Easiest Blade and Chisel Sharpening

[thetyreman]

fun fact: diamond stones do not have a dip in them in the middle, they stay perfectly flat :lol: that's why they're so good, all you need is glass cleaner, mine are as flat as the day I bought them in 2016.

 

[Jacob]

fun fact: diamond stones do not have a dip in them in the middle, they stay perfectly flat :lol: that's why they're so good, all you need is glass cleaner, mine are as flat as the day I bought them in 2016.

Mine too. I use oil though. I don't use them much I still prefer the oil stone. I ought to sell them on.

 

[ED65]

In this thread the advice is not to flatten your stones.

Is it really? I hadn't noticed.

 

[D_W]

fun fact: diamond stones do not have a dip in them in the middle, they stay perfectly flat :lol: that's why they're so good, all you need is glass cleaner, mine are as flat as the day I bought them in 2016.

Mine too. I use oil though. I don't use them much I still prefer the oil stone. I ought to sell them on.

They lose value about as fast as a range rover. Might as well just put them in the kitchen for the mrs.

(I have a couple of diamond stones. Some of them were flat to start, some of them weren't. Strangely, none of changed at all!! I use mine with WD 40 now instead of water, though - far less loading despite rarely adding WD40. The slightest glaze, they get a squirt, and off goes the stuff).

I am in jacob's boat - for better or worse - I generally go back to the basic stones and not much new (but then again, i shave with a straight razor and about 6 times a year, I step into the modern world and use a Gillette fat boy -...so, like a 60s kind of modern world. It gives me razorburn as all other things not called a straight razor and I'm right back at it with the blade).

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

Regarding V11 and other hot isostatically pressed powder metal steels:- these are not (as you may well know) simply sintered PM (as, for example, many car engine components), but made into billets from large capsules of carefully blended fine powder steels, often of the HSS type, but also other types that could not be made by the usual means such as cast and forge. They may be forged after HIPping, but usually just to get to a more usable bar/slab size, then the further forging, heat treatment and grinding is also more difficult/costly. Why go to this trouble and expense? - firstly, even if the % composition is exactly the same as a conventional HSS such as M2, the properties are different (for most applications, much better) as the homogeneity is greatly increased and the microstructure improved (fine grain size and complete absence of porosity).

While most of these HIP PM 'steels' are incidentally 'stainless'. It would certainly not be worthwhile making a GP stainless such as 18/8 (CrNi) by HIP PM, nor a simple carbon steel.

There are a few dozen grades of HIP PM steels available more or less off the shelf. Of these, other steels in the HIP PM V series are V10 and V15 (implying 10% and 15% Vanadium, (as well as C and other alloying elements such a Mo, W)) ---- I would assume that V11 is approx. 11% Vanadium. All these V percentages are far higher than possible with conventional tool steel/high speed steel production (for a start, you'd get large grain size and segregation).

Sorry to go on, but difficult to say in fewer words.

Given all these steel alloys, isn't it amazing how good a simple carbon steel is for hand tools? A properly heat treated conventional tool steel of 0.5%-1.5% carbon (C) (% depending on application) in fairly pure iron (Fe) as made 200 years ago (Sheffield crucible 'cast steel') or, in small quantities in India and elsewhere 2000+ years ago --- is hard to beat.

Spot on post! I own a powder metal part manufacturing plant and, though I know every bit of what you wrote, I must be to close to the process to verbalize as well as you have.

We make automotive components, but our direction has been conventional pressing, with accelerated temperature sintering-2400 degrees f. HIP and CIP have been around for many decades, and to be fair, the only connection to conventional PM, is at the very beginning, using metal in powder form. You've done an excellent job noting the use of the products from those methods.

Another process not mentioned is powder metal forging, a process by which many automotive internal engine connecting rods are made. But, unless extreme measures were to be used, the products would not be suitable for dge tools.

 

[dannyr]

Thanks for that, Tony,
I was in the HIP business (left 10+ yrs ago) - HIP has many applications, and I was mostly involved with its application to casting such as medical implants in CoCr and turbine blades in Ni superalloys, not actually making the HIP PM 'steels'.

But D W did correct me on my assumption that V stood for Vanadium in the V11 case --- I suppose it actually stands for Veritas or lee Valley?

