I tend more towards turning smaller stuff, sometimes really
small stuff - maybe it's because the JET mini/midi isn't made
for doing BIG stuff. My tool of choice is a curved edge skew
either 1/2" or 3/4".

Because I want to get into tight places - deep narrow V cut,
small 5/8 spheres, a vertical wall that a sphere butts up
against, I find the 30 degree interior angle of the skew
limits what I want to do. So I sometime get one of my
bench chisels and with it's single bevel, I can make the
cut I want. Should probably just break down and get a
bedan.

But it got me asking "Why can't the interior angle go to
20 degrees?" If the 30 degree interior angle is a general
purpose angle and erring on the size of caution when it
comes to the size of the chunk of wood, why can a tighter
angle be used for smaller stuff. For a given rpm, the force
on the edge goes up with the diameter AND the mass of
the rotating piece of wood. And with smaller turnings
you start with smaller square blanks rather than a very
asymetric tree trunk with knots, some not apparent 'til
you get into it a bit. With a sqaure blank the edge is
initially contacting wood 4 times per revolution whereas
with a "tree trunk" type of starting point, it may only
contact the wood once per revolution.

So what say you regarding a 20 degree interior angle
on a 1/2" skew? Good idea? Bad idea? Something to
try - taking some extra safety precautions (face shield,
mouth piece, chest protector - cup - and a phone handy
with 911 on speed dial)?

charlie b
who sometimes spends too much time wondering and
not enough time on The Wood

"charlieb" wrote: (clip) I sometime get one of my
bench chisels and with it's single bevel, I can make the cut I want.
(clip) So what say you regarding a 20 degree interior angle on a 1/2"
skew? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I say go for it. If a 20 degree angle does the trick when you are holding a
chisel, the wood won't know the difference if you take away everything but
the edge and substitute a skew. As a rule, using a narrower angle results
in a sharper cutting edge. The only down side is that the edge is not as
durable--wears faster and breaks easier.

Leo Lichtman wrote:

If a 20 degree angle does the trick when you are holding a
chisel, the wood won't know the difference if you take away everything but
the edge and substitute a skew.

As a rule, using a narrower angle results
in a sharper cutting edge. The only down side is that the edge is not as
durable--wears faster and breaks easier.

"Faster" and "easier" are relative terms. "Wear" should be a
function
of the feet per minute the edge experiences. Smaller diameter,
fewer
feet per minute, less wear, longer "edge life". As for breaking the
edge
- Ie - knocking off a chunk of it - is that really likely?

charlie b

On Sat, 19 May 2007 22:36:53 -0700, charlieb
wrote:

Leo Lichtman wrote:

If a 20 degree angle does the trick when you are holding a
chisel, the wood won't know the difference if you take away everything but
the edge and substitute a skew.

As a rule, using a narrower angle results
in a sharper cutting edge. The only down side is that the edge is not as
durable--wears faster and breaks easier.

"Faster" and "easier" are relative terms. "Wear" should be a
function
of the feet per minute the edge experiences. Smaller diameter,
fewer
feet per minute, less wear, longer "edge life". As for breaking the
edge
- Ie - knocking off a chunk of it - is that really likely?

Whether or not it is likely is going to be a function of how hard the
edge is- as a rule of thumb, the harder steel gets, the more brittle
it becomes. If the material is malleable enough, it will not chip
off, but you do risk folding it. The skew should already be tempered
enough to keep it from snapping off on you.

The other concern is heat- a thinner edge will friction heat much more
quickly than one with more material behind it. While it is not likely
to be much of a problem, it is possible to get the end of a tool tip
hot enough to draw the temper from a chisel when turning- making the
angle more acute makes this more likely. I've got a few things
cherry-red when turning, but they were not suitable cutting materials
(EMT comes to mind) that I've used to "prototype" different things
before spending time making them out of good steel, and I was really
hogging with them.

Those two things aside, I would not hesitate to try this out if I
needed a skew that could do what you are describing. The difference
in material is an issue, but probably not enough to outweigh the
benefits of having the right tool for the job. Another option to
consider is dedicating a couple of skews to this task, and grinding
past the double bevel and starting fresh with a single bevel- this
would let you get in those tight corners without making the angle
steeper, but you would need two skews (a right hand and a left hand)
to do the job. A quick search will turn up these profiles easily.

