Freehand Sharpening - which technique?

[AndyT]

Poor sideways blade. No one has voted for it. I occasionally use it though!

So do I!

Join my campaign for proportional representation for woodworkers! :lol:

 

[n0legs]

You appear to have forgotten the N0legs method.

It's the only one you'll ever need :lol:

 

[pedder]

Rather like pedder (post above) though he is wrong about flat being theoretically faster (check "volume of a prism")

The idea, that is "wrong":

Given an edge is sharp after running 100cm on a stone. (Number are just examples!)
Wen I keep the bevel flat on the 21cm stone I reach 100cm after 5 strokes.
If I round under I lift of the edge. If I just lift the edge on last 2 cm, I have to do half a stroke more to reach 100cm.
If I round under on the last 10 cm, I need the double number of strokes.

Cheers
Pedder

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Grind the primary, then up a few degrees on the honing stone and rub to raise a wire edge. If I subsequently polish on a finer stone, then same again but up a bit more, and draw back rather than fore-and-back. Then back off. Usually several hones before a regrind. How many? Depends on how work is flowing, how keen I am to set a grinder up, how long it takes to hone a wire edge, how steep the secondary bevel has managed to make itself, the phase of the moon, whatever.

Whether the ground bevel is flat, hollow or convex I don't really care provided the waste metal is removed, but it normally ends up a bit hollow because the grindstone is round. On something with a long bevel, such as a mortice chisel, I make a bit more effort to take off the rise at the heel of the bevel, to end up with something nearer to flat. I don't really obsess about though, just aim for a sharp enough edge with enough supporting metal (and working clearance if appropriate) behind it for the type of work in hand.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I'm just waiting for the real agenda to surface....cant be long now

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yes, we know what all roads lead to ...

 

[Jacob]

Rather like pedder (post above) though he is wrong about flat being theoretically faster (check "volume of a prism")

The idea, that is "wrong":

Given an edge is sharp after running 100cm on a stone. (Number are just examples!)
Wen I keep the bevel flat on the 21cm stone I reach 100cm after 5 strokes.
If I round under I lift of the edge. If I just lift the edge on last 2 cm, I have to do half a stroke more to reach 100cm.
If I round under on the last 10 cm, I need the double number of strokes.

Cheers
Pedder

Er, hmm, not sure what you mean?
By "rounding under" I mean dipping the handle just after you've started the stroke so that almost the whole action is on the bevel behind the edge. The advantage of this is that you can put a lot of force and speed into it. It's only the start of the stroke, first 10mm or so (for a "rounded micro bevel" so to speak :roll: ), that you need to hit 30º as carefully as you can.

 

[Jacob]

Yes, we know what all roads lead to ...

Yes I'm wondering what the little tinker has up his sleeve, if anything.

 

[Biliphuster]

Slightly rounded bevel, I rarely use anything other than my finest stone for this.

Occasionally I will reset a chisel by sharpening a low bevel on a coarse stone if I feel it is getting too rounded.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I hollow grind, as per choice #1. Then I sideways sharpen, as per choice #6.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[bugbear]

I hollow grind, as per choice #1. Then I sideways sharpen, as per choice #6.

Regards from Perth

Derek

If I permuted the grind/hone possibilities the poll would be HUGE!!

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

Other.
I produce a slightly convex bevel but it's not "deliberate" in the sense of serving any purpose. It's "accidental" in that if you take a relaxed approach to freehand sharpening, without trying pointlessly to keep a bevel flat, you will end up convex, but get it done much faster.

...the edge only briefly in contact with the stone, as you dip the handle.

It's quicker because you can put more effort into it as after the intitial 30º start you dip the handle

I think if the dip is deliberate, the convexity is deliberate; the one spawns the other. Indeed, I thought this was the essence of your idea, which you've mentioned before.

I'll apply common sense, and count you as a convex beveller in the poll, if that's OK.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Well in theory you could dip from 30º to 25º in a flash and end up with two bevels - which would also be incidental rather than deliberate.
The only deliberate thing is to hone close to the edge at 30º and the rest of the bevel at a lower angle - which is everybody does one way or another.

Biliphuster put it more succinctly:

Slightly rounded bevel, I rarely use anything other than my finest stone for this.

Occasionally I will reset a chisel by sharpening a low bevel on a coarse stone if I feel it is getting too rounded.

 

[Woodmatt]

I'm with Corneel and D_W

 

[lurker]

which you've mentioned before.

BugBear

Has he?
I had not noticed :lol:

 

[JohnPW]

I haven't voted because I use the first three depending on circumstances:

If I have access to a Tormek or similar - "hollow ground bevel, blade registers on stone at edge and heel".

With new chisels eg Lidl/Aldi - "flat bevel (Japanese style) blade registers on stone on whole bevel". I only use these for paring as I ended up with a single 25 degree bevel.

If I only have course and fine bench stones on hand - "double bevel (blade angle set a bit higher than the primary for honing)".

 

[bugbear]

I haven't voted because I use the first three depending on circumstances:

If I have access to a Tormek or similar - "hollow ground bevel, blade registers on stone at edge and heel".

With new chisels eg Lidl/Aldi - "flat bevel (Japanese style) blade registers on stone on whole bevel". I only use these for paring as I ended up with a single 25 degree bevel.

If I only have course and fine bench stones on hand - "double bevel (blade angle set a bit higher than the primary for honing)".

If you feel the need to be part of the poll, you can just vote for the one you use most, either in terms of numbers of tools, or frequency of use.

BugBear

 

[DTR]

Voted for option #4:
Hollow grind a primary bevel on a bog-standard cheapo bench grinder*
Secondary bevel on a Charnley Forest stone

Occasionally I'll go on to strop with green compound on leather, but I'm not sure if I notice any improvement over the Charnley.

Plough irons, small chisels etc get a single, slightly rounded bevel akin to option #5.

*one day I might get around to re-commissioning the hand-crank grinder.

 

[JohnPW]

Rather like pedder (post above) though he is wrong about flat being theoretically faster (check "volume of a prism")

The idea, that is "wrong":

Given an edge is sharp after running 100cm on a stone. (Number are just examples!)
Wen I keep the bevel flat on the 21cm stone I reach 100cm after 5 strokes.
If I round under I lift of the edge. If I just lift the edge on last 2 cm, I have to do half a stroke more to reach 100cm.
If I round under on the last 10 cm, I need the double number of strokes.

Cheers
Pedder

Er, hmm, not sure what you mean?
By "rounding under" I mean dipping the handle just after you've started the stroke so that almost the whole action is on the bevel behind the edge. The advantage of this is that you can put a lot of force and speed into it. It's only the start of the stroke, first 10mm or so (for a "rounded micro bevel" so to speak :roll: ), that you need to hit 30º as carefully as you can.

It seems to me that if you have a rounded bevel and you are deliberately trying to "roll" the bevel over the stone, only a tiny part of the bevel will be in contact with the stone at any one moment. Compare that with a flat bevel; the whole bevel will always be in contact with the stone .

Therefore the flat bevel method would be much faster. Maybe the rounded bevel method needs high pressure and speed to compensate?

 

[Corneel]

At one point or another you need to remove all that steel anyway. Jacob's rounded bevel just advances that moment forwards in time. He sais it is quicker because you can use more speed and pressure. I don't know, never really used that method in earnest.