an edge on their competitors. And they made everything on their power to hide their secrets of the trade. The man states in a way or another that wooden tools are beautiful, but that manufacturing them as a way of living belongs to the past, and that metal tools are thw way of the future.

This all puts a discussion between which is best - a "traditional" way, whatever that is, or a more "modern" way - as more than moot. It is pointless. Each one should choose the best ways to get to his ends (I mean, honest ends, not the "anything goes" kind, of course.

This is a video I will be certain to see more than once in the future.

Corneel:
_"A jig won't give you more relevant precision then doing it freehand"_. Maybe not, I am not sure. But, as far as I'm concerned and my ability goes, it will give me a better edge. And that is what I am after.


----------



## bugbear (3 Apr 2014)

Jacob":21o7lyja said:


> Plus it's not easy to get a camber with a jig- it's unavoidable freehand.



It's easy (to the extent that some people find it a problem) to get a camber with a jig - try it!

Unavoidable cambers from freehanding would seem unfortunate when the task requires a straight edge.

Personally I find the Eclipse jig an excellent, easy to use tool; I guess preferences vary. There seem
to have been very many approaches to sharpening over the years - read Moxon for an odd one!

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (3 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1c007zzj said:


> ............a camber..............it's unavoidable freehand.



Bit of a bummer if you're honing a chisel, shoulder plane or rebate plane and don't want a camber.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

Paul Chapman":r89f0jy0 said:


> Jacob":r89f0jy0 said:
> 
> 
> > ............a camber..............it's unavoidable freehand.
> ...


I was exaggerating slightly - it is easy both to do and to avoid.


----------



## SpinDoctor (3 Apr 2014)

bugbear":11xvd6bl said:


> Random Orbital Bob":11xvd6bl said:
> 
> 
> > a secondary bevel of say 30 deg on a 25 deg plane iron just means you only have to hone a tiny strip of metal next time you sharpen. Just saves time cos less metal
> ...




That would be the stock standard way pretty much around the world to sharpen a tool by hand, find a hollow bevel and then put a secondary bevel on with your stone of choice... To be honest I don't understand why people keep trying to re-invent the wheel. But it that makes them happy I'm certainly not going to tell them differently. When it's a hobby, it's about what makes you happy. So if having multiple bevels makes you happy then go of your life.


----------



## G S Haydon (3 Apr 2014)

Thanks for the video link Andy, I had a quick view. The dude with the saws was good too. I will watch this evening.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (3 Apr 2014)

Jacob":a39hvu5d said:


> Cheshirechappie":a39hvu5d said:
> 
> 
> > ......You can either regrind 'little and often' (every five honings, say) or hone on and have a heavy session on the grinder now and again. .....
> ...



Several ways are 'trad'. Another 'trad' way of sharpening is to grind a primary on a grinding wheel (often quite large and hand cranked, or apprentice cranked) and hone a secondary on a benchstone (see 'The Joiner and Cabinetmaker' republished by Lost Art Press for an account written in 1839). I suspect most 'trad' craftsmen would have used whatever was the quickest available method in whatever shop they happened to be working in.

Given that grinding is bound to be quicker than rubbing it off on a benchstone, even a coarse one, I strongly suspect it would be the preferred method if a grindstone was available.

Both methods work. Both will result in a good working edge if used with a little knowledge and some practice.


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2asbllxd said:


> ............
> Given that grinding is bound to be quicker than rubbing it off on a benchstone, even a coarse one, I strongly suspect it would be the preferred method if a grindstone was available..........


Well yes except there'd only be one or two big grindstones in a big workshop and none at all in smaller shops or on site, so freehand on a double stone was the default for everybody. A little and often. It's obvious really - it's practical, it's cheap, no extra kit needed, it's what everybody used to do, even school kids, any fool can do it (except Brent Beach and his fans of course :lol: ) *
Small bench grinders were strictly for metal work, not for sharpening.
And jigs are very recent - for the ever expanding amateur market.

*PS I think they probably can do it, they've just talked themselves out of it for some reason.


----------



## bugbear (3 Apr 2014)

Jacob":34n4bmae said:


> And jigs are very recent - for the ever expanding amateur market.



Jigs are about as old as the Norton India stone you bang on about so much.

There's more than one way to sharpen, you know. Most people find a way that suits them.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (3 Apr 2014)

bugbear":1fh0or4d said:


> Jacob":1fh0or4d said:
> 
> 
> > And jigs are very recent - for the ever expanding amateur market.
> ...


Jigs were a novelty in 1980 - hardly anybody used them (I was there)


> There's more than one way to sharpen, you know. Most people find a way that suits them.
> 
> BugBear


There are two basic way as old as the hills, going back to the stone age 
1 you rub your tool up and down a bit of abrasive stone.
Or
2 you rub your abrasive stone up and down your tool


----------



## bugbear (4 Apr 2014)

Jacob":or9i3ca2 said:


> Jigs were a novelty in 1980 - hardly anybody used them (I was there)



Jacob - you will eventually realise that your personal experience (ooh - 1980, very "trad" :lol: ) is quite a narrow sample. Try to widen your knowledge, possibly
by learning from others.

In the meantime, we'll start you on a fairly easy question: "when do you think Eclipse patented their jig?" Use both sides
of the paper, and write in black ink.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (4 Apr 2014)

I've no idea and I don't care. They were not widely used until relatively recently, even if they were invented in the stone age.
One bit of evidence is the complete absence of jigs from inventories or sales of old stuff. Where are the jigs of yesteryear?*
Similarly grindstones are relatively uncommon, whereas ordinary flat stones are two a penny - everybody had them and used them, not everybody had access to grindstones.

When were they patented BTW? Try and answer without your usual tedious schoolgirlish sarcasm.

*PS they are not entirely unknown - heres one on ebay.
But they were not widely used for the simple reason that it's quicker and easier to do it freehand. Thats all there is to it. They are for sharpening enthusiasts or ill advised timid beginners.


----------



## David C (4 Apr 2014)

One must of course take account of "exaggeration", at some point it will become missleading?

Hampton, first published in 1934, finds the Record 161 guide "of great value".