Another thing to keep in mind is that very little in the world is
truly revolutionary- while we may now have gouges made of M2 and
powdered metal, the odds that the tools have been radically redesigned
to take advantage of the new material specs is fairly low. For most
applications, engineering and design is built off what has come before
it, and not that much effort is expended in pushing the newer
materials to their limits (especially in something as apparently
simple as a gouge or skew) They will stress-test the new product to
make sure it does not fail in normal use, but it's unlikely any of the
manufacturers did much as far as varying angles goes- especially
considering that the end product will be ground over and over by the
user. What may be pushing the limits for an old carbon steel gouge is
likely to be nothing to a tool steel.

Give it a try- the worst thing that could happen is that you lose a
piece, and need to regrind your skew. I would not seriously worry
about a chunk of sharp metal flying off at you unless you hit a bit of
hardened steel embedded in the wood- and you'd still need to worry
about that with a regular grind on the tool. Most likely failure is
that it will dull quickly or the cutting edge will bend. Neither one
is the end of the world.

"charlieb" wrote in message
...
I tend more towards turning smaller stuff, sometimes really
small stuff - maybe it's because the JET mini/midi isn't made
for doing BIG stuff. My tool of choice is a curved edge skew
either 1/2" or 3/4".

Because I want to get into tight places - deep narrow V cut,
small 5/8 spheres, a vertical wall that a sphere butts up
against, I find the 30 degree interior angle of the skew
limits what I want to do. So I sometime get one of my
bench chisels and with it's single bevel, I can make the
cut I want. Should probably just break down and get a
bedan.


Bedans are fairly thick in section, IIRC. Sort of like mortising chisels.
Longer bevel to guide for a greater included angle. I took the pointed
scraper from my first turning set and ground it as a chisel. With a 3/16
section and a nearly 2:1 length to thickness ratio on the bevel, planes like
a champ, reaches in between close beads, and sizes tenons beautifully.
Longer the bevel, grabbier it can be, so don't undersell the tool, handle it
firmly.

Turned a small project after dinner myself, and used the chisel for
smoothing and beading. Ornament of spalted beech and cherry. Turned a 15
inch bowl in the wet morning, so the lathe went full spectrum.

"charlieb" wrote: "Faster" and "easier" are relative terms. "Wear"
should be a function of the feet per minute the edge experiences.
Smaller diameter, fewer feet per minute, less wear, longer "edge life".
As for breaking the edge - Ie - knocking off a chunk of it - is that
really likely?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Charlie, did you notice that I was recommending that you DO try the narrower
grind? I mentioned wear and durability as an afterthought, and I thought it
was clear that I do not consider them serious side-effects.

Of course I agree that wear is a function of surface speed. Are you
familiar with the concept, "All other things being equal?" For the same
surface speed, wear is faster for narrower tool angles. I am sure that with
a narrower grind, you will be sharpening the tool oftener.

When I first started turning, many years ago, I purchased a lathe, but
had no tools. At that time, I still had a blacksmith shop and I made
my first set of tools from old coiled springs. It had been many years
since I took highschool woodworking and turned a lamp on the lathe. I
couldn't remember exactly how the tools were ground. My first skew had
only one bevel and a fairly sharp angle. It did what you describe
quite well. Then someone told me it was ground wrong and I ruined it
by making two bevels. It sort of became uncontrollable, until I
finally learned how to use it properly.

For the small things you are considering, a bevel angle of 20 degrees
should work very well. If fact a skew with only one bevel should work
well on small items.

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

On May 19, 7:43 pm, charlieb wrote:
I tend more towards turning smaller stuff, sometimes really
small stuff - maybe it's because the JET mini/midi isn't made
for doing BIG stuff. My tool of choice is a curved edge skew
either 1/2" or 3/4".

Because I want to get into tight places - deep narrow V cut,
small 5/8 spheres, a vertical wall that a sphere butts up
against, I find the 30 degree interior angle of the skew
limits what I want to do. So I sometime get one of my
bench chisels and with it's single bevel, I can make the
cut I want. Should probably just break down and get a
bedan.

But it got me asking "Why can't the interior angle go to
20 degrees?" If the 30 degree interior angle is a general
purpose angle and erring on the size of caution when it
comes to the size of the chunk of wood, why can a tighter
angle be used for smaller stuff. For a given rpm, the force
on the edge goes up with the diameter AND the mass of
the rotating piece of wood. And with smaller turnings
you start with smaller square blanks rather than a very
asymetric tree trunk with knots, some not apparent 'til
you get into it a bit. With a sqaure blank the edge is
initially contacting wood 4 times per revolution whereas
with a "tree trunk" type of starting point, it may only
contact the wood once per revolution.

