bugbear
Established Member
ivan":2dedubl0 said:
Then it couldn't do anything other than perfectly square across blades. There's no such thing as perfect.
BugBear
Kell III, perhaps the ultimate honing guide...
- Thread starter woodbloke
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Then it couldn't do anything other than perfectly square across blades. There's no such thing as perfect.
BugBear
bugbear
Established Member
matthewwh":1reit42h said:
I can't tally your words with the picture.
In use, I'm seeing back (reference face) of the blade upper most, contacting the "Blade Carrier", with the "Clamp Bar" underneath, being pulled UP by knurled nuts on the upper surface. This is quite correct for accurate bevel measuring (should one deem this important).
In short, it appears to me that the LV is doing everything one would want in the matter of reference surfaces and bevel angles.
BugBear
bugbear
Established Member
matthewwh":21m297nf said:
Indeed. You say that like it's a bad thing.
Bu it means, that once you've got (e.g.) a shoulder plane blade at just the right blade angle (which may be 1/2 degree or so OFF square to allow for machining errors in a low bed angle), you can sharpen it in an Eclipse style jig without any setup at all. You don't even need to KNOW what the angle IS to maintain it.
The common square across blade is also self-perpetuating.
This strikes me as a strength, not a limitation.
BugBear
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
As I read and interpret the many problems raised over years on the forums, the problem with honing guides is that users tend to suspend their brain and hand over all thinking to the guide.
No, that is not a rant.
I have a variety of honing guides - Kell, Veritas Mk I and Mk II, a couple of Eclipse, Side Skate - and they all get used at times, even though my preference is to freehand blades.
Being able to competently freehand blades is very important, and the ability to do so changes ones perception of what honing guide needs to do.
Many consider that a honing guide is a jig designed to create a perfect and/or reliable result. It is not. It is true that the aim of a guide is to facilitate a repeated setting, which is helpful since this can reduce the amount of honing needed. However, most honing guides I have used are a compromise of strengths and weaknesses. None are perfect in replacing a human hand. Nor should they be - the fact is that a honing guide is really to supplement the hand, not replace it.
I'd go so far as to say that the more controlled and inflexible the guide, the greater the problems that will be experienced.
The strength of the Eclipse is the narrow wheel. The strength of the Veritas Mk I is the clamping system (YES!) and microbeveling. The strength of the Kell Mk I is the side clamping. The strength of the Side Skate is the side sharpening and closest mimicking of freehand honing.
Try and imagine that you are holding a blade and freehanding it on a stone. You should be able to feel that the bevel is flat to the surface, be aware if you are rocking at all, be aware of where the pressure is being exerted so that you know which part of the bevel is being honed, be aware of the flatness of the stone as this feeds back to you as a smooth blade movement....
How do you replicate this with a honing guide? (Yes you want to!).
Any one who has a Tormek or the Veritas Mk II, or both, will recognise that the bevel will be ground out-of-square if one side clamp is tightened more than the clamp on the other side of the blade. Many (especially novices) curse and see this as a problem with the Tormek or MkII. It is neither.
Whether you are honing freehand or with a guide you have to be able to make constant minor modifications as you work. In the case above you use the side screws to alter the setting of the grind - checking as you go. Think of it as you driving and steering the guide, not the other way around.
Widely spaced wheels on a guide limit the amount of camber that may be induced by pressure on a corner of the blade. One wants as much flexibility as possible if you desire to mimic the hand. The Eclipse is excellent here as it has a narrow wheel. The standard Mk II is quite capable of camber without the camber accessory, but the latter increases the options. The Sharp Skate also uses finger pressure (there is a review on my web site on this guide, plus a demo of side sharpening - that can change your ideas on freehand honing!).
I think I must end this post before it takes over all our lives. The bottom line is that honing guides are a limiting factor if you stop thinking about what your hand naturally wants to do.
Regards from Perth
Derek
No, that is not a rant.
I have a variety of honing guides - Kell, Veritas Mk I and Mk II, a couple of Eclipse, Side Skate - and they all get used at times, even though my preference is to freehand blades.