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (4 Apr 2014)

David C":6ylg7wnr said:


> One must of course take account of "exaggeration", at some point it will become missleading?
> 
> Hampton, first published in 1934, finds the Record 161 guide "of great value".
> 
> David Charlesworth


Nevertheless, they were not widely used, which is all I am saying. 
The reason they were not widely used is that they aren't really as useful as they look.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (4 Apr 2014)

Jacob":uawgjjq8 said:


> One bit of evidence is the complete absence of jigs from inventories or sales of old stuff. Where are the jigs of yesteryear?*



You have to be a bit careful here. You might conclude that people of yesteryear never used bench hooks. You don't see them on e-bay. I guess a jig can be just a bolt, block of wood or something else homemade and disposable. My father certainly had a Stanley jig in his drawer before the '80s, and it looked old then ! You are right in that he didn't often bother to use it though.



Jacob":uawgjjq8 said:


> Similarly grindstones are relatively uncommon, whereas ordinary flat stones are two a penny - everybody had them and used them, not everybody had access to grindstones.


You do see a fair few of the smaller, hand cranked grinders up for sale. And even the bigger (say 2' diameter) wheels that run in a metal trough are not that uncommon. And if as suggested, you hone with an oilstone maybe 10 times between grinds, you might expect oilstones to be common - everyone had their own - and grinders might be shared. Just as I used to have my own oilstone as a teenage woodworker, but took my plane blades into school woodwork class when they needed a grinder.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Apr 2014)

For practically every repetitive woodworking task I've had to do in my adult life I have attempted to make a jig of some description to aid me.
I'm sure there were equally intelligent people around centuries ago - to presume that jigs were not used because they were not sold is a non sequitur.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (4 Apr 2014)

This thread just brought back another memory from childhood in Sheffield. As well and the Fletcher's bread van, and the Ben Shaw's fizzy pop lorry, a mobile grinder used to come round the street every once in a while ringing his bell and yelling "Anything to grind !". So not owning a grinder did not necessarily mean never having tools re-ground !


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Apr 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":3da527b3 said:


> Although born in Rotherham.....there is some Scottish in the family



There's some Scotch in my family Rob; but I tend to drink it.


----------



## MMUK (4 Apr 2014)

I only asked if the number of bevels made a difference and if I was missing out on anything


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Apr 2014)

CStanford":1wxbg8k3 said:


> MMUK":1wxbg8k3 said:
> 
> 
> > Not wishing to hijack other threads, I'm curious as the the advantages/disadvantages of having differing numbers of bevels on your blades. I've only ever honed a single bevel on my plane irons and chisels and find it works for me. So, why are there variations? How does it make a difference to performance?
> ...



Everything happens at the point where the face meets the bevel, at 'zero'. A theoretical impossibility I suppose, as there is always going to be a micro edge that isn't touched by the stone. The bigger that 'round over' (the shiny line, not to be confused with the rounded bevel) the more blunt is the iron. 

It's like asking how many times can you halve the distance between a chair and the wall. In theory the two would never touch, because there's always going to be a distance that can be halved. 

Am I gibbering? :mrgreen: .

And MM, re sharpening!! I told you didden I! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (4 Apr 2014)

At the risk of upsetting MMUK even more, a bit of background information about grindstones.

In the book 'Tools for the Job' (revised edition 1986, HMSO) LTC Rolt (possibly the finest ever writer on matters of engineering history) states that the first example of a rotary grindstone is recorded in the Utrecht Psalter of AD850, and given the scarcity of documents from around that time, the invention of the machine almost certainly predates that. The illustration in the Psalter shows a vertical wheel about 5 feet in diameter on a horizontal shaft, driven by hand with a crank handle by one operator, whilst the other sits astride a board applying the work (a sword) to the top of the stone using both hands to apply pressure and control the workpiece. It's precisely the same arrangement used by the Sheffield grinders (except for the hand cranking) 1000 years later.

Grinding wheels have been around for a very long time. They are very 'trad'.


----------



## Benchwayze (4 Apr 2014)

I don't think MMUK was disputing anything. He just asked a question. (which I'm not quite sure has been answered fully.) That it was a sharpening question is by the by... It's developing into another this-way-that-way sharpening thread......


----------



## Corneel (5 Apr 2014)

The question was answered on the first page allready. If MMUK has still more questions about the subject, he should ask them.


----------



## bugbear (5 Apr 2014)

Corneel":sfo95zl1 said:


> The question was answered on the first page allready. If MMUK has still more questions about the subject, he should ask them.



The forum canna' take it, cap'n !

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (5 Apr 2014)

bugbear":spqzw7yr said:


> Corneel":spqzw7yr said:
> 
> 
> > The question was answered on the first page allready. If MMUK has still more questions about the subject, he should ask them.
> ...



Aye mebbe, but there be more than one reason for a double bevel. 8)


----------



## David C (5 Apr 2014)

The advantages of three bevels are speed and efficiency.

Where large amounts of metal are to be removed, this is done on the grinder, not a coarse stone. Say 23 to 25 degrees.

The coarse stone is used to get a small wire edge. Perhaps 28, 30 or 33 degrees.

The coarse stone angle is raised by approximately 2 degrees. This usually means shortening Eclipse projection by roughly a couple of mm, no need to measure this.

The tip of the coarse stone bevel is now polished on a (6,8, or 10,000 grit stone). This only takes 3 or four gently caressing strokes.

Back, wire edge polished off as usual, no stropping required.

We see that the polishing stone does very little work at all. The coarse (perhaps 800 stone) does enough strokes to form a small wire edge. The number of strokes increases, with each sharpening, till a regrind is necessary. Straight after a regrind this might be as little as 2 or 3 strokes. I reckon to get about 7 sharpenings between grinds.

Unlike C Stanford's scenario, I do not get multiple bevels, because my angles do not change. I use an Eclipse guide. Simple, cheap, quick, accurate and repeatable, it does both straight, square and cambered blades.

I believe I use less strokes than some use for stropping.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford (5 Apr 2014)

If one uses a guide I see no real reason *not* to simply have one bevel. This is especially true with an Eclipse since there is no facility inherent in the jig itself to produce a secondary bevel. One would have to loosen the cutter and reduce the projection of the iron.