So what say you regarding a 20 degree interior angle
on a 1/2" skew? Good idea? Bad idea? Something to
try - taking some extra safety precautions (face shield,
mouth piece, chest protector - cup - and a phone handy
with 911 on speed dial)?

charlie b
who sometimes spends too much time wondering and
not enough time on The Wood

"Fred Holder" wrote: (clip) a skew with only one bevel should work well on
small items.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right. The only thing that changes between a single bevel and a double
bevel* is the angle the tool handle makes to the lathe axis.
*All other things being equal.

I'm confused, as usual. Ignoring the dictionary as we turners usually
do, if a skew has a single bevel, but it takes two surfaces to form an
edge what is the 'other' surface called? Shaft, I suppose. Changing the
tilt of the tool and its application, which becomes the slanted
surface? Do they change names to protect the innocent?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

The other concern is heat- a thinner edge will friction heat much more
quickly than one with more material behind it. While it is not likely
to be much of a problem, it is possible to get the end of a tool tip
hot enough to draw the temper from a chisel when turning- making the
angle more acute makes this more likely.

This would not be a consideration if using HSS.

*All other things being equal.

The one thing in my mind that should not be underestimated, is the
limited heatsink capacity of a thin narrow edge, that in itself will
decrease the steels durability, other than that, and a harder to
control tool, I see no reason not to go for it.

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

Gentlemen - I thank you. Having access to the knowledge and insights
you
all have acquired, and readily share, continues to amaze me.

I hope my responses to your replies wasn't taken as arguementative. I
dilsike threads that devolve into spitting matches and thankfully they
don't seem to happen in this group.

So recapping what I've learned

1. toughness vs hardness balancing act
you want an edge that can take impact while remaining sharp

tough yields but won't break
hard won't yield but will break

tough dulls faster than hard

2. unlike their predecessor - carbon steel - high speed steel and
its successors will hold an edge longer, won't loose their temper
with the heat generated by wood turning, but require a bit more
"meat" in terms of included angle to compensate for reduced
toughness.

3. single bevel skews will get you into tighter places than a double
bevel skew - but you need a "left" and "right" single bevel skew
to do beads and the like.

4. "standard bevel angles" ARE NOT SACRED

Item 3 is my paradox. I want to get into tight places. And I want
to turn - dynamically - spontaneously - and that requires one tool
that will "do it all". I don't want to have to stop to change tools
and I don't want to have a bunch of tools under the lathe, buried
in shavings. Of course there is no single turning tool that "does
it all" - but for me - a curved edge skew comes darn close. I
use it "long point" down or "long point" into a horizontal cut - most
of the time. With it I can rough a square blank round, cut lines, V
grooves, beads, a bead up against a vertical face, coves and even
hollow with it.

Fortunately, Item 4 is my way out of my skew dilema. So I'll
regrind by 1/2" skew to maybe 25 degrees and if that works
but not quite - then 20 degrees.

But what about the other "standard angles" for other turning
tools? How many of those are "tried and true" - for carbon
steel tools - but aren't necessarily required for modern steels
and steel treatments.

Why is The Ellsworth Grind siginificant enough a change to
the "tried and true" grind to warrant bearing his name? I
understand why turning tool manufacturers stick with the
default "tried and true" - consumers shy away from things
that are too far away from that with which they are familair.
And then there are The Lawyers.

But woodturners are very creative lot - I can't think of another
type of woodworking that has gone off in so many different
directions - and has gone so far in a relatively short time.
So why are we (I flatter myself by inclusion) saddle with tools
that are based on a century old techology's constraints?

OK - so there's "lasers" and carbide "insert tools" - but how
about innovative improvements to existing tools?

Let me use two woodworking hand tools companies - Lie Nielsen
and Veritas. The former makes beautiful, very functional, hand
planes - based on "tried and true" designs - but refined by the
use of better materials and manufacturing tolerances. These
planes are practically works of art - and they work very well.
Their price tag however excludes most folks from owning - and
benefitting - from their tools.

