Figure of 8 is a bit silly, especially if you are teaching someone to maintain a specific angle. There's simply too much movement as it also requires the hands/arms to move sideways as well as backwards/forwards. I've no doubt that it can be mastered but there are much easier ways of maintaining an angle whilst wearing the stone in an even manner.
are there any decent techniques for squaring a chisel blade?
- Thread starter Reggie
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
GazPal
Established Member
Reggie":1lj277tw said:
I agree. In all honesty, quite a large number of hobbyist take far more care of their tools than professionals ever would, whilst others may have been used up and abused to varying degrees. Price differentials between DIY and professional grade tools tended to/still often act as a form of demarcation between use and abuse, or use and respect. One seldom sees someone use a £30 chisel as a screwdriver, or a £300 hand plane as a doorstop, but it does happen.
On your point regarding the difference between professional and part time users, all too many now have/had little to go on in terms of adequate tuition in tool use and care, but I think you're starting off on the right footing by asking questions and hopefully acting upon the answers you receive. The influx of power tool popularity put paid to a great deal of freely earned knowledge that was once out there, leaving newcomers with self tuition via books, dvd and specialist courses - college or online - as their only sources of information.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
I aim to keep my stones flat by doing a variety of movements - up and down, round and round, Z, W, patterns etc etc but figure of eight doesn't really come into it specifically.
My method doesn't work too well - the oldest stones are dished end to end but fairly straight across. But I don't care at all - it has no effect on my sharpening. There's always a bit of the stone which is flat enough to take off the burr face down.
My method doesn't work too well - the oldest stones are dished end to end but fairly straight across. But I don't care at all - it has no effect on my sharpening. There's always a bit of the stone which is flat enough to take off the burr face down.
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
Reggae, I can understand your confusion, when 2 seemingly conflicting accounts both seem to make sense. Re. Brent Beach vs Chris Schwartz.
The problem with Beach's article is, he makes some assumptions which are not founded, which is surprising, since much of what he says is based on good, solid, logical progression. For instance, he contends that a cap iron was never intended to break the chips, because it wasn't called a chip breaker, in the old literature he was referencing. Hmm, do we not have tear out in Britain either, because we call it 'spelching'? That is not a logical argument Brent! Also, he concludes that, since he cannot find a reference on how close exactly to set a cap iron, to have an effect, there was no acceptance that there was an effect. But it does say in the book he quotes (Hayward,I think) that for difficult timber, the cap iron should be set closer and a fine cut taken. It might not say exactly how much closer, but clearly an effect must have been evident for the advice to be given. Maybe writers in those days just weren't as prescriptive, or perhaps the readers were assumed to be more self reliant and expected to try these things until they worked, in the context of their work. If it were me reading that book in the day, I would have set the cap iron, more or less, as close as the shaving thickness I was taking, that is what I would think logical. In fact I was setting my cap irons close for years before I read articles saying it is a good idea, just because it seems to make sense to me, at first, and then because the results were beneficial.
Beach is dead right about the wear bevel on plane irons being on both sides and therefore honing until they are both gone is necessary for a sharp edge. He shows us that the wear bevel on the back actually extends further back than the wear on the front, so only honing to raise a wire edge may not be enough to remove the wear at the back, which we need to do for a truly sharp edge. But saying that flattening the back is useless, because that will not remove the wear bevel, although true, is not what we do. All the honing takes place on the bevel, until we remove enough metal, that the wear bevel on the back also is removed. Back to the flat that we made that first time we prepared the blade. This is another reason a double bevel is a good thing to have. We need remove only a small amount of metal during honing of a secondary bevel to remove the wear bevel completely. This is were his argument about cap irons not being set close falls apart. If we set them close, we prevent the wear bevel on the back extending any where near as much as would be a problem. If the cap iron is set at 0.3 mm, then the wear bevel cannot be further back than that, (and in fact a bit less, the wear does not usually extend right up to the junction with the cap iron) and 0.3 mm is well within the amount we remove during normal honing of the bevel.
Mike.
Reggae, I can understand your confusion, when 2 seemingly conflicting accounts both seem to make sense. Re. Brent Beach vs Chris Schwartz.