With an Eclipse one can raise a wire edge on a medium stone in four or five strokes and then polish it off on one's finest media. Planecraft asserts, probably quite rightly, that the one-bevel method results in a "sweeter" cutting tool anyway (and this assertion is made in context with using a jig for honing). This same advice can also be found in Joyce. With these two sources I"m not sure how much more unimpeachable one can get. It seems to me what both of these classic sources are saying that if you choose to use a jig *in the first place* then make it no more complicated than it needs to be - just hone on the primary.

I use an Eclipse regularly on two cutters - one in my Record 778 and a Record Jack Rabbet. I initially ground these irons on low grit sandpaper* using the jig* and in subsequent years just go back to a medium India and Black Arky for honing. There have been no re-grindings, hand powered or otherwise, in years.

I am not aware of one, single, classic reference on the craft that mentions the *purposeful* production of three bevels on any cutting edge on any tool used in woodworking for any reason, speed of honing or otherwise. I personally cannot imagine something more maddening than maintaining three bevels (whose widths must be measured practically in angstroms) on a cutting edge.


----------



## Jacob (5 Apr 2014)

Well yes and if you must use a jig there is no need for sequences of bevels as with each pass you shorten and tilt the blade forwards by a tiny amount, on to the edge.
In fact if you use a jig for long enough initially set at say 25º, without adjusting it, it will produce a rounded bevel.
Do the same freehand - much quicker without the jig.


----------



## David C (5 Apr 2014)

Of course there are no classic references, because I figured it out for myself.

The third bevel just means one polishes a smaller area of metal, with fewer strokes.

It is likely that Joyce and Hampton used strops as a final stage. Even a hard black Arkansas stone is nowhere near as fine as a 10,000 grit waterstone.

These things really don't matter much, people choose the method that suits them. I was just attempting an answer to the "why three bevels" question.

David


----------



## Jacob (5 Apr 2014)

David C":3njyskoj said:


> ... Even a hard black Arkansas stone is nowhere near as fine as a 10,000 grit waterstone.....


Yebbut the Arkansas is fine enough for any woodworker (too fine for most) and will last for life and won't ever need flattening.
I'm mystified by the fashion for waterstones - so obviously impractical, and expensive.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (5 Apr 2014)

Jacob":xdqkv469 said:


> I'm mystified by the fashion for waterstones - so obviously impractical, and expensive.



The Japanese might be mystified by that comment, too. They've been using waterstones for centuries - very 'trad' in Japan, are waterstones.


----------



## David C (5 Apr 2014)

8" x 2" x 1/2" Translucent Ark £82-98.

8" x 3" x 1" Black Ark £183-80.

I found Larry Williams technique very interesting. Three oil stones which he flattens with a diamond stone, every sharpening.

It's all these ####### hollow stones which we have to thank for the apalling old bellied chisels and plane blades out there.

David


----------



## CStanford (5 Apr 2014)

David C":2s8vscep said:


> Of course there are no classic references, because I figured it out for myself.
> 
> The third bevel just means one polishes a smaller area of metal, with fewer strokes.
> 
> ...



Then again a relevant question might be "why am I the only guy who seems to be using three (intentional) bevels?" Four including a back bevel. 

Do you really find that maintaining sharp edges requires all this fuss -- three bevels plus a back bevel? At what point would it become absurd even for you? What is so magical about three bevels? Why not four on the front and two tiny backbevels on the back. Could Nirvana be a couple more bevels away?

Honestly David, I'm trying to picture what it must look like working up three bevels plus a back bevel (and maintaining all four in their proper, respective relationships, sizes, etc.) and then subsequently having the audacity to assert that somehow this saves time? It's hard to come away from the contention of the propriety of using four bevels that some sort of obsession isn't in play. 

Apologies for being stunned by it all. Surely, I can't be the only one who thinks this to be more than just a touch over the top.


----------



## MMUK (5 Apr 2014)

I must be a proper cheapskate then. I use a piece of granite salvaged from a broken inspection table and wet/dry paper :lol:


----------



## MIGNAL (5 Apr 2014)

You certainly don't need 3 bevels :shock: Even with an 8,000G waterstone you can grind a micro bevel in seconds straight from a 100G hand crank stone. I know, I used the method for years.


----------



## David C (6 Apr 2014)

Charles,

I'm so sorry to hear that you are struggling with these simple concepts.

Coarse stone to raise wire edge, polishing stone to replace stropping.

I do hope you are not putting back bevels on your chisels?

David


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

ooh dear Dave going sarcastic again!

All in all I see this thread as a very convincing argument for getting back to basics i.e. freehand with an oil stone or two, and a leather strop if you want super dooper sharp. 
Otherwise it'll do yer ed in, not to mention your bank balance and wasting a lot of time. You have to set aside just a little time for some woodwork!
Modern sharpening has departed from reality, gone stratospheric and is well on the way to Mars!
Good for a laugh though. :lol: :lol:


----------



## iNewbie (6 Apr 2014)

Jacob":3tgxi9bl said:


> ooh dear Dave going sarcastic again!



Ooh the Irony again! :mrgreen:


----------



## bugbear (6 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1iq6japr said:


> In fact if you use a jig for long enough initially set at say 25º, without adjusting it, it will produce a rounded bevel.



At what stage when working a flat bevel on a flat stone does the roundness happen?

The removal of metal at each sharpening when using a jig is small, certainly not enough to alter
the angle.

So (as _almost_ everyone knows) the bevel
when using a jig stays flat, and is the same angle each time. SImple.

Or was your claim more "exaggerration" ?

On the other hand, your claim that people find jigs confusing seems to be true for at least one person. :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

bugbear":36rekomb said:


> Jacob":36rekomb said:
> 
> 
> > In fact if you use a jig for long enough initially set at say 25º, without adjusting it, it will produce a rounded bevel.
> ...


Impossible. Every pass shortens the blade slightly and hence alters the angle. Barely noticeable with just a few passes, but a fact nevertheless. If you keep going you get a rounded bevel.
This may be another feature of jig sharpening which confuses the enthusiasts and sends them off into more rounds of bevel counting and frantic flattening. :lol:


----------



## Benchwayze (6 Apr 2014)

I never strop. Unless you count a few flips on the heel of my hand. I like to finish with a few strokes along the edge of the stone, with the iron overhanging, so only the first 3/8" or so of the face gets 'flattened'. (I don't lift the rear of the blade as per David's Ruler trick. I might be thinking wrong, but I can't see how that doesn't result in something approaching a knife edge.) After that the heel of my hand just removes the tiny wire-edge, 

My way has always worked for me. As for bank balances, I don't worry about anyone's balance but mine. What people spend is their affair. Not mine.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Apr 2014)

Agree totally, B. I can sharpen my tools perfectly well. I couldn't give a damn how other people do it really, although sometimes it gives a laugh.