Veritas on the other hand, comes at tool making from a different
perspective. THEY look at a "tried and true" design and question
everything about the design of the "tried and true" tool - both
from a functional stand point as well as from a user's perspective.
Not only are they concerned with what's happening "where the rubber
meets the road" (at the interface between tool and wood), but
also look at the other end of the tool - where the user meets the
tool. It's the User that's high on their design criterial list. "How
comfortable is the grip? How flexible is the grip? How can the
set up be made easier and more precise?"

And Veritas looks at common woodworking tools and comes up
with innovative, yet simple improvements to "tried and true"
tools - that are easily improved - if you start with considering
what's needed and how the "tried and true" tool does what's
needed. Example - a try square. Simple, straightforeward tool
- a straight edge for marking a straight line and a square corner.
Will tell you if the intersection of two faces are square or not
and lets you mark ONE face. BUT - you often need to mark
BOTH faces, carrying a line from Face One onto Face Two.
Solution - the Veritas Saddle Square. Costs about the same but
makes it easier and more accurate to do.

So where's the turning tools "Veritas"?

ramble mode off

charlie b




But it's that "standard 30 degree included angle"

"Fred Holder" wrote in message
ups.com...
When I first started turning, many years ago, I purchased a lathe, but
had no tools. At that time, I still had a blacksmith shop and I made
my first set of tools from old coiled springs. It had been many years
since I took highschool woodworking and turned a lamp on the lathe. I
couldn't remember exactly how the tools were ground. My first skew had
only one bevel and a fairly sharp angle. It did what you describe
quite well. Then someone told me it was ground wrong and I ruined it
by making two bevels. It sort of became uncontrollable, until I
finally learned how to use it properly.


Used to sell left and right skews when I started turning. Traditional tool
had that nice long bevel opposite the straight side.

"charlieb" wrote in message
...
3. single bevel skews will get you into tighter places than a double
bevel skew - but you need a "left" and "right" single bevel skew
to do beads and the like.

4. "standard bevel angles" ARE NOT SACRED

Item 3 is my paradox. I want to get into tight places. And I want
to turn - dynamically - spontaneously - and that requires one tool
that will "do it all".

Simple enough. Use what they used for centuries - a chisel. You can skew a
perpendicular edge in the proper planing direction, and beads are cut with a
flip. It's what I'm using.

Trusting that I won't get spit at here, I'll resume the ramble.

Could it be that in addition to the comfort of grandad's tools and the
fear of lawyers, some 'tried and true' tool designs do not change as
better materials become available because of rigidly dogmatic turning
instructions that are repeated over and over in books, posts, demos,
articles and club meetings.


No doubt that in many turning shops turners are grinding, fabricating
and successfully trying even truer tools and techniques that take
advantage of newer materials. Could it be that most don't see the light
of day and remain untried by most of us because their owner feared being
scoffed at or ignored by an unelected hierarchy?


I am not paranoid, but I am inconsistent, some say perverse. There
may not be any unwritten rules propagated by an unelected hierarchy.
Maybe every genuine improvement in tool design gets its day in court.
That said, why am I thinking about posting an updated list of what I
consider useless and unnecessary new tools and devices I find in
catalogs?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:30:30 -0700, charlieb
wrote:

3. single bevel skews will get you into tighter places than a double
bevel skew - but you need a "left" and "right" single bevel skew
to do beads and the like.

Item 3 is my paradox. I want to get into tight places. And I want
to turn - dynamically - spontaneously - and that requires one tool
that will "do it all". I don't want to have to stop to change tools
and I don't want to have a bunch of tools under the lathe, buried
in shavings. Of course there is no single turning tool that "does
it all" - but for me - a curved edge skew comes darn close. I
use it "long point" down or "long point" into a horizontal cut - most
of the time. With it I can rough a square blank round, cut lines, V
grooves, beads, a bead up against a vertical face, coves and even
hollow with it.

One of my homemade goofing off tools is actually pretty good at this,
but it is more of a scraper than a skew. If you've got any drill rod
or spring steel laying around, try just grinding a steep "V" shape on
the end, with the sides angled back from the top a little, and flatten
the top. You can do all sorts of things with the sucker- I like it
for hollowing, but I just finished using it to repair a cymbal for a
guy at work who plays the drums in his off hours- the point worked
great for cutting through bronze like it was nothing on my lathe.
(The edge of the thing had cracked, and was flapping around, so I just
removed the damaged area for him on the lathe. I also hand hammered
it to retune it, but that's another story.)

