Sharpening

[D_W]

This thing of hollowing stones came about with odate peddling a group of shaped diamond hones. I don't think it has any merit unless someone sets every plane blade to the same camber or whatever the case may be. A stone deliberately kept flat is better, with a stone having mild longitudinal sway but not lateral being next.

I never looked up the three stone method origin, only remember someone claiming that no flattening of stones occurred before it came about, or that they were "truly flat" or some nonsense.

the one true thing about modern diamond hones is that they can be useful for conditioning or keeping a stone flat on top of keeping the stone flat with technique and relatively flat diamond hones are about $20 now.

i'm sure stones were trued plenty before 1830, but I'm not a big reader of historical stuff other than to see it incidentally after figuring something out.

Having a stone hollow in the width is a bad idea because it will result in setting the back edge of a blade in a way that it won't touch the stone completely and you can work anything over a line or a corner to make up for lack of flatness (as in over the edge on the end with deference toward making sure the back of an iron contacts the edge), but it's not a better way to do things. It's a way of increasing the chance of denting an edge.

There seems to be two extremes- either you need perfect, or nothing matters. What people really need is understanding the result and being lazy enough to get it as easily as possible without ever having "re-dos" or edge checking tests. There should be no need for edge checking tests very quickly after starting.

 

[Jacob]

This thing of hollowing stones came about with odate peddling a group of shaped diamond hones.........

The idea that a hollowed stone might produce a cambered edge was probably discovered in the stone age. Probably mesolithic.

 

[D_W]

The idea that a hollowed stone might produce a cambered edge was probably discovered in the stone age. Probably mesolithic.

The idea that it produces "a" cambered edge was probably immediate. The idea that it doesn't produce the one that you want in most cases probably followed immediately after that.

it sounds good, so I guess it's good to say that it works well on a forum for that reason.

 

[TRITON]

No just too much flattening nonsense.
Shouldn't take 42 minutes to show how to sharpen a chisel, which normally takes about 30 seconds.
How on earth did they manage before the flattening of chisels was discovered?

And the rest of the vid ?, the tormek machine, wheel type, the renovation of a plane, back flattening was only a small section as was sharpening in general. It was a more using sharpening system, tools and implements. Interesting tips.
You'd know this if you'd watched it.

You should stay clear of this philosophy old chap

 

[Jacob]

And the rest of the vid ?, the tormek machine, wheel type, the renovation of a plane, back flattening was only a small section as was sharpening in general. It was a more using sharpening system, tools and implements. Interesting tips.
You'd know this if you'd watched it.

Oh I missed all that!
Mind you, like everybody else in the game I've been bombarded with info on sharpening for years and years. I've noted the widespread opinion on Tormeks that they are slow, so crossed them off my list a long time ago.
They haven't anything new to say. In fact most of what they say is rubbish and a waste of time.
PS just had a 3 minute flip through. Yes all rubbish. Zero mention of freehand.

 

[Jacob]

Norton India stones are confusing and their website is too.
I bought a new IB8 combination for reference. Compared to the others I'd class it as medium/coarse and hence ideal for beginners, as tangible results come up fast and easily. It's about the same as my first ever stone bought from Woolworths many years ago
I've also got a No "0" which much finer on the fine side and just about as fine as you need to go for ordinary purposes.
I've also got a tan coloured marked "Medium India" which is about the same as the fine on the No "0". Also have a tan coloured combi marked "fine" on one side which is about the same as the medium above.
Don't need so many of course, so stick to three: No "0" for finest, IB8 for medium and my Woolworths stone for coarse as it's already conveniently hollowed and good for cambering edges.

 

[D_W]

different colors, different types of alumina - usually. Not sure that for basic high carbon steels we'd notice much difference unless they are a hard type intended to fracture.

Norton will probably never have much support for whetstones - the market for them is tiny and the cost is low.

 

[TRITON]

Zero mention of freehand.

I expect they're looking for a consistent edge. We design and have machines that cut tooling, that make drills, or spindle moulder technology where the cutting blades/limiter's have to be made to a high degree of precision.

They certainly dont grind those freehand.
Some look to putting that precise an edge on an iron or a chisel blade as per anything else. Unfortunately you haven't seen any of the series following the build and restoration techniques, from a range of boat builders as well as input form other trades, ie pouring a big lead keel accurately, or the casting of the bronze structural parts.

Turning out to be a beautiful boat, all the skilled craftsmen and women working on it over the years, little back stories, human stuff and the like.. And in it you get the overall historic picture of how the structure of a large yacht fitted together.

Shame you have no interest in that

 

[Jacob]

I just think it's a great pity that simple traditional freehand sharpening has been written out of the record as though it never existed. You'd think trad boat builders would be into it, not least because it saves an enormous amount of time and is very practical, particularly on site away from a workshop, which boat builders tend to be.
I didn't know about their other stuff so you didn't need to make a snide remark about me not being interested!
I used to do a lot of sailing but not boat building. Read a lot though, and about the amazing skills whereby sail sailors could just about build a new ship if they were wrecked. No chisel flattening or tool polishing would be involved!

