RossJarvis
Established Member
……and did you win?
Sorry for the long winded waffle but it's a bit of a slow day today!
A phenomenological study into conflict.
Many woodworkers and non-woodworkers alike may be surprised to know that there can be much disagreement, animosity and downright hatred and vilification on the subject of sharpening tools. It has in fact been posited that the third crusade started due to an argument about this. Why may this be so and can it be resolved?
I am in no way an expert in the art of “sharpening”, nor do I intend to win an argument, maybe just add to the discussion in a way to hopefully bring some ideas which may reduce conflict and help the participants in this war, to bring their knowledge and skills to a positive and encouraging place.
I see that there are two broad areas that seem to be influential in the current conflict.
1, The art and/or science of sharpening. The idealogical foundation, the battle ground
2, Those with knowledge and opinions on the subject. The combatants.
First, sharpening is simple, innit. Innit? Well no it’s not. There are doctoral theses, books, considerable research and much saleable equipment dedicated to this. What on the surface may appear to be a fairly simple matter, is actually a very complex and often highly technological matter, involving metallurgy, physics, economics and continual development. Maybe this complexity of what may appear to be a simple subject is what causes a lot of discord?
What I think is the simple core of the subject is that a sharp “edge” needs to exist in order to cut through things. This edge is “forced” against a material which needs to be “cut” applying a “shear force” which overcomes the “bonding force” holding the material together. The simplest form of cutting edge is where two “flat planes” meet to form a “straight edge”. This edge on a microscopic level should ideally be exactly the same angle as the two planes which meet and not be rounded (radiused). There is no one angle that makes the ideal “sharp” edge, in practical terms, but theoretically it may be considered to be a very fine angle. If you look at a knife edge, we may think that the narrower angles are “sharper”, however if we look at metal shears or cutting tools, the angle of the two surfaces may actually approach 90 degrees and for some materials, e.g. plastics, the angle can be greater than 90 degrees. Additionally, not all cutting edges consist of two “flat planes intersecting”. One or both of the surfaces may be curved and the edge itself may therefore be curved.
As I said I’m no expert, but would like to suggest the above as a sort of definition of sharp. This definition may or may not be right, or helpful or precise enough. As I will mention later, maybe before we start arguing, we need to go to the root of the "discussion" and define our starting point. Added to this is the fact that practically there will be some radiusing and the “ideal” edge may be very sharp, but due to the nature of the cutting material it won’t last long, so we introduce a number of elements of “compromise” in order to produce the sharp edge and for it to last some time in use, before wear requires sharpening.
We can now move onto the battle-ground, which is how to get and maintain the sharp edge. Most carpenter’s cutting tools are made of steel and need to be “cut” themselves by a harder material, usually a chemical compound e.g. aluminium oxide. These are usually in the form of “grind-stones” and the metal edge is forced against and into them, either manually or “assisted-mechanically”, e.g. free-hand against a flat stone, jig mounted against a flat stone, or against a moving grinding wheel or powered linisher. This appears to be the point at which much, if not most, of the conflict erupts.
Here we need to look at the combatants and their motivations. We could divide the combatants into two or more ideological camps, the free handers versus the jig users or the mechanists versus the non-mechanists, the two flat bevellists versus the convex or concave bevellists, or combinations of the above. Very simple generalisations of the conflicts can be sorted into the “using a jig is for beginners or numpties” type of statement, or the “doing it by hand won’t be as good/accurate as using a jig” type. However, the arguments are often more complex than this and can be caused by limited knowledge of the subject, prejudice, hubris or just plain devilishness.
Why do the combatants fight? Well I can see two main reasons for this, there may be more. Each type may also be subdivided into many sub-types. I’ll call these the “Righteous” argument type and the “trouble making” type. Righteous: Some people have good knowledge and experience of sharpening and would generally like others to benefit from that experience. They may get into conflict with someone who knows less, but think they know more and join battle, just trying to get a good reasoned point across over ignorance. They may also get into a misunderstanding. To use an analogy I’ve used elsewhere, I had an argument once, with a good friend, over what was the first service-station on the M1, I said it was The Blue Boar at Watford Gap, he said it was Toddington. In fact we were both right, historically speaking it was Watford Gap, Geographically speaking it was Toddington, if you drove from London. So sometimes the argument is just over a misunderstanding of what someone else says. Trouble-making: Some people just like a good argument, so they’ll put up an idea which is deliberately provocative in order to bait others, sometimes they know which buttons to press and on whom those buttons exist. Sometimes they are just plain nasty and wish to denigrate others, or they are so lacking in “self esteem” they have to put others down to make them feel better than others.