But what about the other "standard angles" for other turning
tools? How many of those are "tried and true" - for carbon
steel tools - but aren't necessarily required for modern steels
and steel treatments.

No idea, it was just idle speculation based on what I've seen from a
lot of years in manufacturing. To tell you the truth, it's been so
long since I bought a turning tool, I couldn't even begin to tell you
what the standard angles are!!!

Why is The Ellsworth Grind siginificant enough a change to
the "tried and true" grind to warrant bearing his name? I
understand why turning tool manufacturers stick with the
default "tried and true" - consumers shy away from things
that are too far away from that with which they are familair.
And then there are The Lawyers.

There is also the matter of adjusting the machines for different
grinds- if you know that the customer is going to be changing it
(intentionally or otherwise) at home, there's not much incentive to
change the setup.

But woodturners are very creative lot - I can't think of another
type of woodworking that has gone off in so many different
directions - and has gone so far in a relatively short time.
So why are we (I flatter myself by inclusion) saddle with tools
that are based on a century old techology's constraints?

OK - so there's "lasers" and carbide "insert tools" - but how
about innovative improvements to existing tools?

There's the beauty of this *problem*. You already have everything you
need to make whatever you want to try out- a grinder to make the
profile, a lathe to make the handle, and some experience to guide you
in the right direction. If you can forget about shiny, and worrying
about whether or not your edge lasts as long as the guy next door's,
you can have every tool you'll ever need right next to the lathe.

If only everything were that easy! A guy can't really just jump in
and make himself a decent table saw with a couple of hand tools and an
hour or two of spare time (Though that is technically *possible*,
depending on what you've got to start with, it's not likely.) But he
sure can make a gouge or a skew that will do the job at hand admirably
without really breaking a sweat. You may not want to submit a
picture of the thing for publication when it's done, but if it cuts
the wood, that's what is important.

A couple of things I've discovered from screwing around with making
turning tools-

Even if you can't, or just don't want to heat treat steel of whatever
grade, it's still steel, and the wood is still wood. You're not
getting all you could out of it, but even 1018 mild steel from the
hardware store is capable of cutting wood, provided you touch up the
edge frequently. No- it's certainly *not* the same as a really nice
$200 gouge, but if you need a tool, and don't have $200, it's not a
bad option at the end of the day! Heat treating is important for the
long haul, but you can get the job done in the short term with all
sorts of crazy stuff.

While it's not exactly the same profile as a *insert your brand here*,
a piece of black iron pipe cut at a 45 degree angle on one end, and
sharpened like a gouge, *is* a gouge. It's not very hard, and it
won't hold an edge long, but it'll get you where you need to go.

Aside from the material that is unsuitable for cutting tools, like
those above, there is all sorts of scrap material that *is*
worthwhile. If you have a grinder, you can put an edge on it. If you
have a torch and a bucket of water, you can harden it. If you have an
anvil and a brazing torch or a small forge (some are just one hollowed
out fire brick and a propane torch), you can forge it to shape.

Here's the short list of things to watch for that I've come up with,
though I admit that I generally just buy new tool steel when I want
something that I expect to last.

Old Files- grind them carefully to preserve the temper, and they're
good to go. If you want to hammer them, they have to be worked really
hot, or they will crack.

Truck axles- Lots of grinding here, if you got that route, but if you
can hammer them out, that's a lot of tools.

Spring steel- either from a leaf spring on an old car, or just a big
spring. In the latter case, you'll need to heat it with a torch or
forge to straighten it. You don't need an anvil to do this if you
have a vise and slip a pipe on one end of the spring to untwist it
once it's hot.

Busted drill bits- The straight shank on the end is not too tough to
fit into a wooden handle, and it's already hardened and tempered.

Used machine shop tooling- I've got a bucket of old punches, but
anything that contacts the material being worked is likely to be hard
enough to make a great cutting tool. I don't know how easy it is for
most folks to get this, but if you are, or know, a machinist, it's
worth looking in the trash and scrap bins every so often. I keep
hoping they'll decide to toss the old brake dies at work one of these
days, but I'm not holding my breath...

When in doubt, a good way to test for general suitability as a cutting
tool is to take something that you know is hardened, like a punch or
chisel, and *ring* the material in question. If it sounds like a
bell, it'll make a good tool- if it sounds like you just whacked a
hunk of lead with a 2 x 4, it's probably not worth your time.