The problem with Beach's article is, he makes some assumptions which are not founded, which is surprising, since much of what he says is based on good, solid, logical progression. For instance, he contends that a cap iron was never intended to break the chips, because it wasn't called a chip breaker, in the old literature he was referencing. Hmm, do we not have tear out in Britain either, because we call it 'spelching'? That is not a logical argument Brent! Also, he concludes that, since he cannot find a reference on how close exactly to set a cap iron, to have an effect, there was no acceptance that there was an effect. But it does say in the book he quotes (Hayward,I think) that for difficult timber, the cap iron should be set closer and a fine cut taken. It might not say exactly how much closer, but clearly an effect must have been evident for the advice to be given. Maybe writers in those days just weren't as prescriptive, or perhaps the readers were assumed to be more self reliant and expected to try these things until they worked, in the context of their work. If it were me reading that book in the day, I would have set the cap iron, more or less, as close as the shaving thickness I was taking, that is what I would think logical. In fact I was setting my cap irons close for years before I read articles saying it is a good idea, just because it seems to make sense to me, at first, and then because the results were beneficial.
Beach is dead right about the wear bevel on plane irons being on both sides and therefore honing until they are both gone is necessary for a sharp edge. He shows us that the wear bevel on the back actually extends further back than the wear on the front, so only honing to raise a wire edge may not be enough to remove the wear at the back, which we need to do for a truly sharp edge. But saying that flattening the back is useless, because that will not remove the wear bevel, although true, is not what we do. All the honing takes place on the bevel, until we remove enough metal, that the wear bevel on the back also is removed. Back to the flat that we made that first time we prepared the blade. This is another reason a double bevel is a good thing to have. We need remove only a small amount of metal during honing of a secondary bevel to remove the wear bevel completely. This is were his argument about cap irons not being set close falls apart. If we set them close, we prevent the wear bevel on the back extending any where near as much as would be a problem. If the cap iron is set at 0.3 mm, then the wear bevel cannot be further back than that, (and in fact a bit less, the wear does not usually extend right up to the junction with the cap iron) and 0.3 mm is well within the amount we remove during normal honing of the bevel.
Mike.
GazPal
Established Member
Jacob":375c35r3 said:
Nice one Jacob.
I think the primary goal is obtaining a sharp, working edge, regardless of school of thought or method.bugbear
Established Member
nanscombe":1amd5lk9 said:
But in that (reasonable) case, why (the heck) would anyone call it a "figure 8"?
Personally, I figure that there are enough forces acting to concentrate wear in the middle of the stone that (when possible) I emphasise the sides. Seems to work out OK.
BugBear
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
My mother used tell us when we had to hoover our rooms as children to make sure we did the edges and corners properly, and the middle would seem to get done anyway. I think the same theory applies to stones.
wizard
Established Member
The best thing i ever did was to stop using my oilstone
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Funny that - only this morning I was sharpening a big chisel and thinking it wasn't going very quickly (EzeLap diamond) and went back to a double sided Norton stone. Much better!wizard":38mcl0ei said:
I've never really gone away from oil stones except to try out experimentally some of the much vaunted alternatives - but they just aren't that good.
Oilstones need refreshening with a quick pass over the surface every now and then. I use a 3M Diapad which just happens to be what I've got, but I expect other ways will work.
Richard T
Established Member
I might have missed it - but how's the chisel squaring coming?
Reggie
Established Member
Beach seemed overly intense and schwarz seemed almost frightened of the cap iron but neither particularly explained themselves well enough. Both seemed to have come to their conclusions but couldn't logically explain why (beach is only logical in his own mind), schwarz seemed more interested in the state of the shavings than the finish on the board. My only conclusion to draw from either are that it's the results that will count.
Beach lost me over the whole back flattening thing, suffice to say, the ruler trick is most likely to be used in future, I concluded that you only need the back wear removed to the point the chipbreaker front meets the back of the blade to the blade tip.
As for stones and flattening them or keeping them flat, it seems reasonable to me to keep them flat. I'm not sure what type of oilstone I was given initially, it's a darkish grey on the rough side, a red/brown colour on the smooth side, the rough side had a hollow, it's not deep, it was about about 1.5mm but it covers 2/3rds of the stone.
I tried to flatten it using the concrete floor in the garage, after about an hour of intense working on it, I'd hardly made an impact, in fact, I was probably smoothing out the concrete more than I was smoothing the stone, so to get that thing up to scratch is going to take me a lot more work or I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy a stone to dress the stone. My conclusion is that it's going to be easier to keep a stone flat from the start than it is to fix a hollow, the method you use is entirely unimportant, just as long as it gets done.