For many if not most people, these “flame wars” can be quite entertaining or just plain frustrating, I would say generally they’re not particularly helpful and should be avoided. I also think they can be a hindrance to anyone who would like to know more and improve their own “sharpening practice”.
My suggestion is that there is no one “right or wrong” way to sharpen. Lots and lots of techniques are all valid and different techniques serve different circumstances. Some techniques can be improved and some are not appropriate or the best in certain circumstances. I’m sure we’d all like to know more and improve our own techniques. Hollow ground bevels may be good for certain applications, flat bevels for others, convex rounded bevels may be a good way of sharpening, minimising waste. Free hand sharpening may save time and be good for curved cutting edges. Jigs may be very useful for beginners and experienced users requiring a good accurate edge. Powered grinders may be helpful to save time. All of these techniques may have their downsides too. I’m sure we’d all like polite and positive advice and guidance on improving this important aspect of our craft, but warfare does not really help with this.
If I could make a couple of suggestions, maybe we could think a little before we post comments. Is what I’m saying actually correct? Does my experience bear out what I am saying? Have I correctly understood what the other person is saying before I make a comment? Is my comment going to sound like helpful advice or just negative criticism? Why am I about to make a comment, is it because I want to help the person, or just make him look a fool? Am I making this comment because I think it’s helpful or am I just trying to make myself look big/funny/clever?
My own current practice is to use a jig on Japanese water-stones. I am not saying this is the only way it should be done, nor is it necessarily “the best” way. I find it works and am happy with it. It has its limitations but also its advantages.
I am now going to don my helmet and retreat to my trench. I will see if the barrage will continue, or whether we’ll get up, shake hands and play a good game of football in no-mans-land, ideally we’d sign an armistice and stop trying to kill each other!
Sorry for the long winded waffle but it's a bit of a slow day today!
A phenomenological study into conflict.
Many woodworkers and non-woodworkers alike may be surprised to know that there can be much disagreement, animosity and downright hatred and vilification on the subject of sharpening tools. It has in fact been posited that the third crusade started due to an argument about this. Why may this be so and can it be resolved?
I am in no way an expert in the art of “sharpening”, nor do I intend to win an argument, maybe just add to the discussion in a way to hopefully bring some ideas which may reduce conflict and help the participants in this war, to bring their knowledge and skills to a positive and encouraging place.
I see that there are two broad areas that seem to be influential in the current conflict.
1, The art and/or science of sharpening. The idealogical foundation, the battle ground
2, Those with knowledge and opinions on the subject. The combatants.
First, sharpening is simple, innit. Innit? Well no it’s not. There are doctoral theses, books, considerable research and much saleable equipment dedicated to this. What on the surface may appear to be a fairly simple matter, is actually a very complex and often highly technological matter, involving metallurgy, physics, economics and continual development. Maybe this complexity of what may appear to be a simple subject is what causes a lot of discord?
What I think is the simple core of the subject is that a sharp “edge” needs to exist in order to cut through things. This edge is “forced” against a material which needs to be “cut” applying a “shear force” which overcomes the “bonding force” holding the material together. The simplest form of cutting edge is where two “flat planes” meet to form a “straight edge”. This edge on a microscopic level should ideally be exactly the same angle as the two planes which meet and not be rounded (radiused). There is no one angle that makes the ideal “sharp” edge, in practical terms, but theoretically it may be considered to be a very fine angle. If you look at a knife edge, we may think that the narrower angles are “sharper”, however if we look at metal shears or cutting tools, the angle of the two surfaces may actually approach 90 degrees and for some materials, e.g. plastics, the angle can be greater than 90 degrees. Additionally, not all cutting edges consist of two “flat planes intersecting”. One or both of the surfaces may be curved and the edge itself may therefore be curved.