Re PM forging -- tooling costs?

THANKS
danny

 

[D_W]

It probably stands for Veritas (the V), but LV was pretty careful about not doing anything to help anyone figure out what it was as, well, they don't want someone to find out.

Lucky for them, nobody had the initiative to XRF samples for several years. If they haven't made their investment back plus some, I'd be surprised, and I doubt unless LN picks up something similar, that anyone else will bother to go to the trouble.

Tony pointed out to me (which I didn't consider) that when the formula isn't under patent, you can very easily take the "formula" and make it elsewhere, so maybe my thoughts about cost are out of touch (for me, a 6x36x.094 ground sheet was $330 with shipping. LV sells the #4 sized irons for $48. There's not a whole lot there in terms of incentive for someone else to make irons out of something like that when A2 is a lot cheaper and the bulk of buyers don't really read internet forums or commentary - something like 10%, the other 90% get catalogs and see in-person demos and buy from there).

At any rate, tony's comment about process earlier must be spot on- the alloy isn't that exciting, it's a stainless that can get a little harder than 440C and 154CM, but 154CM (non powder) isn't particularly impressive in edge tools and the edge chunks off. I didn't guess before doing controlled testing just how much difference PM steels would make in the condition of the edge as it wears (a lot). According to their charts, the wear resistance isn't much more than non-PM (pretty much across the board for M2, M4, etc) but all of the PM samples that I tested have very characteristic wear.

The other strangeness was just how much less cut resistance there was in V11 vs. PM M4 - I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing that chromium is slippery in wood, and vanadium isn't. It's drastic - sore wrists planing 2400 feet with one, and relief from planing the same amount with another.

The controlled test is one anyone can do - take two irons, your favorite vs. the V11 type, plane 200 feet, change iron, plane 200 feet, change iron. Sharpen them with a guide on final bevel for consistency and keep the shavings separate to weigh. It's a real lesson in guessing (I guessed way wrong) durability of an iron vs. testing.

If we had more knowledge in the woodworking arena regarding blade steels (the chosen steel is actually a blade steel, not developed for dies), I'd imagine someone may have made irons out of the stuff 20 years ago when it was under patent and about 3 or 4 years on the market. Nobody ever did to my knowledge - maybe it's considered a risk if it's patented and only available from one maker, who knows?

Best smoothing plane steel I've seen by a mile, though, all things considered. If it wasn't PM, I'd see a chunky edge under a microscope and write it off as not being able to make a finish-ready surface.

 

[swagman]

Given all these steel alloys, isn't it amazing how good a simple carbon steel is for hand tools? A properly heat treated conventional tool steel of 0.5%-1.5% carbon (C) (% depending on application) in fairly pure iron (Fe) as made 200 years ago (Sheffield crucible 'cast steel') or, in small quantities in India and elsewhere 2000+ years ago --- is hard to beat.

+ 1 Danny.

 

[D_W]

We have a small group of LV haters here in the states as well as a couple in Australia. People in Canada, I guess, are quite proud of them. They're (LV) more honest than they'd probably need to be, as is LN. LN's group has far less curiosity, though. The steel that V11 is either made of or copied from was available when LN switched to A2. A2 is inferior to it in every way except cost, and I hate to say it, anyone who is objective about what they're using (except those who refuse to use a carborundum stone or a power grinder) will find V11 or the powder stainless it copies better than carbon steel for finish planing.

Maybe the cost of the stuff was higher before Carpenter's patent ran out. It's the first change in plane irons that I wouldn't consider a waste of time. And compared to some of the other garbage flung at us (primus plane irons come to mind - the ad copy made them out to be better than carbon steel, and they're some of the worst I've seen in a plane), actually meet their claims.

When I was doing testing, Rob Lee didn't really comment as I was posting results. The rest of us were surprised, he generally wasn't, I guess, and just said at the end of my results that he'd been watching the stream of data as I was posting it. He also said that he prefers O1 when he's at the bench, but suggested that from a stability and consistency standpoint, the V11 is more sensible for a manufacturer. I think if he did a lot of planing, he'd change his mind at the bench.

I still like carbon steel a lot, and the plainer the better, but I can't cling to my bias toward it and claim it's better than V11 in a plane.