Unfortunately, with the hordes of lawyers everywhere, I don't think a
guy can rummage around in a junkyard anymore these days- but there are
still an awful lot of opportunities for salvaging tool or high-carbon
steel if you keep your eyes open. It doesn't have to be big, either-
all you need is something large enough to make the edge you want.
Once you have that, you can mount it to something else, and you're
good to go.

"Arch" wrote: (clip) Could it be that most don't see the light of day and
remain untried by most of us because their owner feared being scoffed at or
ignored by an unelected hierarchy? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Arch, I will wager that there are literally thousands of home made tools
that work perfectly well, and don't match any standard design. Most turners
are more interested in results, and couldn't be bothered publicizing or
promoting a "design." They don't fear being ignored--they don't care. And,
if you are being ignored, you can't be scoffed at.

On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:20:32 -0400, (Arch) wrote:

Trusting that I won't get spit at here, I'll resume the ramble.

Could it be that in addition to the comfort of grandad's tools and the
fear of lawyers, some 'tried and true' tool designs do not change as
better materials become available because of rigidly dogmatic turning
instructions that are repeated over and over in books, posts, demos,
articles and club meetings.

Of course, that could be a factor, but there are an awful lot of *new
and improved* turning toys in the catalogs. Usually, that seems to be
a matter of just slapping a different celebrated turner's name on the
same old stuff, but I haven't tried them all (or any of them,
actually) so I can't say with certainly that they're mainly the same.

No doubt that in many turning shops turners are grinding, fabricating
and successfully trying even truer tools and techniques that take
advantage of newer materials. Could it be that most don't see the light
of day and remain untried by most of us because their owner feared being
scoffed at or ignored by an unelected hierarchy?

Probably a combination of both, depending on where they're at. I've
largely given up on innovating anything at work, and keep most of my
stuff to myself. There are any number of things that get in the way
of new ideas ever seeing the light of day- from poor communication, to
simple turf protection. Nobody's supervisor wants to let a guy one
step below them come up with a good idea unless they can take all or
part of the credit for it- it's a somewhat misanthropic view, but it's
true enough.

One of the funnier examples of this that I recently was party to was
when I was cutting a bunch of rectangles out of 1/4" plate on the
laser cutter. At $100 an hour to run the laser, the little suckers
cost over $1 each for parts that are probably actually worth less than
10 cents. I went to the guy who *ahem* "runs" the shop floor, and
suggested that we cut the things out of bar stock on the bandsaw, and
save not only money and material, but more importantly, laser time.
He absolutely *had* to have his 2 cents in there, though- and told me
to write up a rev change, with my idea signed by me, and his idea
signed by him. His idea was to punch the parts out on the big CNC
punch. Kind of bloodied his own nose, though- the punch's rated
capacity is less than half that thickness.

The point of that, if anyone missed it, is that he hadn't thought
about the problem for even a moment until I mentioned it, and then
blithely assumed he could steal the idea that is saving the company
about $25,000 a year because he outranks me... (though not by much,
and not for long...) Most of the time, that works out for the guy in
the position of authority, and the guys on the floor just give up even
bothering- why make someone else wealthy when it doesn't get you
anywhere?

I am not paranoid, but I am inconsistent, some say perverse. There
may not be any unwritten rules propagated by an unelected hierarchy.
Maybe every genuine improvement in tool design gets its day in court.
That said, why am I thinking about posting an updated list of what I
consider useless and unnecessary new tools and devices I find in
catalogs?

Because apart from the problems involving genuine improvements that
come from the bottom up, there is pressure on those near the top of
most companies' structures to constantly innovate. It's a rare person
that can actually come up with a long string of good ideas, and so we
get a whole lot of senseless junk along with the occasional real
improvement. If Bob has a good idea one day, and gets labeled the
"idea guy," he's going to be expected to come up with more, whether he
has any or not. If he doesn't have any good ideas, he's just going to
whip up some bad ones.

It's a natural function of how society, and more specifically
capitalism, works. When the first guy who came up with the idea of
sticking a laser pointer on a miter saw got a big bonus and a
promotion, everyone else and his idiot cousin tries to come up with
yet another thing you can stick a laser pointer on, until you end up
with a tape measure with a laser on it for precision hook placement.
And the marketing departments love it- after all, a cheap laser
pointer is not only apparently more "modern" than most things, but it
doesn't necessarily raise prices the way a real improvement like using
cast iron handwheels rather than plastic, or adding some other
well-designed and manufactured feature that might actually be more
useful than novelty.