----------



## Woodmonkey (6 Apr 2014)

> Every pass shortens the blade slightly and hence alters the angle. Barely noticeable with just a few passes




Alters the angle (by an infinitesimally small amount) yes, rounds over the bevel, no. That is just plain wrong. When you get to the end of the stroke you will have taken a tiny amount of metal more from the tip than from the heel thus as you say fractionally changing the angle. It will still be flat though.


----------



## bugbear (6 Apr 2014)

Jacob":36ecx61r said:


> Every pass shortens the blade slightly and hence alters the angle. Barely noticeable with just a few passes, but a fact nevertheless. If you keep going you get a rounded bevel.



You're simply wrong. If one continued to grind away for ages (why?) on a coarse surface, the angle would indeed very slowly steepen as the blade shortened, but the bevel would remain flat; steeper but still flat.

Even if one starts with a convex bevel (one where the arris is a lower angle than the cutting edge), the flat grinding plane would simply grow from the edge until it meets the arris.

You could demonstrate this simply and rapidly to yourself with a piece of wood on your belt sander. Try it!

BugBear


----------



## GLFaria (6 Apr 2014)

This thread has been fascinating, if only for showing that feelings and emotions play so great a part in sharpening! :lol: 

But it looks like people are now running around in circles, doesn't it? :wink:


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

bugbear":3gp8z8s9 said:


> Jacob":3gp8z8s9 said:
> 
> 
> > Every pass shortens the blade slightly and hence alters the angle. Barely noticeable with just a few passes, but a fact nevertheless. If you keep going you get a rounded bevel.
> ...


Actually it'd depend on where the pivot point was, according to the design of jig. 
But steepening angle most definitely. Which is why you don't need multiple bevels with a jig ; course grind at 30 and go straight to fine hone without taking it off the jig, will give you a slightly higher angle and a "micro" bevel   hooray! This also gets you around the problem of aligning a straight edge with a flat stone, which can mystify people.
Not that I bother with all this faffing about myself.


----------



## carlb40 (6 Apr 2014)

GLFaria":2ywivckj said:


> This thread has been fascinating, if only for showing that feelings and emotions play so great a part in sharpening! :lol:
> 
> But it looks like people are now running around in circles, doesn't it? :wink:


After the first page of posts - any thread to do with sharpening or involving Jacob normally does. :roll:


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

GLFaria":3b56ztw9 said:


> This thread has been fascinating, if only for showing that feelings and emotions play so great a part in sharpening! :lol:
> 
> ....


Yers they do seem to get a bit shirty :roll: 
I think there's probably a link between obsessive sharpening and personality; defensiveness and a tendency towards irritability and sarcasm. :lol: :lol:


----------



## bugbear (6 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2hhw0tar said:


> bugbear":2hhw0tar said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2hhw0tar said:
> ...



Yes, yes. If one ground away for hours, the angle would eventually steepen. No one ever does this, of course, but give the (odd) hypothesis, the (odd) conclusion clearly follows.

But you said:



Jacob":2hhw0tar said:


> In fact if you use a jig for long enough initially set at say 25º, without adjusting it, it will produce a rounded bevel.



Now, I am of the opinion that the bevel would stay nice and flat, and simply get steeper as the tool wore away.







Where would the roundness come from, in your understanding of the geometry of jigs?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

bugbear":1alacvnf said:


> ...
> Yes, yes. If one ground away for hours, the angle would eventually steepen.....


Not hours. Immediate effect. With every pass the angle steepens a touch. 
It's one of the basic flaws of the common design of jig, the other being that there's nothing to stop you raising the angle of the tool and rounding over the edge, which you would imagine a jig would prevent.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Apr 2014)

But you've forgotten the critical factor, BB. Jacob's oilstone has a surface reminiscent of the inside of a soup-spoon. THAT'S where the roundedness comes from. :lol:


----------



## Woodmonkey (6 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1b7al18z said:


> bugbear":1b7al18z said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1b7al18z said:
> ...



This is the problem isn't it, people arguing for the sake of arguing. From one post to the next it's gone from "sharpening using a jig makes a rounded bevel" to "sharpening using a jig makes a micro bevel". Well clearly it's neither, using using a jig gives you one consistent bevel every time. Perhaps that's why Jacob seems to dislike jigs so much, they seem to confuse him....


----------



## Spindle (6 Apr 2014)

Hi

Seven pages - no consensus, (as per usual), why not limit sharpening threads to one or two pages :roll: :twisted: 

Regards Mick


----------



## bugbear (6 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2g3ku0pu said:


> bugbear":2g3ku0pu said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Fascinating. By rougly what amount, do you think, in degrees? I'd hate to think you were worrying about nothing, or just raising obscure points to distract from:



jacob":2g3ku0pu said:


> In fact if you use a jig for long enough initially set at say 25º, without adjusting it, it will produce a rounded bevel.



BugBear


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

bugbear":186f9q9w said:


> Jacob":186f9q9w said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":186f9q9w said:
> ...


I'm not worried at all. I don't use them. A blessed relief! But the answer is that the more you grind/hone without resetting the blade the steeper the angle. Sooner or later it'll get to 90º! PS if the jig isn't in the way etc


----------



## MMUK (6 Apr 2014)

Some say he sleeps with a sharpening jig under his pillow and that he dreams of scary sharp stones. All we know is he's called Jacob :lol:


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

MMUK":e3idszz4 said:


> Some say he sleeps with a sharpening jig under his pillow and that he dreams of scary sharp stones. All we know is he's called Jacob :lol:


I've got a website you know. Somewhat out of date I admit.
I'm not really obsessed by sharpening except that it is central and fundamental, and (paranoia showing here) there has been a huge conspiracy of misinformation in recent years and a lot of people seem to believe that simple freehand sharpening is impossible. In fact any pineapple can do it.


