Paul Sellers a bit controversial

[jorgoz]

I can't stand this any more. I just can't.

Can someone please correct the spelling of "controversial" in the thread title? [-o<

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[bugbear]

Bugbear, it is the effort that makes me sweat! :lol:
A woody has only to be planed or sanded.

Roy.

I took a rather knackered #4 1/2 from "awful" to 4 tenths of a thou accuracy in 149 minutes, including taking
54 "WIP" photos (it was the date stamps from the photos that told me how long I took for the whole job)

I didn't perspire at any stage.

BugBear

 

[Digit]

At which point I'll hazard a guess that you have to oil the sole to stop it sticking to the wood?
My reason for changing to woodies was two fold, the weight of large metal planes, I don't buy the view that their weight is a help I might add, and the rigidity with the wedge on a woody hold the iron.
Yes, setting the iron can be tricky, but like riding a bike, it's easy when you know how, and it stays set!
A further point which puzzles me is why long planes have the iron set so far back.

Roy.

 

[Pvt_Ryan]

I didn't think Paul Sellers was very clear about the relationship between hollow stones and convex bevels. Does he sharpen crossways perhaps? Hollow stones are fine of course for cambered plane blades.

I've been woodworking for 25+ years, only ever sharpened freehand and have never needed to flatten a stone.

Never really tried the convex bevel, so can't comment. P'raps I'll give it a go..

http://paulsellers.com/2011/12/sharpeni ... ow-stones/

 

[bugbear]

I'm impressed by his rounded bevel system - it's the same as I have been describing (including "the dip")

ADMIRATION, n. Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves.

- THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY by AMBROSE BIERCE

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

Missed the point as usual BB :roll:
I was impressed because he "carried (it) forwards to involve just three diamond plates. It's better put so simply and it's only a matter of time before everybody is at it."
I've been messing about with various stones, in a developmental kind of way. I might go for the 3 diamond plates however.
First thread about convex bevels which hasn't been accompanied by hoots of derision! Do I hear the sound of pennies dropping. Little lights coming on?
Mind you there are magical devices which "include three gross bevel-angle range configurations: a high-angle range (25° to 54° in seven increments), a standard-angle range (15° to 40° in six increments), and a third range for back bevels. Blade stop has discrete positions for preset angles" whatever that all means. :lol:

 

[Harbo]

No it's because most of us are completely bored with the subject just like your similar thread attacking James Krenov!

 

[mark w]

Alf, according to my Collins Concise Dictionary it is spelt correctly.

Mark

 

[Digit]

Oh?

Roy.

 

[Alf]

It is now, yes. But look at the post subject line on each post further up the thread, and it reveals the hideous truth.

 

[mark w]

How did that happen then?

Mark

 

[Jacob]

This thead is slipping off topic. We can't have that, there will be complaints. :shock:
Can we get back to the rounded bevill contraversey please?

 

[Mr T]

I must admit I still don't understand the nature of the argument. I hollow along the length of the stone is no problem. With a hollow across the width you will always produce a camber across the blade. With a flat stone you can choose to sharpen either with a camber or without. So stones should be flat IMHO.

Chris

 

[Jacob]

That's more like it! :lol:

 

[mark w]

yes I agree back to topic, but how did that happen!

Mark

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I've never come across an old and well used bench stone that is concave only in the length. Every stone I've ever come across out of an old woodworker's toolbox, and everywhere else for that matter, shows that if it's concave along the length, then it will also be concave across the width. For my sharpening techniques, which are very low rent compared to the complex and involved processes many people seem to employ and describe on forums and the like, I find concavity of any sort in sharpening stones anything from slightly annoying to a real pain in the backside.

I can generally adapt my technique to suit whatever stone I come across, as long as the stone is not too badly dished, but I prefer to use stones that are flat, because I can do whatever I want to a cutting edge on a flat stone. This explains why I only use my own flat stones to sharpen my own tools, and why I never lend my stones (or any other tools really) to anybody, ha, ha. Slainte.

 

[bugbear]

First thread about convex bevels which hasn't been accompanied by hoots of derision!

They're in the archive for your convenience.

BugBear

 

[yetloh]

I can't stand this any more. I just can't.

Can someone please correct the spelling of "controversial" in the thread title? [-o<

When I first read this I thought Alf's post was making two points - the spelling mistake, but firstly, being driven to distraction by the endless navel gazing over stone flatness. Amen to both as far as I am concerned.

Jim

 

[matthewwh]

If we could only measure the results of various techniques there would be no more arguments. We can measure just about anything else, but sharpness has been with us since flint and we have yet to establish a means of measuring it and a unit of measurement.

A percentage won't work as there is always some prannock who comes up with 101% just to try and prove a point. I therefore propose thousandths of a Grim as an inverse reading scale so the number can get infinitesimally small as sharpness increases. Indeed we could also go the other way and express the bluntness of very blunt things, footballs, instruments etc, in Kilogrims.

There you go, I've done half the job for you!

Now, any volunteers to make the actual gadget itself?

 

[Jacob]

.....

Now, any volunteers to make the actual gadget itself?

Some sort of guillotine? Standardised cutting actions on standardised samples to emulate real life materials; oak, ash, finger etc?

Kilogrim! Fame at last! :shock: Could be the degree of sharpness in a standard test sufficient to cut off the end of a standard finger?