I have a question and think I already know the answer and that's $$$

I took a section of green log and decided to turn it so the heart was in
middle of the sides of the pot. Most of the hollowing was done with a
scraper.

Now the issue I had is that a couple of times the scraper caught and dug
in and then bounced off the sides. One third of the tool including
handle was past the rest.

Am I correct in assuming that if the tool had a longer handle, and it
had caught I would have had more ability to stabilise it and hence
reduced the chances of it digging in and bouncing off the walls.

Or could there be another reason before I go and buy / or make a longer
tool for the job
--
John

On Feb 21, 12:05 pm, John wrote:
I have a question and think I already know the answer and that's $$$

I took a section of green log and decided to turn it so the heart was in
middle of the sides of the pot. Most of the hollowing was done with a
scraper.

Now the issue I had is that a couple of times the scraper caught and dug
in and then bounced off the sides. One third of the tool including
handle was past the rest.

Am I correct in assuming that if the tool had a longer handle, and it
had caught I would have had more ability to stabilise it and hence
reduced the chances of it digging in and bouncing off the walls.

Or could there be another reason before I go and buy / or make a longer
tool for the job
--
John

John,

Part of your theory is correct, but you must also consider how far
your tool was extended beyond the tool rest. In most situations, the
closer you can keep the tool rest the better you are able to control
the tool. A longer handle can help because you are increasing your
leverage.
Others here are more experienced than I and I'm sure you'll get more
feedback from them.

Good Luck,
JD

"John" wrote in message
...
I have a question and think I already know the answer and that's $$$

I took a section of green log and decided to turn it so the heart was in
middle of the sides of the pot. Most of the hollowing was done with a
scraper.

Now the issue I had is that a couple of times the scraper caught and dug
in and then bounced off the sides. One third of the tool including handle
was past the rest.

Am I correct in assuming that if the tool had a longer handle, and it had
caught I would have had more ability to stabilise it and hence reduced the
chances of it digging in and bouncing off the walls.
--

Might. Leverage is good, but only when you're trying to use the tool as a
lever. Scraping broadside is one such operation. You really have to rely
on your rest (fulcrum), and if it's far away what happened to you can happen
easily.

Might want to consider edge presentation as the problem. Hollowing along
the grain is easily accomplished with tools like hooks or rings, Darrell's
Oland or a pointy gouge, as I use. It shears rather than bludgeons, and
with the gouge, as I use it, has a bevel to stabilize it and prevent a
catch. From what I can see, Darrell lays the side of the tool up against the
wood for stabilization as well. The ring or hook tools have a bit less to
stabilize them, but with a good rest there's enough there to maintain a
catch-proof angle if the mouth will permit the handle enough travel. Any
fingernailed gouge will also work, albeit more slowly, since the sweet spot
is pretty small to get a good shear.

In message , George
writes
Might. Leverage is good, but only when you're trying to use the tool
as a lever. Scraping broadside is one such operation. You really have
to rely on your rest (fulcrum), and if it's far away what happened to
you can happen easily.

Might want to consider edge presentation as the problem. Hollowing
along the grain is easily accomplished with tools like hooks or rings,
Darrell's Oland or a pointy gouge, as I use. It shears rather than
bludgeons, and with the gouge, as I use it, has a bevel to stabilize it
and prevent a catch. From what I can see, Darrell lays the side of the
tool up against the wood for stabilization as well. The ring or hook
tools have a bit less to stabilize them, but with a good rest there's
enough there to maintain a catch-proof angle if the mouth will permit
the handle enough travel. Any fingernailed gouge will also work,
albeit more slowly, since the sweet spot is pretty small to get a good shear.


I think part of my issue is obviously limited selection of tools. A
secondary issue was that with an opening of only 2 inches and a working
depth of about 4 inches, I was restricted on my options, and as such no
option for my tool rest to be any closer to the working face. It was
however as close as comfortable to the work piece.

Part of my thinking on the use of the tool was that with a longer handle
you have a greater movement which means in my mind would be easier to
sense and thus give a greater ability to react to the movement, where if
its a short handle the movement may only be a fraction of that, and
therefore less easy to respond quick enough.
Another factor to that is that when you have a shorter distance between
rest and tool you tend to grip tighter on the tool, than when you have a
greater distance which tends to be a relaxed grip.

I think it really comes down to me having to by a bigger selection of
tools
--
John

"John" wrote in message
...
I think it really comes down to me having to by a bigger selection of
tools

There will never be enough! But that's a good thing, especially if you have
spouse, children and such. Three gifts and some Hallmarks every year,
right?

On Feb 21, 10:05 am, John wrote:
I have a question and think I already know the answer and that's $$$

I took a section of green log and decided to turn it so the heart was in
middle of the sides of the pot. Most of the hollowing was done with a
scraper.

Now the issue I had is that a couple of times the scraper caught and dug
in and then bounced off the sides. One third of the tool including
handle was past the rest.

Am I correct in assuming that if the tool had a longer handle, and it
had caught I would have had more ability to stabilise it and hence
reduced the chances of it digging in and bouncing off the walls.