----------



## Benchwayze (6 Apr 2014)

Jacob said:


> * I'm not worried at all. I don't use them. A blessed relief! But the answer is that the more you grind/hone without resetting the blade the steeper the angle. Sooner or later it'll get to 90º! PS if the jig isn't in the way etc */quote]
> 
> Despite this flaw, the blades must be sharp enough to function, or woodworkers wouldn't use the jigs. So if you are right, then maybe the angle of the 30 deg bevel isn't so critical after all. Which is also the basic flaw in hand sharpening Jacob. No matter how expert you are, the angle doesn't remain constant, hence your rounded bevel. At least, so I've found. But the edges still function. If occasionally they get too steep, or too rounded, I re-grind.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jacob (6 Apr 2014)

Benchwayze":wrlxbbcj said:


> .... Whether you use a jig or not, maybe the angle isn't quite so critical as we think? ....


Of course it isn't critical. Who thinks it is, and why? (perhaps don't answer that :roll: ).
It's just that 30º is easy to hit by eye. If you can do that you can also do a bit more (35 ish?) or a bit less (25 or so) like falling off a log!


----------



## CStanford (7 Apr 2014)

David C":97gau2t4 said:


> Charles,
> 
> I'm so sorry to hear that you are struggling with these simple concepts.
> 
> ...



Not bench chisels. I do have a few carving tools that have that sort of treatment but it's really more a knife edge than that little wisp of a thing to which you attribute so much magic.

You are aware I assume that you are likely the only woodworker who has ever lived that has installed, intentionally, four bevels on a plane iron?


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Apr 2014)

Jacob":3eldrew7 said:


> Benchwayze":3eldrew7 said:
> 
> 
> > .... Whether you use a jig or not, maybe the angle isn't quite so critical as we think? ....
> ...



Clearly Jacob, *someone* must think the angle is critical, otherwise there wouldn't be so many jigs to 'ensure' that angles are "correct", nor would there be so many sold. Although, it is a good marketing ploy, maybe? (hammer)


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2014)

Benchwayze":szfmi6kr said:


> Jacob":szfmi6kr said:
> 
> 
> > Benchwayze":szfmi6kr said:
> ...


They are critical but within limits - so something between 25 and 35 will do for many things, but beyond a certain point (depending on the tool and the task) the angle could be too far out - not enough clearance under a plane, or too fragile etc.

4 bevel Dave has only got to go one more step - take off the arrises and he has 8 bevels, which is a rounded bevel as near as dammit! :shock: :shock: 
But is a rounded bevel an infinite series of micro bevels, or no bevel at all? Who first coined the expression "micro bevel"? It's quite recent.


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Apr 2014)

Well okay Jacob. Shall we say it's critical that the angles be within close limits? :roll: Something I have always maintained, even to myself. 
I'm still a little disappointed when I enter a post which, on the whole, backs you up and you then instruct me on how it is! Really old chap, this is the limit! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## bugbear (7 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2m9300xx said:


> Not hours. Immediate effect. With every pass the angle steepens a touch.
> It's one of the basic flaws of the common design of jig,
> .
> .
> ...



Since your maths and geometry skills seem lacking, let me help.

Even if one were to somehow remove a full 1/8" of hardened tool steel when sharpening a chisel using the Eclipse jig at 25°, the angle of the (still flat, see earlier diagrams...) bevel would still only change by a single degree.

So - even though no ever does this, it wouldn't matter if they did. 

Summarising:

* when using a jig the bevel stays flat
* the angle of the bevel does not change to any significant extent during sharpening 

I think some people over state the difficulties of jigs.

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Apr 2014)

A similar principle applies with freehand-honing. It's highly unlikely the angle will be constant. So if it's okay to be within limits, after freehand honing, then it's okay after using a jig. It's just that with the jig one can predetermine any differences yet in theory, allow the bevel to remain constant every time an iron is placed in the jig. That's how I see it. 

Yes, I have a guide I used years ago. I don't know of course, whether or not Jacob has ever used a jig. I'm sure he will enlighten us? 

John


----------



## MMUK (7 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1laghafg said:


> They are critical but within limits - so something between 25 and 35 will do for many things




A 10 degree tolerance isn't exactly what I would call critical, Jacob. As an engineer, a critical item for me would have a tolerance of 0.5 degrees MAX, situation dependant.

I see what you are saying here but I think critical is the wrong word to use. :wink:


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2014)

Yes have used jigs. But made a little effort to freehand and suddenly found sharpening much easier, quicker etc - which also means sharper for longer as you aren't put off by the faffing about and the paraphernalia.
People do so overstate the difficulties of freehand; "Unless you happen to have an uncanny ability to judge and hold a desired angle freehand, some kind of assistance is definitely called for. BugBear" is complete nonsense.


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2014)

MMUK":3ahoytvi said:


> Jacob":3ahoytvi said:
> 
> 
> > They are critical but within limits - so something between 25 and 35 will do for many things
> ...


Horses for courses. 0.5º tolerance essential for some things, but not others. As you say; "situation dependent".


----------



## MIGNAL (7 Apr 2014)

Freehand you probably can get the angle to within 2 degrees, unaided. . . . if you really wanted to. Someone with a fair amount of talent and who consciously practiced for a year or so might even be able to get it within 1 degree. That kind of accuracy is not unusual when doing something like playing a musical instrument. Let's take the example of a Cello player who has to move a hand some 12 ", yet has to have a finger accuracy better than 1/8 of an inch. No visual clues either. Easier than riding a bike to many of them.


----------



## bugbear (7 Apr 2014)

Jacob":3i8bjidf said:


> Yes have used jigs. But made a little effort to freehand and suddenly found sharpening much easier, quicker etc - which also means sharper for longer as you aren't put off by the faffing about and the paraphernalia.
> People do so overstate the difficulties of freehand; "Unless you happen to have an uncanny ability to judge and hold a desired angle freehand, some kind of assistance is definitely called for. BugBear" is complete nonsense.



Ah - I see the discussion of jig geometry has been dropped; the good old Butler swerve.

Any number of beginners try to sharpen freehand, report initial success on a freshly ground tool, but then encounter the
(reported up and down history) problem of the cutting bevel getting steeper and steeper with each sharpening. A jig neatly cures this difficulty and allows them to get on with woodworking, with sharp, easy to maintain edges.

The more subtle advantage of a jig used in conjunction with a projection gauge (AKA two pieces of scrap plywood) is that
the *same angle* is hit every time; it doesn't really matter that the angle is within reason, but the consistency is important.

