OK, this is what I think is happening. I may not have the geometry drawn perfectly (this is zero rake) but I think it illustrates the point. It's all to do with the clearance angle.
The top red area is the original cutting edge and the arc it describes (its cutting diameter) The lower red area is the same face after sharpening. It is thinner because material has been removed. As the surface moves back, so the diameter reduces, because of the clearance angle. As Alf and Chris say, if there was no clearance angle then the diameter would not change, but has to be a clearance angle, doesn't there?
Is it possible that we are both right? Does the spiral geometry alter the rules? Personally I don't think it does.
It wouldn't be the first time that a highly-paid professional engineer didn't know something pretty basic. I was once asked to write a macro to draw automatically the development of the intersection of two cylinders. "Like this" says the engineer, who proceeded to sketch it with a sharp point at the top. They had always drawn them like this, because they only used 8 points of the circle to structure their curves. The sheet metal was then cut out, and of course it didn't fit. It had never fit for years, but what went on in the workshop, with the fitters snipping and bashing it into shape had neer got back to the drawing office! All I got for my pains of pointing out TACTFULLY (yes I can, if forced
![Smile :) :)]()
) that I couldn't do that because it wasn't the shape required was a roasting for criticising a customer.
Anyway back to this sharpening. What's wrong with my reasoning?
Cheers
Steve