I bet there's no decent way to tell what grit an unmarked oilstone is? I think for redressing this hollow I'm going to end up with some aggressive abrasive paper glued to glass. Which kind of leads me onto my next question, I see that grits from 220 to 8000 are numbers used across the board, with at least 2 grits per person, sometimes more but nothing in the way of reasoning (apart from the obvious, low grit = more aggressive removal, higher grit = smoother finish), are there any upper and lower limits for grit? Is there such a thing as too aggressive a grit? Is there a diminishing return once you get to a certain higher grit?
Richard, the chisel squaring went brilliantly, in the process of flattening to a single bevel it squared itself up
Beach lost me over the whole back flattening thing, suffice to say, the ruler trick is most likely to be used in future, I concluded that you only need the back wear removed to the point the chipbreaker front meets the back of the blade to the blade tip.
As for stones and flattening them or keeping them flat, it seems reasonable to me to keep them flat. I'm not sure what type of oilstone I was given initially, it's a darkish grey on the rough side, a red/brown colour on the smooth side, the rough side had a hollow, it's not deep, it was about about 1.5mm but it covers 2/3rds of the stone.
I tried to flatten it using the concrete floor in the garage, after about an hour of intense working on it, I'd hardly made an impact, in fact, I was probably smoothing out the concrete more than I was smoothing the stone, so to get that thing up to scratch is going to take me a lot more work or I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy a stone to dress the stone. My conclusion is that it's going to be easier to keep a stone flat from the start than it is to fix a hollow, the method you use is entirely unimportant, just as long as it gets done.
I bet there's no decent way to tell what grit an unmarked oilstone is? I think for redressing this hollow I'm going to end up with some aggressive abrasive paper glued to glass. Which kind of leads me onto my next question, I see that grits from 220 to 8000 are numbers used across the board, with at least 2 grits per person, sometimes more but nothing in the way of reasoning (apart from the obvious, low grit = more aggressive removal, higher grit = smoother finish), are there any upper and lower limits for grit? Is there such a thing as too aggressive a grit? Is there a diminishing return once you get to a certain higher grit?
Richard, the chisel squaring went brilliantly, in the process of flattening to a single bevel it squared itself up
bugbear
Established Member
Reggie":ch81ddyl said:
Electron microscope, if you've got one handy.
With enough experience, you can easily rub a tool on a stone (I keep an old chisel around) and see how fast the unknown stone removes
metal, and what finish it leaves, compared to other abrasives you've used.
These results are effected by more than particle size, but are the things you're actually interested in from a stone.
BugBear
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
easier without the ruler.You just exert more pressure towards the edge end of the faceReggie":hzsy5qwp said:
Fair enough but that doesn't mean you need to waste your time flattening ones which are already hollow. Complete waste of time
Sounds like a Norton stone and sounds pretty flat to me
Madness!! Buy a flat stone by all means and use it for sharpening - don't waste your time, stone (and money) flattening some old cheapo stones. They are usable anyway but if you don't like them hollow just bin them - or give them away to somebody who just wants to sharpen tools!!
Yes but it doesn't matter much if they go hollow
It's usually possible to arrange them in order from coarse to fine - which is all you need to know. I've no idea what the grits are on any of my stones and I don't care!
Madness!! save the paper for tool grinding etc, don't waste time and energy on abrading stones.
Not really if you are just grinding (reshaping etc) and not sharpening
There certainly is - it gets slower and slower the finer the grit and a super sharp blade is going to be less than sharp quite quickly if you actually use (e.g. for woodwork, not just for sharpening!).
It sounds like you have a Norton double sided stone in not too bad condition. I'd just stick with that and not bother with any other bits n pieces except perhaps a 3m diapad for freshening it - it makes a big difference especially on an old neglected stone.* Another useful thing is a rare earth magnet for lifting off swarf - keeps the whole process cleaner.
*PS this isn't the same as flattening. You just need a quick pass over a stone to de-clog it. It won't go into the hollows much but that doesn't matter neither will your tools being sharpened - if you do it carefully and stick to high points/areas.
G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 223
Hi Reggie,
The light brown and dark grey does indeed sound like a Norton made "India". Not sure ongrit numbers but they are simply sold "Coarse" & "Fine". They are very good value new so depending on funds time could be better spend on purchasing a new stone.
I think aiming to keep your stone flat is a very good idea. The India stone is quite hard wearing too which helps. I have not tried to flatten a India before but appropriate abrasive on a flat surface seems a good place to start.
I think you can go too fine, most who use waterstones (I think) stop at 8000 which is very fine indeed, and more seems a bit much, unless of course
you want or need to.