This minimises the amount of metal that needs to be removed to renew the edge, with both extends the life of the tools, and reduces the labour.

BugBear


----------



## MMUK (7 Apr 2014)

MIGNAL":x00rmxy6 said:


> Let's take the example of a Cello player who has to move a hand some 12 ", yet has to have a finger accuracy better than 1/8 of an inch.



I knew there was a reason I wanted to go out with that lass from school :lol:


----------



## Racers (7 Apr 2014)

This thread needs closing, we have the same problem as every sharpening thread.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2014)

bugbear":84grenhd said:


> .........
> Any number of beginners try to sharpen freehand, report initial success on a freshly ground tool, but then encounter the
> (reported up and down history) problem of the cutting bevel getting steeper and steeper with each sharpening. A jig neatly cures this difficulty and allows them to get on with woodworking, with sharp, easy to maintain edges.


Another much simpler cure is to stop doing it. Once alerted to this common mistake anybody with half a brain will stop doing it.
Re: hitting the same angle. This is done freehand by doing it the same way every time, as near as you can judge.


----------



## MMUK (7 Apr 2014)

Racers":18al2878 said:


> This thread needs closing, we have the same problem as every sharpening thread.
> 
> Pete




I agree. Now I know not to ask any questions even remotely connected with sharp edges  

I think I've worked out the answer to my original question though from varius replies.

The number of bevels is not important as it has no effect on cutting performance. It is purely a matter of personal preference for potential future time saving when re-sharpening.


----------



## CStanford (7 Apr 2014)

There are three techniques that appear to have the imprimatur of history:

1) hollow grind and hone on the grind using the hollow as a built-in jig;
2) hollow grind, hone slightly higher, occasionally hone on the grind to control the growth of the higher bevel;
3) round under - the Jacob Butler/Paul Seller's method. I take Seller's oral history on its face that this is how he was taught.

Any three of these will work fine. The rest are a stretch, at best. Four bevels is preposterous. A back bevel on one, SPARE, cutting iron for a smoothing plane is reasonable as long as one understands the implications and produces one that has a real affect on cutting geometry. That said, there must be thousands upon thousands who have worked without this little dodge.

If one simply needs to remove rag/fine burr on the flatside of a cutter that is not perfectly flat then just do a very slight lift ON THE STROP. There is no reason to interpose a thin ruler or any other little aid on one's finest whetstone to accomplish this stunningly simple feat. Two swipes on a strop.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (7 Apr 2014)

I suspect it's much harder and more time consuming to contribute anything useful to these interminable sharpening threads than it is to actually regrind and hone a whole tool box full of planes and chisels ... using whatever method you prefer. Personally, I freehand the job, which seems to work more than good enough for the wood hacking I've been getting up to for the last three or four decades. 

Darn, in the time I typed this I could have honed a couple of chisels! Slainte.


----------



## MMUK (7 Apr 2014)

CStanford":3jxqq7os said:


> There are three techniques that appear to have the imprimatur of history:
> 
> 1) hollow grind and hone on the grind using the hollow as a built-in jig;
> 2) hollow grind, hone slightly higher, occasionally hone on the grind to control the growth of the higher bevel;
> ...




Thanks CS, but this thread wasn't intended as a sharpening techniques showcase, just a question on the number of bevels :wink:


----------



## David C (7 Apr 2014)

Isn't it odd that the people who mock the techniques of others, have almost certainly never tried those techniques? 

If I remember right, Paul Sellers uses three stones and a strop for his sharpening. Four surfaces.

I use two. (Not counting the periodic grinding).

Many people work on two surfaces when sharpening, I work on three.

I have taught the technique to hundreds of people who have found it most satisfactory.

David Charlesworth

"Preposterous", I think not.


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2014)

It's very odd Dave. :roll:
How did you get on with the Sellers method?


----------



## David C (7 Apr 2014)

Jacob,

I am disappointed, I thought you had invented a great method for shaping mortice chisels.

David


----------



## CStanford (7 Apr 2014)

David C":1hj7llt7 said:


> Isn't it odd that the people who mock the techniques of others, have almost certainly never tried those techniques?
> 
> If I remember right, Paul Sellers uses three stones and a strop for his sharpening. Four surfaces.
> 
> ...



At some level there is a need to differentiate and carve out a niche. No doubt you've done that with your four-bevel method of honing.

In the world of woodworking instruction, you can rest assured that the likelihood there will be imitators is quite low.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Apr 2014)

Racers":24ge6jc6 said:


> This thread needs closing, we have the same problem as every sharpening thread.
> 
> Pete



Don't agree. This is the funniest thread we've had on the forum for months - nine pages in, and it's still going.

I wonder if the first war in human history started over a disagreement about flint-knapping?


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2014)

No doubt. Slow sharpening procedures were critical. Hence the expression - as the enemy (or the woolly Mammoths etc) approached, it was not good to be "caught knapping".


----------



## David C (7 Apr 2014)

Charles,

I am delighted to be able to tell you that you are wrong.

Chris Schwarz and Rob Cosman both use and teach some of my techniques, (something to do with that fourth bevel which you keep banging on about) as do some other people on U tube who I don't know.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Apr 2014)

Jacob":1732lymo said:


> No doubt. Slow sharpening procedures were critical. Hence the expression - as the enemy (or the woolly Mammoths etc) approached, it was not good to be "caught knapping".



Do you speak from experience?


----------



## Jacob (7 Apr 2014)

David C":3r5em5of said:


> Charles,
> 
> I am delighted to be able to tell you that you are wrong.
> 
> ...


So that's 2 yanks and some other people who nobody knows? :lol:


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Apr 2014)

I'm sure Rob Cosman is Canadian. 8)

If nothing else, this thread has decided me to at least try the 'Rule-trick'. (hammer)


----------



## CStanford (7 Apr 2014)

David C":1pnwr0pk said:


> Charles,
> 
> I am delighted to be able to tell you that you are wrong.
> 
> ...



Chris Schwarz has somewhat of a habit of doing 180s so I'd be careful there. I do understand that they are presently fans of the back bevel or whatever it's called today. 

Are they also putting three bevels on the front?


----------



## David C (7 Apr 2014)

Charles,

I would respectfully suggest, that you desist from your rather poor attempts at being irritating, and ask them yourself.