Being able to competently freehand blades is very important, and the ability to do so changes ones perception of what honing guide needs to do.
Many consider that a honing guide is a jig designed to create a perfect and/or reliable result. It is not. It is true that the aim of a guide is to facilitate a repeated setting, which is helpful since this can reduce the amount of honing needed. However, most honing guides I have used are a compromise of strengths and weaknesses. None are perfect in replacing a human hand. Nor should they be - the fact is that a honing guide is really to supplement the hand, not replace it.
I'd go so far as to say that the more controlled and inflexible the guide, the greater the problems that will be experienced.
The strength of the Eclipse is the narrow wheel. The strength of the Veritas Mk I is the clamping system (YES!) and microbeveling. The strength of the Kell Mk I is the side clamping. The strength of the Side Skate is the side sharpening and closest mimicking of freehand honing.
Try and imagine that you are holding a blade and freehanding it on a stone. You should be able to feel that the bevel is flat to the surface, be aware if you are rocking at all, be aware of where the pressure is being exerted so that you know which part of the bevel is being honed, be aware of the flatness of the stone as this feeds back to you as a smooth blade movement....
How do you replicate this with a honing guide? (Yes you want to!).
Any one who has a Tormek or the Veritas Mk II, or both, will recognise that the bevel will be ground out-of-square if one side clamp is tightened more than the clamp on the other side of the blade. Many (especially novices) curse and see this as a problem with the Tormek or MkII. It is neither.
Whether you are honing freehand or with a guide you have to be able to make constant minor modifications as you work. In the case above you use the side screws to alter the setting of the grind - checking as you go. Think of it as you driving and steering the guide, not the other way around.
Widely spaced wheels on a guide limit the amount of camber that may be induced by pressure on a corner of the blade. One wants as much flexibility as possible if you desire to mimic the hand. The Eclipse is excellent here as it has a narrow wheel. The standard Mk II is quite capable of camber without the camber accessory, but the latter increases the options. The Sharp Skate also uses finger pressure (there is a review on my web site on this guide, plus a demo of side sharpening - that can change your ideas on freehand honing!).
I think I must end this post before it takes over all our lives. The bottom line is that honing guides are a limiting factor if you stop thinking about what your hand naturally wants to do.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Hi BB
Outr posts overlap - a good thing. (I have been writing it on-and-off as I had time between appointments).
Regards from Perth
Derek
Outr posts overlap - a good thing. (I have been writing it on-and-off as I had time between appointments).
Regards from Perth
Derek
wizer
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2005
- Messages
- 15,589
- Reaction score
- 1
The other day my Dad was here helping with a little DIY job in the house when he said "I need a chisel". So being the ever obedient 29yr old son, I toddled off to MY workshop to grab him a chisel. As I did I caught a glimpse of my now sold diamond plates that where laid out on my workbench. Hmm "Wonder if I could just quickly touch this up" I didn't have time to faff about with the MKII so I used Gidon's technique of pushing the chisel away from you on the stone. A few swipes on the finer grades and I could see a lovely shiney edge. Dad didn't notice while he was whacking it...
My point being, there is a time and place for all of these methods. Oh and freehand sharpening isn't as scary as it seems.
My point being, there is a time and place for all of these methods. Oh and freehand sharpening isn't as scary as it seems.
matthewwh
Established Member
Bugbear,
You are quite right, it's been a year or two since I used the Veritas and I could have sworn I was screwing the bar down rather than pulling it up! My bad - comment withdrawn unreservedly.
It's not a bad thing, as you say in some circumstances it can be just the job, as long as the person using it understands the progression from freehand honing (like riding a unicycle) where it's all you in every direction but once you can do it it's quite natural, to narrow wheel honing (bicycle) where one plane is controlled but you are still responsible for left to right, and broad roller / tricycle honing which controls the blade in both planes.