The ruler trick is indeed very good on planes, similar results it can be done using extra pressure as Jacob says.
I think the limit on the aggressive grits would soon present themselves, I don't have a figure for the coarsest practical abrasive but I'm sure someone with more knowledge on that subject will post shortly.
The light brown and dark grey does indeed sound like a Norton made "India". Not sure ongrit numbers but they are simply sold "Coarse" & "Fine". They are very good value new so depending on funds time could be better spend on purchasing a new stone.
I think aiming to keep your stone flat is a very good idea. The India stone is quite hard wearing too which helps. I have not tried to flatten a India before but appropriate abrasive on a flat surface seems a good place to start.
I think you can go too fine, most who use waterstones (I think) stop at 8000 which is very fine indeed, and more seems a bit much, unless of course
you want or need to.
The ruler trick is indeed very good on planes, similar results it can be done using extra pressure as Jacob says.
I think the limit on the aggressive grits would soon present themselves, I don't have a figure for the coarsest practical abrasive but I'm sure someone with more knowledge on that subject will post shortly.
Graham Orm
Established Member
Reggie":2leib41a said:Beach seemed overly intense and schwarz seemed almost frightened of the cap iron but neither particularly explained themselves well enough. Both seemed to have come to their conclusions but couldn't logically explain why (beach is only logical in his own mind), schwarz seemed more interested in the state of the shavings than the finish on the board. My only conclusion to draw from either are that it's the results that will count.
Beach lost me over the whole back flattening thing, suffice to say, the ruler trick is most likely to be used in future, I concluded that you only need the back wear removed to the point the chipbreaker front meets the back of the blade to the blade tip.
As for stones and flattening them or keeping them flat, it seems reasonable to me to keep them flat. I'm not sure what type of oilstone I was given initially, it's a darkish grey on the rough side, a red/brown colour on the smooth side, the rough side had a hollow, it's not deep, it was about about 1.5mm but it covers 2/3rds of the stone.
I tried to flatten it using the concrete floor in the garage, after about an hour of intense working on it, I'd hardly made an impact, in fact, I was probably smoothing out the concrete more than I was smoothing the stone, so to get that thing up to scratch is going to take me a lot more work or I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy a stone to dress the stone. My conclusion is that it's going to be easier to keep a stone flat from the start than it is to fix a hollow, the method you use is entirely unimportant, just as long as it gets done.
I bet there's no decent way to tell what grit an unmarked oilstone is? I think for redressing this hollow I'm going to end up with some aggressive abrasive paper glued to glass. Which kind of leads me onto my next question, I see that grits from 220 to 8000 are numbers used across the board, with at least 2 grits per person, sometimes more but nothing in the way of reasoning (apart from the obvious, low grit = more aggressive removal, higher grit = smoother finish), are there any upper and lower limits for grit? Is there such a thing as too aggressive a grit? Is there a diminishing return once you get to a certain higher grit?
Richard, the chisel squaring went brilliantly, in the process of flattening to a single bevel it squared itself up
Forget figure 8. Impossible to keep and angle or even pressure. For quick easy sharpening, use an Eclipse jig and flatten your stone every 60 strokes reversing the stone after 30 unless you want wavy blades. Take a flat stone, do 30 strokes then check it with a steel rule for flatness, you'll see why it's important to keep flattening. I get a sheet of very coarse wet and dry on a piece of melamine faced conti board. Spray it with water and give the stone 10 or so strokes over it, that will usually bring it back to flatness. (I'm talking waterstones here). I clamp the wet and dry at one edge to the board and hold the other edge with the other hand. It never slips.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
I guess haven't seen the light yet! I haven't flattened a stone in 40 or more years of sharpening* - with absolutely no problem so far.Grayorm":dvedd6my said:
*Except once as an experiment - didn't see the point of repeating it.
G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 223
Jacob":1iw7tzpe said:
I think the issue is the sharpening medium chosen. A water stone wears so quickly when compared to a an India oilstone. I think a water stone would become unuseable if not flattened, so G is right to flatten I would think.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
:roll: Wait for it - Which is why oil stones are better blah blah blah......here we bl00dy go again :roll:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It's only an opinion you know.phil.p":122cucr4 said:
Please tell us why you think soft, fragile, expensive, waterstones which need flattening every time they are used, are superior. :lol: :lol:
PS I've never tried a waterstone. I'm open minded - I would have a go, except I've never heard a single convincing argument in favour of them.
wizard
Established Member
i still think a sheet of wet & dry paper is best