I'm not really grousing that much about it- it's just my observation
on the subject. I don't see that there is anything that is going to
change the status quo regarding this anytime soon- that's why I spend
so much time and energy just learning to make the things I really want
and need myself. Then, I don't have to care whether or not company A
takes away all the metal in a tool, and decides to compensate by
adding a beeper, a laser, and a bigger battery.

And of course, technology marches onward whether anyone likes it or
not- it could well be that today's junk is simply the newborn great
innovation that hasn't had all the kinks worked out yet. Time will
tell, like it always does.

"Prometheus" wrote: (clip) There are any number of things that get in the
way of new ideas ever seeing the light of day- from poor communication, to
simple turf protection.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It may not always be true, but it is true too much of the time. I
understand the Japanese have it all over America on that score. Their
management system encourages innovation and creative input from all levels
in the production process.

Top Ten List of ways to discourage innovation:
1.) "Don't come to me with a half-baked idea. Do your homework and don't
come back until you have a proposal with all the details filled in.
2.) We don't have a problem.
3.) It's your idea--you do all the work.
4.) It's too expensive.
5.) You must not have enough to do, if you have time to come up with things
like this.
6.) This is the way we have always done it.
7.) I didn't think of it.
8.) I'm smarter than you--who do you think you are?
9.) I'll get back to you--I'm busy right now. (Never does.)
10.) We're too busy to consider changing anything.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
There are any number of things that get in the way
of new ideas ever seeing the light of day- from poor communication, to
simple turf protection. Nobody's supervisor wants to let a guy one
step below them come up with a good idea unless they can take all or
part of the credit for it- it's a somewhat misanthropic view, but it's
true enough.

It's no coincidence that the closest advisors to royalty in the turbulent
middle ages were either physically or ecclesiastically eunuchs. That way
they couldn't father a dynastic hopeful.

In a bureaucracy position protection comes from employment of mental
eunuchs.

Anyone who puts a different angle on the grind or a longer/shorter
fingernail is innovating, they're just letting someone else do the
metallurgy and the handle. Tough part comes when they admit that they use a
certain tool to do a job counter to convention masquerading as wisdom....

Hi Leo,

11.) "That's a good idea, but the development costs and future sales
don't meet our profit plan, but thanks for coming by". Only to see a
variation marketed later. This happened to me (not in the turning
business) and I started my own small R&D company: Medical Measurements.
Soon found out that large manufacturers know that a patent is just a
hunting license and is usually too expensive to defend. Sometimes it's
better to join them than oppose them so my little company is long lost
somewhere in Johnson & Johnson.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Leo Lichtman wrote:

"Fred Holder" wrote: (clip) a skew with only one bevel should work well on
small items.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right. The only thing that changes between a single bevel and a double
bevel* is the angle the tool handle makes to the lathe axis.
*All other things being equal.


Don't think so. Looking from above
. .
/ \ vs /|
/ \ / |
30 degrees 15

Note that the single bevel will get into tighter spots (ie deeper
cuts with steeper side walls)

From the side they'd look identical - from one side

+-+------------- +-+-------------
\ \ \ \
+-+----------- +-+-----------

but from the other side
+-+------------- +--------------
\ \ \
+-+----------- +------------

charlie b

Arch wrote:

I'm confused, as usual. Ignoring the dictionary as we turners usually
do, if a skew has a single bevel, but it takes two surfaces to form an
edge what is the 'other' surface called? Shaft, I suppose. Changing the
tilt of the tool and its application, which becomes the slanted
surface? Do they change names to protect the innocent?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings





Well,
With the Sorby Spindle Master it is an extension of the shaft with a
highly polished bevel on one side. I have to admit I use mine a lot
more than I use my skew for doing taper work and making well defined
rounds with a good flat surface below it. But that's just my 2 cents
worth,

Mike


Waiting to graduate from the first 20 year career and move onto the second.

"charlieb" wrote in message
...
Leo Lichtman wrote:

"Fred Holder" wrote: (clip) a skew with only one bevel should work well
on
small items.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Right. The only thing that changes between a single bevel and a double
bevel* is the angle the tool handle makes to the lathe axis.
*All other things being equal.


Don't think so. Looking from above
. .
/ \ vs /|
/ \ / |
30 degrees 15
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Other things being equal" means the total included angle on both tools
would be the same.