You are quite right, it's been a year or two since I used the Veritas and I could have sworn I was screwing the bar down rather than pulling it up! My bad - comment withdrawn unreservedly.
bugbear":3bmo7o6q said:
It's not a bad thing, as you say in some circumstances it can be just the job, as long as the person using it understands the progression from freehand honing (like riding a unicycle) where it's all you in every direction but once you can do it it's quite natural, to narrow wheel honing (bicycle) where one plane is controlled but you are still responsible for left to right, and broad roller / tricycle honing which controls the blade in both planes.
Vann
Established Member
This is true only of the 'backbevels' settings. Somewhere in the Lee Valley blurb it says the resulting bevel angles are based on a 1/8" thick iron, and the actual bevel will vary depending on iron thickness.matthewwh":2gmb8ye9 said:
Also in the Lee Valley blurb are tables (Table 1 of the instructions) that give the exact angles that result from each setting, and at each position of the eccentric roller. It even gives the bevel angles that result if the 'backbevel' settings are used for normal (i.e. non-back) bevels. In this case these are different to those shown on the registration plate.
Of course, we're only talking of a degree, or fraction of a degree, difference here...
Well spotted bugbear. I thought matthewwh had got that one wrong, but he confundled me initiallybugbear":2gmb8ye9 said:
Cheers, Vann.
bugbear
Established Member
bugbear":18q4lhsd said:
I must have been having an off day. It is also rather important that your abrasives are parallel to the surface the wheels are running on, which (in practice) means that the upper abrasive surface must be parallel to the lower abrasive surface.
BugBear
A
Anonymous
Guest
wizer":2l336sq0 said:
Nothing at all!
I have the Kell mk3 and the Veritas mk2 and the LV is much easier to use. I do like the kell though and am using it more often as I like the wheels being off the abrasive. Bit of a pain making shims, wedges etc., but it is a one-off.
If I were looking to buy a new, single honing guide, it would the Veritas MK2 though due to its ease of use
Nice review Rob
wizer
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2005
- Messages
- 15,589
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree Tony, which is why I've now kept the MKII and will continue to use it. Tho as said above I am experimenting with hand sharpening when just a touch up is needed. I'm not bothering with secondary bevels. My woodworking isn't really up to that level.
bugbear
Established Member
Tony":2im8voqk said:
If I were buying, I'd probably buy the Veritas Mk2 AND an Eclipse(type).
The Eclipse is so VERY convenient, and fast to set up, for the majority of sharpening, that I would always want one.
There's a "long tail" of tricky sharpening, but the "core" of most peoples sharpening requirment is bench plane blades, and medium width chisels.
BugBear
TrimTheKing
Established Member
I have got lost in this thread as I got bored a couple of pages back , and I have no compunction to get involved either way.
Having said that, I do have a quick observation that may well be wrong, but I think my maths is right...
Rob - on your post where you show how you camber a blade, I think I may have spotted a small flaw in the system. The registration pins for setting a blade up against are on the left side (as you are honing, I think...) so the blade is always on that side of the jig (please correct me if I am wrong or have missed something here).
With that in mind, when you set up you pieces of paper on the right hand side of the jig, to camber the left corner of the blade, due to the fact that the blade is not centred in the jig, won't you be taking more material off that corner than you will when you then transfer the paper over to the other side? Surely when the paper goes under the left wheel, the right side of the blade will be marginally higher off the honing material than the left side was when that was being honed.
Like I say, math's isn't my strong suit so I may well be wrong, but I don't think I am...
I do appreciate that the difference will be so small to probably be negligable, but if we are looking for absolute repeatability and perfection, then this is a flaw.
Tin hat on waiting to be proved wrong...
, and I have no compunction to get involved either way. Having said that, I do have a quick observation that may well be wrong, but I think my maths is right...
Rob - on your post where you show how you camber a blade, I think I may have spotted a small flaw in the system. The registration pins for setting a blade up against are on the left side (as you are honing, I think...) so the blade is always on that side of the jig (please correct me if I am wrong or have missed something here).