You will then have some facts at your disposal.

David


----------



## CStanford (7 Apr 2014)

David C":158aj6cu said:


> Charles,
> 
> I would respectfully suggest, that you desist from your rather poor attempts at being irritating, and ask them yourself.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry for asking, you seemed to be in the know.


----------



## iNewbie (7 Apr 2014)

I see another forum case of Jacobitis is setting in. :mrgreen:


----------



## Spindle (7 Apr 2014)

Hi

Let's not get too polarised here - there's several opinions going around in circles on this carousel.

It's only sharpening at the end of the day.

Regards Mick


----------



## Carl P (7 Apr 2014)

Why 'Jacobitis'? I can't see that there's any difference of intractability and the deployment of dubious argument between any of the usual suspects - time out on the naughty step for all concerned! :roll: 

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## CStanford (8 Apr 2014)

Maybe it would be informative to start a poll to ascertain exactly how many people on the board are forming four, separate bevels on their plane irons, or plan to do so in the very near future.


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2014)

jacob":398z6vum said:


> David C":398z6vum said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it odd that the people who mock the techniques of others, have almost certainly never tried those techniques?
> ...


Dave you haven't answered the question. How did you get on with the Sellers method? It would be interesting to hear of your experiences.


----------



## bugbear (8 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2a0x1v1u said:


> Dave you haven't answered the question.



Jacob; you haven't answred the question; 

You said:



Jacob":2a0x1v1u said:


> In fact if you use a jig for long enough initially set at say 25º, without adjusting it, it will produce a rounded bevel.



Now it's my opinion that the reality is not like that, and I even went to the effort of making a diagram to justify my opinion:







(if you need any more detail, they can be found up-thread)

So, the question remains: how do you think the roundness is created?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2014)

Probably wrong about the rounded bevel - but I'm right about the steadily increasing angle. I'm also curious about how you get a camber with a jig. Camber is essential for most plane blades but the jiggers go on and on about flatness and straight edges. How does Dave get a camber with his 5 bevel system (precise, repeatable, etc etc)?
Are you there Dave?
And BB - how did you get on with the Sellers system?


----------



## David C (8 Apr 2014)

It is pointless giving serious answers to people who make puerile comments.

David


----------



## bugbear (8 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2z4k71ll said:


> Probably wrong about the rounded bevel - but I'm right about the steadily increasing angle.



We're getting there.

Do you have an opinion on the (astonishingly low) numbers I gave for the "steadily increasing angle"? What did your analysis (or experiment) show you?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2014)

David C":2gha665f said:


> It is pointless giving serious answers to people who make puerile comments.
> 
> David


Dodging again Dave! I think the serious answer is that you haven't tried it. :lol: :lol:


----------



## MMUK (8 Apr 2014)

CStanford":3n7blpzy said:


> Maybe it would be informative to start a poll to ascertain exactly how many people on the board are forming four, separate bevels on their plane irons, or plan to do so in the very near future.




how-many-t79192.html


:-" :-" :-" :-" :-"


----------



## iNewbie (8 Apr 2014)

Jacob":20pbsvml said:


> Camber is essential for most plane blades but the jiggers go on and on about flatness and straight edges. How does Dave get a camber with his 5 bevel system (precise, repeatable, etc etc)?



Where exactly (apart from in your own exaggerating mind) do these jiggers go on-and-on about flatness and straight edges. You yourself go on-and-on ad nauseum about Freehand, though - guess you have something in common, there. :mrgreen: 

I'll indulge. :wink: Your bestest pal Chris Swartz has a piece on cambering: Here


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2014)

iNewbie":3r73ie5r said:


> ...
> I'll indulge. :wink: Your bestest pal Chris Swartz has a piece on cambering: Here


Interesting. What he does basically is press hard to camber as though the jig isn't there. It'd be a lot easier without the jig.
All those figures are a touch spurious too, they just give an air of authority to it. He says it himself more or less: 
"_The honest truth is you just need to learn what the right curve looks like when you show the cutting edge to a straight edge. If there is too much curve, sharpen some more in the middle position (5) to flatten the curve. If the curve is too flat, add more finger pressure or strokes at the corners to increase the curvature._"
Putting a camber on a blade with a straight bevel as he is doing, is not easy. The sensible way is to shape the blade first, square on - effectively a 90º bevel, and then sharpen that.
His way is the timid way of someone who doesn't want to be parted from the training wheels, but is unnecessarily difficult. Impossible I imagine, if he had to sharpen a scrub plane blade or s steeper camber. Which done freehand is extremely easy.


----------



## DTR (8 Apr 2014)

Jacob":2ways4re said:


> Putting a camber on a blade with a straight bevel as he is doing, is not easy. The sensible way is to shape the blade first, square on - effectively a 90º bevel, and then sharpen that.



IIRC Schwarz does advocate that method too


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Apr 2014)

:shock: :lol: :lol: Probably wrong... =D> =D> =D> =D>


----------



## CStanford (8 Apr 2014)

iNewbie":ii66mop2 said:


> Jacob":ii66mop2 said:
> 
> 
> > Camber is essential for most plane blades but the jiggers go on and on about flatness and straight edges. How does Dave get a camber with his 5 bevel system (precise, repeatable, etc etc)?
> ...



A camber is a curve through the thickness of _a thing_. It would be thicker in the middle than at the edges. It's possible Schwarz is doing this but for the most part he (and we) are simply shaping the end of the blade to a curve. It's curved in elevation, i.e. if you look at the cutter from the back, then end is shaped in a curve. This is not camber. To view camber, one would have to look at the bevel straight-on, at eye level, and see the thickness taper from the middle to both edges. This can be achieved on thick plane irons, like those found on scrub planes. It's very difficult to introduce real camber in a thin plane iron, or at least to any degree that matters.

A cambered and curved blade is curved in two planes.


----------



## carlb40 (8 Apr 2014)

CStanford":17lhpmmm said:


> iNewbie":17lhpmmm said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":17lhpmmm said:
> ...




Does it matter which 2 planes?

I have a 4 1/2 and no6 will they do?
:mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2014)

CStanford":1x50gorv said:


> iNewbie":1x50gorv said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1x50gorv said:
> ...


