"I only sharpen to what's needed for the task"

[D_W]

No, but at this point, I assume that's what you're left with. I made reasonable and complete efforts to control for variables from the standpoint of someone actually planing. My capabilities with planes are generally better than all but a few people who actually use planes all day professionally.

Strangely enough, one of the other individuals chipping in opinions was a research chemist and enthusiastic furniture builder, now retired (a phD chemist, not lab staff). He had concerns that I wouldn't perform the test in such a way that he could rely on the results. He had none when we were done, and he was retrieving test results from other similar tests (and was the one holding the japanese documentation).

He didn't have a personal issue, as you seem to (that doesn't really bother me, by the way, and I see it as nothing to solve or convince you out of), and by the end of the test had figured that I missed my calling and wasted my life not performing research. I thought that was a nice compliment, but part of the reason that I performed the test was because it was clear that nobody capable was willing to do it and I would end up doing it, anyway, if someone else got unreliable results.

There were a few individuals who didn't like the results or who didn't like my precision in getting them and they also posted vague comments as you have. That's fine, as I'm always open to seeing someone else test the same thing to see if they get the same results, or at least similar.

(one of the other forum users had built his own planing machine and found the same results with his machine as I did - he was testing material removed from metal and his results were proportional - almost exactly - to my footage results. The same as the other data groups in agreement, I wasn't aware of said test until after I was done. But it is nice to see that someone else uses another method and another measure and gets proportional results).

 

[MikeG.]

......I made reasonable and complete efforts to control for variables from the standpoint of someone actually planing. My capabilities with planes are generally better than all but a few people who actually use planes all day professionally.

So, apart from the ego stroking, that is some sort of admittance that this process relies on skill, feel etc.

.......He had concerns that I wouldn't perform the test in such a way that he could rely on the results. He had none when we were done.....

I have those same concerns.

He didn't have a personal issue, as you seem to

No, I don't. I don't share your obsession, that's all, and I resent you dumping it into any thread on planing no matter what the initial question or the experience of the person asking the question.

.......(one of the other forum users had built his own planing machine and found the same results with his machine as I did.....

There you go. That takes the skill & setting elements out of the equation and adds in repeatability in the planing. However, we'd still need a precise cut-off point for measuring when each blade was dull, and a repeatable method of ensuring the exact same level of sharpening. Then, instead of making claims on the basis of a handful of hand-done tests with no statistics applied we could actually have something meaningful to talk about. When you've repeated your tests 25 times per blade, blind, in a mechanical setting (not a handplane), and have done the statistics, then come back and talk. Until then, you've got nothing.

 

[AndyT]

David, before you rush off and build your planing machine... there's a possibility that if you do, and come back with your fresh results, someone will pipe up and say "but that's all theoretical - what about some real world planing, at the bench?"

And so we'd have gone round in a big circle, with some of us getting agitated and some of us wondering what the fuss was about.

 

[D_W]

I agree about the agitation part. The planing machine version of this was already done. Lee Valley did it, and so did Kees Heiden. Kato and Kawai did it in large parts. I am not well read as far as other peoples' tests, so fortunately I wasn't familiar with much other than the frustratingly vague results on the PM V11 page.

I'm comfortable with my level of skill (which is required for planing in general) and its margin contributing almost nothing to variation as the results tie to other studies as well as repeating some of the tests during the process when feel yielded something that may not have been questioned by machine - for example 3V steel and powder M4 both had a great deal of planing resistance. I thought in the first test that I had somehow managed to sharpen the V11 better than everything else, so I repeated the test with just the steels that were drastically far apart in effort and the conclusion is that rather than it being an issue of sharpening, it literally is an issue of cutting resistance from different steels.