With that in mind, when you set up you pieces of paper on the right hand side of the jig, to camber the left corner of the blade, due to the fact that the blade is not centred in the jig, won't you be taking more material off that corner than you will when you then transfer the paper over to the other side? Surely when the paper goes under the left wheel, the right side of the blade will be marginally higher off the honing material than the left side was when that was being honed.
Like I say, math's isn't my strong suit so I may well be wrong, but I don't think I am...
I do appreciate that the difference will be so small to probably be negligable, but if we are looking for absolute repeatability and perfection, then this is a flaw.
Tin hat on waiting to be proved wrong...
bugbear
Established Member
Karl":121bs5r5 said:
Err. It's easier (although possibly more laborious). The worst case for freehanding is a thin blade (e.g. Bailey plane) with a small secondary bevel. The only freehand option here is to "just" keep your hands moving parallel to the stone, with no guidance other that you own skill.
If OTOH you have a very thick, short blade, with a socking great single bevel, you can actually sit the blade on the bevel and just push it about! This works very well for the blades from japanese planes.
It does mean (however) you're abrading a large surface.
A common solution is to use a hollow grind; this still gives a large reference to make freehanding accurate, but reduces the area being worked by the abrasive.
BugBear
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
With the exception of blades for BU planes, I freehand hone all my plane and chisel blades without a secondary bevel.
My goal is to create a coplanar face on a hollow grind. Grind at the angle your require. A Tormek makes this easiest, but it is also straightforward on a dry grinder.
You can then rest the blade on the honing medium and it will balance with more stability than a flat bevel.
The other trick is to work the blade along its longest axis, and often this means that you are honing sideways. It's very easy. Try it.
Regards from Perth
Derek
TrimTheKing
Established Member
I think BB and Derek have missed the essence of Karl's question. He asked
.
Karl asked how you can hone a blade without a secondary bevel. That would just be a more polished primary bevel/grind surely...
I appreciate the pedantry of this
While Derek's explanation is very good, I think the terminology of 'bevel' and 'grind' may well be the sticking point...Karl":2svm6kmb said:
.Karl asked how you can hone a blade without a secondary bevel. That would just be a more polished primary bevel/grind surely...
I appreciate the pedantry of this
woodbloke
Established Member
TrimTheKing":1j3ptv7h said:I have got lost in this thread as I got bored a couple of pages back
Having said that, I do have a quick observation that may well be wrong, but I think my maths is right...
Rob - on your post where you show how you camber a blade, I think I may have spotted a small flaw in the system. The registration pins for setting a blade up against are on the left side (as you are honing, I think...) so the blade is always on that side of the jig (please correct me if I am wrong or have missed something here).
With that in mind, when you set up you pieces of paper on the right hand side of the jig, to camber the left corner of the blade, due to the fact that the blade is not centred in the jig, won't you be taking more material off that corner than you will when you then transfer the paper over to the other side? Surely when the paper goes under the left wheel, the right side of the blade will be marginally higher off the honing material than the left side was when that was being honed.
Like I say, math's isn't my strong suit so I may well be wrong, but I don't think I am...
I do appreciate that the difference will be so small to probably be negligable, but if we are looking for absolute repeatability and perfection, then this is a flaw.
Tin hat on waiting to be proved wrong...
Mark - you're not the only one who's bored...and you're right. I've just tried it with a blade from my LV jack and it's off centre by about 6mm. The fix is to insert a shim ( an offcut from Big Woodies blade did nicely) 'twixt pins and blade and it's now central again in the Kell.
Well spotted...treat youself to an extra one or four glasses of the vino collapso tonight :wink: :lol: - Rob
Just to correct the correction :shock:.
The wheel axle axis is centred on the main brass plate in the Kell 3 ie it is all symmetrical. So the registration pins can go either side - you just reverse it before inserting the blade. Any projection setting jigs will still work the same.
And a fine piece of kit it is too.
Boz
The wheel axle axis is centred on the main brass plate in the Kell 3 ie it is all symmetrical. So the registration pins can go either side - you just reverse it before inserting the blade. Any projection setting jigs will still work the same.
And a fine piece of kit it is too
. Boz
- Status
