With the lathe in motion and using sanding disks, you can sand in any
relative direction you care to by choosing which part of the disk touches
the wood. You want to minimize pressure, of course, so you don't waste
paper and burnish old sanding marks into the surface. My method is to use a
supported sander, which saves me money, based on others' accounts of
sandpaper use, possibly time, though original surface quality probably plays
a role there, and a produces a surface with pores open enough to refract
light, versus packed with dust and burnished.

The practice of sanding in reverse is something from flat work which was
valid on face grain (25%) of a anything but a long-grain bowl, and for hand
sanding, which pressed the torn fibers into adjacent pores. I don't believe
it's necessary nor desirable with machine sanding. Orbital and RO sanders
have eliminated the practice in flat work, because so little heat is
produced and so little pressure required.
A water set for fuzz at 320 produces little in the way of roughness at my
house, which is why I don't even bother on some woods. Also, my supported
sander doesn't burnish, for which reverse sanding is touted as a remedy.

"william kossack" wrote in message
news:WKPcd.413671$Fg5.77638@attbi_s53...
I've been turning for a couple years. For about a year and a half I
sanded my turning by hand using plain sandpaper (usually the same stuff
I used to sand my other woodworking projects).

This year I replaced my lathe with one with more power and a reversing
motor. I've also been buying those expensive sanding disks because I've
been wanting to improve the appearance of my finished turnings.

However a nagging memory has been haunting me, I remember seeing
something about not needing sanding disks if your lathe will reverse.

I've also seen some demos where sanding was done just by holding the
sandpaper by hand and not using a drill and velcro sanding disk.

How many turners use the sanding disks? How many don't?

Which is better?