The research chemist who went along for the ride and egged me on ended up tracking down a metallurgist to find out why we would see differing feel (actually, he tracked down two - the first didn't know enough about the subject to give us a relevant answer) , and especially why we would find that in wood, the very hard vanadium carbides wouldn't wear much longer than the chromium carbides in V11 (the chemist also had V11 XRFed so that we'd know what was in it, and he tested a chinese iron that I had that we suspected was probably M2 -which it almost was - it was ever so short in a few alloying elements). At any rate, the second metallurgist was not surprised by our findings -big carbides good for metal on metal contact, and small carbides (even chromium) would work just as well on softer materials.

While I was already very comfortable in the results (especially after repeating them), getting more external points was also nice.

There was already one for the topic of this thread. Steve Elliot had sharpened various irons on various abrasives and found the following:
* the more finely finished an edge, the longer it will wear (i stopped at 1 micron - steve had gone to a quarter, I believe - the focus of this is still to do something practical for a daily user and in my case, one where I don't spend any extra time or effort) -that kills the age old mantra that too fine of an edge is fragile - the opposite is actually true to some extent - the more finely finished the edge, the better it will wear from the start. It was subsequently communicated to me (probably in email) that the K&K studies of heavy wear on an iron find that the material loss on the cutting edge speeds up with additional dullness. I didn't test that, but it fits with the edge dullness leading to less footage planed
* the age old mantra that highly alloyed steels cannot attain the same sharpness was disproved - steve tested the sharpness with a mechanical setup and resistance to cut through a string. That's over the top for me, but I appreciate his efforts. I somehow thought I'd find that the alloyed steels wouldn't wear as evenly and it would result in unexpected results. They do not wear as evenly if they aren't powder metallurgical steels, but it didn't seem to make any difference in longevity itself - the little defects just aren't enough to affect anything (this is a nod to people who are going to sand anyway and who won't care about those defects).

Most important in all of this is that I was prepared to take the results of the sharpness tests and use them. I was prepared to test all of the irons, and expected to go back to my house-made O1 irons - I tested on against a hock iron separately as a control to make sure it was at least as capable as a hock iron (it is).

I planed something in the range of 40,000 linear feet in these tests (a little bit greater than that). I'm somewhat amused by Mikes posts, though I'm not about to build a planing machine when it's already been done twice.

Importantly for Steve, too, who mentioned to me that someone wouldn't like the results and thus they would question them, the same folks who did the questioning to Steve now have a second data point - his testing is accurate. Plus three more controlled tests. All of these tests were done on a much bigger budget than mine.

I hope at least 5 people will take the result presented in this particular thread - work the very tip of your plane irons lightly, with a little bit of bias to make sure you're working them (don't hone a big wide flat area, just the tip on the bevel side and a little bit of back work) and you'll be rewarded with the already published benefits of a much finer edge.

 

[D_W]

Separately, I found that the steel that's used for V11 is very forgiving and can be treated in open atmosphere if it's heated very high and quenched quickly in oil (the data sheet for the stock that matches the XRF allows quench in air, water or oil - oil is probably the safest for the average shop user, but it takes a forge to get to the heating temperature quickly - 1900F, or very bright orange to dull yellow). Tempering can be done in the oven at the same temperatures one would use for O1, but it's far less sensitive to temperature variation (a 400 degree change (about 220C differential) in temper temperature results in tempered hardness variation of only 3C scale points).

 

[AndyT]

Whoa!! You're losing me and I suspect quite a lot of others.
All this guff about metallurgy is a complete irrelevance to those of us who already have their tools and don't plan to replace them. Most of mine are Sheffield cast crucible steel, with a few bits of modern (ie mid twentieth century) tungsten steel here and there.

I don't plan to replace them all.

 

[D_W]

So, apart from the ego stroking, that is some sort of admittance that this process relies on skill, feel etc.

We are, after all, testing how well we can do something in reality - planing. The robot planing machine tests are already performed and they are confirmed with practical planing.

As far as ego? I only posted the method because you questioned it. I am comfortable with the results and while you've posted chapter 1 statistical type stuff, I don't think you're far enough along to understand data credibility and what low variance among test results suggests.