As I said I’m no expert, but would like to suggest the above as a sort of definition of sharp. This definition may or may not be right, or helpful or precise enough. As I will mention later, maybe before we start arguing, we need to go to the root of the "discussion" and define our starting point. Added to this is the fact that practically there will be some radiusing and the “ideal” edge may be very sharp, but due to the nature of the cutting material it won’t last long, so we introduce a number of elements of “compromise” in order to produce the sharp edge and for it to last some time in use, before wear requires sharpening.
We can now move onto the battle-ground, which is how to get and maintain the sharp edge. Most carpenter’s cutting tools are made of steel and need to be “cut” themselves by a harder material, usually a chemical compound e.g. aluminium oxide. These are usually in the form of “grind-stones” and the metal edge is forced against and into them, either manually or “assisted-mechanically”, e.g. free-hand against a flat stone, jig mounted against a flat stone, or against a moving grinding wheel or powered linisher. This appears to be the point at which much, if not most, of the conflict erupts.
Here we need to look at the combatants and their motivations. We could divide the combatants into two or more ideological camps, the free handers versus the jig users or the mechanists versus the non-mechanists, the two flat bevellists versus the convex or concave bevellists, or combinations of the above. Very simple generalisations of the conflicts can be sorted into the “using a jig is for beginners or numpties” type of statement, or the “doing it by hand won’t be as good/accurate as using a jig” type. However, the arguments are often more complex than this and can be caused by limited knowledge of the subject, prejudice, hubris or just plain devilishness.
Why do the combatants fight? Well I can see two main reasons for this, there may be more. Each type may also be subdivided into many sub-types. I’ll call these the “Righteous” argument type and the “trouble making” type. Righteous: Some people have good knowledge and experience of sharpening and would generally like others to benefit from that experience. They may get into conflict with someone who knows less, but think they know more and join battle, just trying to get a good reasoned point across over ignorance. They may also get into a misunderstanding. To use an analogy I’ve used elsewhere, I had an argument once, with a good friend, over what was the first service-station on the M1, I said it was The Blue Boar at Watford Gap, he said it was Toddington. In fact we were both right, historically speaking it was Watford Gap, Geographically speaking it was Toddington, if you drove from London. So sometimes the argument is just over a misunderstanding of what someone else says. Trouble-making: Some people just like a good argument, so they’ll put up an idea which is deliberately provocative in order to bait others, sometimes they know which buttons to press and on whom those buttons exist. Sometimes they are just plain nasty and wish to denigrate others, or they are so lacking in “self esteem” they have to put others down to make them feel better than others.
For many if not most people, these “flame wars” can be quite entertaining or just plain frustrating, I would say generally they’re not particularly helpful and should be avoided. I also think they can be a hindrance to anyone who would like to know more and improve their own “sharpening practice”.
My suggestion is that there is no one “right or wrong” way to sharpen. Lots and lots of techniques are all valid and different techniques serve different circumstances. Some techniques can be improved and some are not appropriate or the best in certain circumstances. I’m sure we’d all like to know more and improve our own techniques. Hollow ground bevels may be good for certain applications, flat bevels for others, convex rounded bevels may be a good way of sharpening, minimising waste. Free hand sharpening may save time and be good for curved cutting edges. Jigs may be very useful for beginners and experienced users requiring a good accurate edge. Powered grinders may be helpful to save time. All of these techniques may have their downsides too. I’m sure we’d all like polite and positive advice and guidance on improving this important aspect of our craft, but warfare does not really help with this.
If I could make a couple of suggestions, maybe we could think a little before we post comments. Is what I’m saying actually correct? Does my experience bear out what I am saying? Have I correctly understood what the other person is saying before I make a comment? Is my comment going to sound like helpful advice or just negative criticism? Why am I about to make a comment, is it because I want to help the person, or just make him look a fool? Am I making this comment because I think it’s helpful or am I just trying to make myself look big/funny/clever?
My own current practice is to use a jig on Japanese water-stones. I am not saying this is the only way it should be done, nor is it necessarily “the best” way. I find it works and am happy with it. It has its limitations but also its advantages.
I am now going to don my helmet and retreat to my trench. I will see if the barrage will continue, or whether we’ll get up, shake hands and play a good game of football in no-mans-land, ideally we’d sign an armistice and stop trying to kill each other!