Just seems to mean curved, arched etc in most uses. Usually applies to shallow curves - a bit like "fall" as applied to shallow inclines.
As far as the woodwork tool sense is concerned there is no problem cambering a blade, thick or thin. Unless you use a jig of course. :lol:


----------



## David C (8 Apr 2014)

A most excellent post from Chris.

It's a pity that Jacob seems incapable of understanding it. There is absolutely no need to grind a curved edge for such a small curve. For large ones like a scrub plane it would make sense.

David


----------



## Jacob (8 Apr 2014)

David C":sp4imadv said:


> A most excellent post from Chris.
> 
> It's a pity that Jacob seems incapable of understanding it. There is absolutely no need to grind a curved edge for such a small curve. ......


It's easier to control the shape if you grind it, rather trying to force it against a jig the way Schwarzey is having to do. Or easier to do it his way if you take it out of the jig first.
Basically it's a bit stupid and clumsy to grind the thing first and then try to shape it by honing. Even more stupid to try to shape it whilst it's in a jig - a device designed to prevent you from getting other shapes. 
What does he do for the next trick, escape from a locked trunk underwater or something?
It's a funny old media circus!!


----------



## Sgian Dubh (8 Apr 2014)

I'm confused. Has anyone yet worked out how to sharpen a chisel or plane iron? Or is the task too taxing for anyone to master? If someone has worked out 'The Secret', could they please tell me because I'm concerned my efforts at sharpening over the years have somehow been, well, er, hopelessly inadequate. 

On the other hand, on a less ironic note, perhaps this pointless (or is it merely point scoring?) discussion needs putting to bed, or maybe better still, buried, cremated, exterminated - choose your preferred means for letting it slide off the radar. Slainte.


----------



## MMUK (8 Apr 2014)

Sgian Dubh":dzxllmx3 said:


> perhaps this pointless (or is it merely point scoring?) discussion needs putting to bed



That comment will start a bradawl sharpening thread next :lol:


----------



## Woodmonkey (8 Apr 2014)

I've got a great jig for sharpening my bradawl, takes all the guesswork out


----------



## carlb40 (8 Apr 2014)

Woodmonkey":2jd4rvcr said:


> I've got a great jig for sharpening my bradawl, takes all the guesswork out


Ahhh but this thread is about bevels, sooooooo how many bevels on your bradawl? :mrgreen:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (8 Apr 2014)

Sgian Dubh":xr005g1f said:


> Has anyone yet worked out how to sharpen a chisel or plane iron?
> Slainte.



You'll need one of these, Richard.

http://img.frbiz.com/pic/z2792c9d-0x0-0 ... m_6025.jpg

It can be programmed for single or multiple bevels, rounded bevels, back bevels, front bevels, skew bevels, cambered bevels, no bevels at all and bradawls; and as you can see from the photograph, it even has flashing coloured lights on a stalk. What more could you want?


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Apr 2014)

Is that an Eclipse? Does it do router Plane blades though? If it doesn't I'm not buying it or I'm going to wait for the MK III to come out.


----------



## carlb40 (8 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":1vxi323v said:


> Sgian Dubh":1vxi323v said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone yet worked out how to sharpen a chisel or plane iron?
> ...


Does it come in different colours? :mrgreen:


----------



## MMUK (8 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":1f2p6bhw said:


> it even has flashing coloured lights on a stalk.



OK, that's me sold. Where do I place my deposit? :lol:


----------



## Sgian Dubh (9 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":1q9sydq7 said:


> Sgian Dubh":1q9sydq7 said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone yet worked out how to sharpen a chisel or plane iron?
> ...


I'm trying to decide if it's overly complicated for my needs, or if it's not involved enough. Whilst I'm weighing up the pros and cons I guess I'll just have to rub along (pun intended) with my loosey goosey slip-shod methods of a grindstone, a bench stone or two, and the palm of my hand to act as a strop with a bit of blade flipping.

Will this be good enough in the interim with which to hack at wood do you think? I've always struggled to get a plane to plane and a chisel to chisel, and wonder if this is limiting my work? Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (9 Apr 2014)

Sgian Dubh":3av83ekk said:


> Cheshirechappie":3av83ekk said:
> 
> 
> > Sgian Dubh":3av83ekk said:
> ...


I think you've hit the nail. Never forget: "Unless you happen to have an uncanny ability to judge and hold a desired angle freehand, some kind of assistance is definitely called for". Can't recall who said this! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Apr 2014)

It really is time to call an end to this tripe.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Apr 2014)

phil.p":39zpokrp said:


> It really is time to call an end to this tripe.



I was trying to end things on a bit of a laugh. Mignal, Carl, MMUK and Richard saw the point and replied in the spirit (thanks chaps); seems not everyone got the point. Oh well.

Think I agree now. Time for the mods to lock the thread, and we can all move on.


----------



## Spindle (9 Apr 2014)

If you want to kill this thread stop responding - it's easy isn't it? :roll: :roll: 

From my point of view it makes me chuckle - sometimes it's hard to believe it's intelligent adults contributing :lol: :lol:


----------



## CStanford (9 Apr 2014)

MMUK":3hjgnd5j said:


> Not wishing to hijack other threads, I'm curious as the the advantages/disadvantages of having differing numbers of bevels on your blades. I've only ever honed a single bevel on my plane irons and chisels and find it works for me. So, why are there variations? How does it make a difference to performance?



To answer the original question:

Both Planecraft and Joyce (and others) mention a single-bevel iron (and chisels) cutting 'sweeter.' So, it would seem that there are NO advantages from a performance standpoint to having more than one bevel, assuming one finds these sources trustworthy.

If you are using one bevel then don't change a thing.


----------



## Scouse (9 Apr 2014)

Haven't been around for a few days, did I miss much?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Apr 2014)

Scouse":3tk46slj said:


> Haven't been around for a few days, did I miss much?



Not a thing.


----------



## Scouse (9 Apr 2014)

Cheshirechappie":1id3svxp said:


> Scouse":1id3svxp said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't been around for a few days, did I miss much?
> ...



Really?

Things must have changed. There's usually a sharpening thread at the very least...


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Apr 2014)

Well, maybe there was something about sharpening on page 1, but since then it's been like Scotland Road on a saturday night - people beating each other over the head with oilstones and jigs, that sort of thing. Nothing unusual, though.


----------