I posted my methods in real time as well as the results originally, figuring someone else may add additional trials, but most quickly disappeared when i requested they turn their criticism efforts into trials. There's a very significant chance that you will, too. And, that's OK.

 

[D_W]

Whoa!! You're losing me and I suspect quite a lot of others.
All this guff about metallurgy is a complete irrelevance to those of us who already have their tools and don't plan to replace them. Most of mine are Sheffield cast crucible steel, with a few bits of modern (ie mid twentieth century) tungsten steel here and there.

I don't plan to replace them all.

Most of the edge durability tests for clearance and sharpness levels were performed (by me) with O1 and Ward cast steel, so you're in luck.

Steve elliot did his string test and durability tests on a wider range of steels, and the relationship holds across the board.

No need to buy anything or wonder if it will work for Ward but not CPM M4, etc.

 

[Trevanion]

Have you made anything with the tools? That's what I'd be interested in seeing on the forum.

 

[That would work]

Have you made anything with the tools? That's what I'd be interested in seeing on the forum.

Exactly.
I would like to to know what the real world benefits of all this b######'s.

 

[Jacob]

Take no notice D_W, sharpening makes a lot of them very uneasy. Doesn't take much to set them off!
Keep up the good work - I am reading it and may even take some notice.

 

[That would work]

Take no notice D_W, sharpening makes a lot of them very uneasy. Doesn't take much to set them off!
Keep up the good work - I am reading it and may even take some notice.

Ye right.

 

[AndyT]

Have you made anything with the tools? That's what I'd be interested in seeing on the forum.

Exactly.
I would like to to know what the real world benefits of all this b######'s.

Just using the search function...

post1286189.html#p1286189

 

[MikeG.]

Have you made anything with the tools? That's what I'd be interested in seeing on the forum.

Bingo.

 

[That would work]

Norton India and strop on your palm.
End of. If it's blunt... repeat.

 

[Dangermouse 2nd]

Well, i do like to base things on facts, but really this is getting a bit pedantic. I use as i have for years, a medium carburundum, fine natural stone, finish on a very very fine natural stone, lubricated with turps and sewing machine oil mixture. In two minutes i can shave with the edge. Good enough for me. You can over analyse anything.....

 

[MikeG.]

So, apart from the ego stroking, that is some sort of admittance that this process relies on skill, feel etc.

As far as ego? I only posted the method because you questioned it.

We all read the following, which is of course what I was referring to as "ego stroking". Have you heard the expression "blowing your own trumpet"?

.......My capabilities with planes are generally better than all but a few people who actually use planes all day professionally...........

Maybe this sort of thing is the norm in Trump's America, but over here, braggards are the social equivalent of pickpockets and people who don't buy their round.

I don't think you're far enough along to understand data credibility and what low variance among test results suggests.

Tell me again, how many times did you repeat your tests?

 

[Jacob]

Have you made anything with the tools? That's what I'd be interested in seeing on the forum.

Exactly.
I would like to to know what the real world benefits of all this b######'s.

Just using the search function...

post1286189.html#p1286189

Very nice guitar D_W I'm impressed. Have you built any sheds lately? :lol:
PS I might have a go at going one stone finer tomorrow - you've talked me into it.
I'v got black and white Arkansas - the black seems finer is that correct?

 

[Trevanion]

Who are you and what have you done with the real Jacob?

 

[Jacob]

"It is quite wrong to consider that only hand-workers are craftsmen, the only difference between the old craftsmen and the new is that the former used hand-tools and the modern craftsman uses mechanized tools."

Actually there is one enormous difference which is that the hand worker was also the motive power and the style of working would be much harder and very different from modern hand work.
You can see it in those old films chair makers, clog makers etc - they were making ordinary stuff at speed, not the so-called fine woodwork favoured by the mags and the amateurs of today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGDkliy1DEU
You can see it in a lot of old furniture where every detail is a compromise between haste and speed resulting in a standard which is only just good enough