 

[woodbloke66]

But D W did correct me on my assumption that V stood for Vanadium in the V11 case --- I suppose it actually stands for Veritas or lee Valley?
danny

I believe the 'V' stands for 'version' as it was the 11th type of steel they tried until they found something acceptable - Rob

 

[D_W]

I think it's actually a spinal tap reference, but Derek Cohen could probably confirm that.

I didn't pay much attention to it at first, and I must admit, I didn't pay that much attention to it at all until I started doing controlled testing and measured feet planed and weighed shavings.

The internet is full of fun assertions about it, though - suggesting that it's the 11th version they tried is a very reasonable guess.

 

[swagman]

When I was doing testing, Rob Lee didn't really comment as I was posting results. The rest of us were surprised, he generally wasn't, I guess, and just said at the end of my results that he'd been watching the stream of data as I was posting it. He also said that he prefers O1 when he's at the bench, but suggested that from a stability and consistency standpoint, the V11 is more sensible for a manufacturer. I think if he did a lot of planing, he'd change his mind at the bench.

DW;

take on board the message Rob Lee is conveying.

 

[D_W]

That's the message of someone not doing a whole lot of planing. Last week, I dimensioned 40 board feet of cherry from rough. 5/4 to 7/8, #1 common.

The V11 is dominant on a jointer and smoother in that case, and now that it's in cycle, it takes about the same amount of time to sharpen, but takes an edge off of the washita like carbon steel does off of a translucent arkansas.

It may not be as dandy for someone using a guide on an arkansas stone, or sharpening directly on a hollow, but those are things to avoid doing with plane irons.

I was, however, surprised to see rob have that preference. It's admirable that he allowed the process to go forward (with employees and testers) and make, in my opinion, a better choice than he would choose. I haven't used the steel in chisels, though, and don't plan to - not in a world where I can find $10 old japanese chisels on buyee.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I think it's actually a spinal tap reference, but Derek Cohen could probably confirm that.

I didn't pay much attention to it at first, and I must admit, I didn't pay that much attention to it at all until I started doing controlled testing and measured feet planed and weighed shavings.

The internet is full of fun assertions about it, though - suggesting that it's the 11th version they tried is a very reasonable guess.

PM-V11 ... "PM" stands for Powdered Metal. "V" is Veritas. "11" comes from Spinal Tap (as David correctly noted). It is Rob Lee's little joke For those who know the movie, the guitar amplifier used by the band had to be LOUDER than anyone else's guitar amplier. All other amplifiers went up to a 10 on the volume control. Spinal Tap's went higher ... to 11!

Geez David ... I wish you'd just repost your blade test details here. I find the result particularly gratifying because they echoed results I obtained 6 or 7 years ago when PM-V11 was released. I have probably been using this steel for woodwork longer than anyone outside the factory. However, because I have been involved with product testing for Veritas/Lee Valley for so long, it is understandable that my results are looked at with some suspicion. I keep saying that I report what I get ... why would I do otherwise ... because someone will come along and replicate the testing. So, my thanks to you for doing just that! I must admit I did smirk and say quietly, "I told you so"

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

>>I must admit I did smirk and say quietly, "I told you so" <<

Won't be the last time that my perception was wrong based on non-controlled data points!! I guess the two things that stuck out to me were using a custom plane to dimension a billet and getting a greater volume of wood removed with a butcher iron and a wooden plane (attributable to the plane design in that case - threw me off).

And then one other comparison in the shooter. Testing on end grain shows, I guess, that neither of those were a very good representation of planing long grain in a fair comparison.

But planing 40k feet of long grain and taking pictures...probably a pretty good comparison for the purposes of planing long grain!!

Learned many other things I didn't expect to learn along with it (even a way to wax the plane in a quarter of the effort and time), and learned of a new steel stock to make my own irons from.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

David, that was a great testing marathon you put in. I know of none like that. Of course, there are not many as .. ahem ... dedicated ... as you!

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

......
Learned many other things I didn't expect to learn along with it (even a way to wax the plane in a quarter of the effort and time), and learned of a new steel stock to make my own irons from.