 

[D_W]

I just think it's a great pity that simple traditional freehand sharpening has been written out of the record as though it never existed.

this is a made up problem. There's plenty of practice and discussion of it, just not in groups that don't have serious hand tool woodworkers. I don't know of any carver who uses a jig...do you?

 

[Jacob]

I'll dig out my copy of "From Tree to Sea". Ted Frost, and see if anything is said about sharpening.

 

[thetyreman]

I primarily use freehand sharpening, it's not extinct at all, it's very fast and practical.

 

[Jacob]

I'll dig out my copy of "From Tree to Sea". Ted Frost, and see if anything is said about sharpening.

Nothing at all about actual sharpening. Grinding gets mentioned apropos adzes.

Looked in Robt Wearing Essential WoodWorking, he mentions the eclipse jig as helpful for beginners and hints at chisel flattening.
That was 1988. Crazy sharpening hadn't quite begun but jigs were catching on and flattening had been mentioned!
Maybe Wearing kicked it off?
Who came up with the terms "primary/secondary/micro bevel"?

 

[mudman]

different colors, different types of alumina - usually. Not sure that for basic high carbon steels we'd notice much difference unless they are a hard type intended to fracture.

Norton will probably never have much support for whetstones - the market for them is tiny and the cost is low.

Okay, been lurking for a long time now but your comment intrigued me. I've always thought of a whetstone as a sharpening stone (any) and so the main product that I know Norton for. Or do you mean something different by the term, something more specialised perhaps?

 

[D_W]

Okay, been lurking for a long time now but your comment intrigued me. I've always thought of a whetstone as a sharpening stone (any) and so the main product that I know Norton for. Or do you mean something different by the term, something more specialised perhaps?

By whetstone, I mean sharpening stone. What I mean about Norton is how some of their responses either relayed to me or to retailers in terms of stones make it clear that doing anything special is sort of a distraction from their core business, which I believe is industrial and construction applications.

https://www.nortonabrasives.com/en-us
This is the US site, but the English will probably be interpretable in the UK. Norton has a lot of specialty grinding wheels, belts, papers, diamond drill/coring, concrete construction, etc. All of those things are fairly high priced or are consumable and high volume. They still have a big variety of sharpening stones, but I get the sense that they're not a main product compared to the higher volume and probably higher profit items.

I guess to put this in perspective, consider something even like a small part time knife maker. If a knife maker grinds 5-10 stainless knives a day, they'll go through about $25 in specialty belts. Or more if they are grinding really high vanadium steel. I think with what little grinding I do on a high speed 2x48 belt machine and I've probably put $300 of belts through my machines or a little more. Sounds wasteful, but they are consumable and cheap belts don't work the same way as modern belts - modern belts take over where wet wheels used to be needed, and red aluminum oxide paper (cheap) at high speed will just burn tools and knives in a hurry.

In a fabrication shop or a manufacturer, deburring wheels and belts and such would add up quickly and the customer is a constant customer.

 

[D_W]

Jacob- mudman's comment encouraged me to look at norton's page. Norton in the US is obviously known for the oilstones, and for hobby woodwork, they have a set of "normal" softer waterstones.

They have a tan combination stone of alumina and they grit rate the tan side at 1000 and refer to it as slightly softer, and designed to be used with water.

I wonder if yours is something like that.

I've had sharpening stone lots - this may offend some others - where I've gotten so many 2x6 and 2x8 stones with the intention to get an arkansas slip, etc, because the whole lot will sell cheaper than the slip would itself. the only solution with such large lots - because the bench stones really aren't worth anything individually, is pick out the unique stuff and send the rest to to the dump. If they were a constant thickness, one could probably practice buttering bricks with them. I've never kept any of the tan ones to my knowledge, but could be wrong.

https://www.nortonabrasives.com/en-us/product/combination-grit-waterstone

 

[D_W]

More fodder for the curious:

https://www.nortonabrasives.com/sga...talog-nortonindustrial-7362-lr-bookmarked.pdf
To get an idea of the size of their offering spatially, you can download that catalog and scroll and scroll and scroll until you finally get to bench stones at page 220.

I noticed in their sears-like "good, better, best" rating tiers, they have translucent arkansas stones listed as "better".

!!!

I've never seen their "best" offering. Apparently, they are offering what look like spyderco-ish ceramic stones called "ascent", which is news to me. No clue who deals in that stuff over here, but it's probably on amazon or some other similar thing were some dodo can buy a wholesale lot, send it to amazon and then have amazon do the work selling it. (I found them online - they're expensive).

 

[D_W]

"primary/secondary/micro bevel"?

Does the term matter, or does it make it somehow different than what holtzapffel discussed accurately in their publications 150 years ago?

I can't find my hasluck carving book, but it's pragmatic. It probalby describes honing and grinding as separate operations with honing at a steeper angle - just like holtzapffel and anyone else actually doing fine work and not just rubbing a blade on a coarse stone at a job site.

https://www.google.com/books/editio...1&dq=hasluck+carving+book&printsec=frontcover
Here's another hasluck publication online - the first one that I can find that you can read it.

In the brief entry about sharpening, it states that the tool bevels are shown at one angle to avoid confusion, but then says - the grinding and honing should be done at two different angles and that the honed bevel should be kept small vs. the grinding bevel to avoid introducing the final bevel as a source of increased force if it grows large. As in, wedging force or blunting. And concludes that it is desirable to grind a tool often (to keep the secondary bevel small).

The pages aren't numbered that I see - this discussion happens around figure 130 in the book.

 

[Jacob]

........

In the brief entry about sharpening, it states that the tool bevels are shown at one angle to avoid confusion, but then says - the grinding and honing should be done at two different angles and that the honed bevel should be kept small vs. the grinding bevel to avoid introducing the final bevel as a source of increased force if it grows large. As in, wedging force or blunting. And concludes that it is desirable to grind a tool often (to keep the secondary bevel small).

That is the standard general advice for the beginner from all the old books and a good starting point.
But you soon find that chisels don't need grinding if you keep them honed a little and often freehand, and neither do thin Stanley Bailey plane blades - in fact that is the nearly the whole point of their design; to make a plane with an easily sharpenable blade which won't need grinding.
Non of the old books go in for the modern obsessive manner of flattening, beyond the need to remove the burr and flattening a bit behind the edge.

 

[D_W]

An even more humorous discussion follows around figure 138 or so, and that is to do accurate grinding that is one facet (not convex, not rounded) so as not to lose efficiency, start off with a relatively blunt honing angle above the grind and then end up having to regrind too soon. At the very beginning of that, the text refers to poor grinding as encouraging things that increase effort of the tool user significantly.

I have literally droned on about exactly the same thing here over and over - it takes no more time to sharpen accurately and consider effort than it does to not do it, and anyone that is working a significant amount of wood by hand will get awfully precise about this because they will be able to do it as a matter of routine - good sharpening becomes nothing more than exercise, and the better the grind (off of a machine if it's really going to be accurate in any short period of time), the more time and effort saved both in honing and using the tools.

I know of two people who have done a lot of hand work professionally and both are pretty specific about how they sharpen things. Not specific like machine accuracy, but specific about both edge condition and prevention of damage and doing the job accurately. I don't know if they actually know the angle they're sharpening at - it doesn't matter because you can discern that without knowing it.

Hasluck does go on after this to completely fail to understand the purpose of the cap iron and to boast of the rigidity of the parallel iron, which is probably less a product of rigidity and more a product of industrial grinding or rolling blades to a constant thickness.

But the grinding and sharpening discussion is dead on. If one grinds by hand, they will have to do it more often unless they are willing to do it to a very shallow angle to make up for lack of flatness, and then hand grinding at such a shallow angle is awkward. BTDT as I have to constantly grind bevels on new tools and have no interest in running everything over a wheel grinder back and forth for 15 minutes to set a new bevel. But once a tool is in use, the hollow grind is dominant over pretty much anything else.

what's funny is of all of the so-called experts on what needs to be done or not done, I haven't seen anyone other than me talk about what accurate grinding does for edge life from honing, and how pointless a convex bevel is due to the quality problems that come along with it and the work after it.

One of the professional users mentioned above does only hand grind nearly perfectly flat bevels -that's his choice - as part of his honing process, but I think the reason he does that is due to preference to use a chisel bevel down a lot (professionally) in carving and shaping operations.

Oh, and haslucks entry at the same time makes a point of not spoiling the cutting edge by rounding the back of a tool, and that not keeping the backs flat creates additional labor, not less.

Once again, if you actually use hand tools a lot, and not just intermittently, you realize this quickly. Hasluck definitely has literature on carving, which makes it even faster to notice, but it exists everywhere. He even goes further to say something else I've droned on about- that poor creation of cutting angles leads to more sensitivity to wear - sending you back to the stones sooner than you would have gone with better accuracy - all the while robbing the workman of effort while the tool is in use.

It's about time I found a discussion of this somewhere.

I do have a good test for someone to perform, and partly where I came across understanding the need for accuracy - freehand hone an iron, then carefully grind an iron with a shallow grinding angle and then hone something like a 33 degree final bevel on the iron with a very fine stone (or oxide). Then plane with both setups in a single piece of wood and see how much longer the precisely sharpened iron planes. It will be drastic. That doesn't mean that you can't get the same edge life freehand, it just means that you have to be able to separate grinding and honing so as not to have the main bevel of the tool interfering with accurately finishing the edge.

From the text - "the wedge like form of a tool edge".... (formed by the final secondary bevel, that's covered earlier) .... should be kept as wedge-like for as long as possible before the honed edge becomes obtuse..."the grinding of the hollow facet being regarded as of the greatest importance"

Of course, with the discussion of the secondary angle becoming more obtuse, hasluck is assuming that you are grinding one angle shallower and then honing freehand to finish the edge.