Er, how could waxing be improved? We are not talking Brazilians here!
I just do a squiggle with a candle - like a hasty signature. I'd estimate it at 0.5 seconds.
The problem with testing involving manual skills is that whatever steel or tool you are using your performance will improve over time. This means that you can't always credit the new steel, or any other change, for the improvements.
Some manual skills can be improved dramatically with just a minor change of method. There are lots of examples I can think of. How would you factor this in to a comparative test?
It's a big issue - most woodworkers have steadily up graded their kit over the years but in the same period have put in 1000s of hours of planing etc. They've got better at it, but still would have if they had stuck with their first plane.

 

[D_W]

Jacob - in this case, the V11 iron was used freshly new (I bought it for the testing, bought and didn't receive for free - not that there's probably good or bad versions of them, but I want a random sample). Most of the other irons were well used, except my O1 iron which I had made not long before (but I tested favorably against a hock later).

The bits and bobs that you're mentioning are not going to affect the test results that I put up.

I do think sharpening cycle time is more important than any steel, but that's not what data we were looking for. We were looking for real data about longevity. Anyone doing an honest test (same plane, same confirmed sharpness level, same controls - weighing shavings and counting length to ensure that the same amount of work will be done, rotating the irons every several hundred feet to limit any effect of favorable wood - which can be huge) will find the same as I did.

What I didn't test was jack planing, so I have no clue whether or not the same relationship would hold for thick jack chips. Jointing and smoothing is pretty well covered.

As I was publishing the results, I did get a few folks who were concerned about the results because they either don't like derek or they don't like LV (and several don't like me), but they are welcome to be wrong. In this case, the results are pretty clear.

As far as the wood effect - one stick of heart american beech yielded about 800 feet of planing out of O1 (double that out of V11 - a relationship that seems to hold an any wood that doesn't damage irons due to silica or mineral deposits, etc). Another that I tested my first "mule" in (a quickly made iron just for testing) yielded over 4000 feet of beech to the mule (equivalent to V11) and I thought I was really onto something. Imagine I had an iron that I had made that doubled to tripled the footage of the V11 iron!!!

It was beech sap, nearly the same density.

And then my O1 iron planed a little over 2 thousand feet of it.

Bummer, the relationship still holds.

The discussion of whether or not it's necessary is an entirely different discussion - if it would be good enough to prevent someone from learning to sharpen freehand, in my opinion, the outcome could actually be negative. I think beginners will learn the most with several things:
* a sharpening method that uses one stone after the grind
* a soft iron that tolerates said method well and isn't hard to get right
* use of the cap iron (in combination with the soft iron, it will encourage a user not to do most of their planing making tiny feathers of wood)

Then, after that, the V11 type stuff - or equivalent if one comes along - (or you just make said equivalent like me) is just better. Not necessary if the above is mastered, but better. Less effort, sharper per foot of use, will never rust, etc.

There will still be people who prefer the plainest softest iron out of ease of sharpening, but that's an issue for them to contend with. If they think about planing 10 times for each time they actually plane, then it's not that detrimental.

As far as waxing goes, one can take a stick of gulf canning wax and gradually round over the end in use so that it's smooth, but rounded over like a scythe anvil. The each time it's used, it will make a uniform 2" wide stripe from the back of the plane to the front in a single swipe. Coverage is better than scribbling, and it's satisfyingly lazy without having to make some strange bench fixture. Continued use maintains that scythe anvil-like shape - smooth, but curved a little in the thickness of the wax.

I wonder how many people lift the wax and avoid touching the iron with it out of fear of damaging an edge. I'll bet many do, but such damage will never occur.

 

[D_W]

David, that was a great testing marathon you put in. I know of none like that. Of course, there are not many as .. ahem ... dedicated ... as you!

Regards from Perth

Derek

You know as well as many why I get carried away wanting bulletproof...well...proof of something!

But I got both Bill and I quieted down (dogging LV's obscure communication of their data on the V11 page) in one shot, and that's an accomplishment!

 

[JohnCee]

the diamond plates are worth it, I got them very early on and saw them as a long term investment, it's great because I've never needed another system, just buy coarse medium and fine stones mount them in some plywood or solid wood, make a strop and you're good to go, it works.

Cheers, where did you buy them from and which ones?

sorry for the late response, I got some DMT ones, but if was getting them again without question I would get atoma stones from workshop heaven, made in japan.

I'm looking at diamond stones myself and would be interested to hear why you'd choose Atoma over DMT. Thanks.