Or could there be another reason before I go and buy / or make a longer
tool for the job
--
John


Hello John,

About 15 years ago, when I had fewer tools as you likely do and wanted
to do a hollow vessel, I made myself a hollowing tool using a three
foot length of 3/4" round steel rod. I drilled a hole in the end of it
to accept a 3/16" square machinist cutting tool. It seems like that
was about a 1/4" hole. I then filed off an angle space, 45 degrees to
the the shaft and drilled another hole that intersected the hole in
the end of the shaft. At the intersection of the two holes, I drilled
and tapped a hole for a 1/4 inch set screw. This allowed me to put the
tool in the end for straight in cutting or at an angle for expanded
cutting. I ground the cutter to have a semicircular cutting edge with
about a 70 degree bevel. I haven't used this tool in several years,
but it worked quite well.

I think this is probably similar to Darrell's Oland tool, but I had
never heard of the Oland tool when I made it up. This is probably the
leaset expensive solution to your problem. I never did put a handle on
the tool, but simply gripped the shaft. One thing that I never thought
of at the time was putting a second handle on the tool at right angles
to give me more control of the tool when it wanted to rotate when
using the cutter in the 45 degree hole. That trick I've learned about
since making up that tool.

As others mentioned, there are many fine tools on the market to do
hollowing and today, I own many of them. The best are the stabalized
boring bars with the laser guidance system to keep one from turning
through the side or bottom of the vessel.

However, as George says, with experience, you can do much of the
hollowing with a sharp pointed bowl gouges with swept back wings. For
less experience people, something as I just described or one of the
hollowing tools on the market will serve you better.

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

In message , George
writes

"John" wrote in message
...
I think it really comes down to me having to by a bigger selection of
tools

There will never be enough! But that's a good thing, especially if you
have spouse, children and such. Three gifts and some Hallmarks every
year, right?

Fortunately/Unfortunately only wife and dog. Though I can usually get
whatever tools I want, I just need to decide which to get first.

And I keep having to turn dog bones ! Even today the checked offcut from
the log I hollowed became a dog chew. Well at least its better than her
chewing bricks
--
John

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:05:49 GMT, John wrote:

I have a question and think I already know the answer and that's $$$

I took a section of green log and decided to turn it so the heart was in
middle of the sides of the pot. Most of the hollowing was done with a
scraper.

Now the issue I had is that a couple of times the scraper caught and dug
in and then bounced off the sides. One third of the tool including
handle was past the rest.

Am I correct in assuming that if the tool had a longer handle, and it
had caught I would have had more ability to stabilise it and hence
reduced the chances of it digging in and bouncing off the walls.

Or could there be another reason before I go and buy / or make a longer
tool for the job

longer, thicker scrapers are always good if you can afford them (I can't)

Type of rest can be as important with a scraper as where it is, IMO..
For stuff like you're doing, I really like a box scraper rest...
(Item G in link below)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...at=1,330,49238

You get better support and can usually get some of the rest inside the opening
that you're working..

As you get more experience with the scraper, you'll also have less catches..
it's actually pretty hard to get one once your technique smooths out..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Hi John
Actually a 2" opening sounds huge and 4" depth short for ordinary hollowing
tools. I habitually use a 3/4" to 1" opening and 7" or 8" depth although I
have done deeper. Some times the simplest tools are the best. For endgrain I
like hook tools and for side grain like you are doing, scrapers or in other
words, typical inserted tip tools. A 3/16" HSS tool bit in a 1/2" to 3/4"
shaft is just fine. Take a look here
http://www.aroundthewoods.com/brace.shtml
the arm brace really makes a difference; and here for hollowing
http://aroundthewoods.com/hollow1.shtml including a couple of clips showing
the cutting tips at work.

--
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS Canada
http://aroundthewoods.com
http://roundopinions.blogspot.com
"John" wrote in message
...
In message , George
writes
Might. Leverage is good, but only when you're trying to use the tool as a
lever. Scraping broadside is one such operation. You really have to rely
on your rest (fulcrum), and if it's far away what happened to you can
happen easily.

Might want to consider edge presentation as the problem. Hollowing along
the grain is easily accomplished with tools like hooks or rings, Darrell's
Oland or a pointy gouge, as I use. It shears rather than bludgeons, and
with the gouge, as I use it, has a bevel to stabilize it and prevent a
catch. From what I can see, Darrell lays the side of the tool up against
the wood for stabilization as well. The ring or hook tools have a bit
less to stabilize them, but with a good rest there's enough there to
maintain a catch-proof angle if the mouth will permit the handle enough
travel. Any fingernailed gouge will also work, albeit more slowly, since
the sweet spot is pretty small to get a good shear.


I think part of my issue is obviously limited selection of tools. A
secondary issue was that with an opening of only 2 inches and a working
depth of about 4 inches, I was restricted on my options, and as such no
option for my tool rest to be any closer to the working face. It was
however as close as comfortable to the work piece.

Part of my thinking on the use of the tool was that with a longer handle
you have a greater movement which means in my mind would be easier to
sense and thus give a greater ability to react to the movement, where if
its a short handle the movement may only be a fraction of that, and
therefore less easy to respond quick enough.
Another factor to that is that when you have a shorter distance between
rest and tool you tend to grip tighter on the tool, than when you have a
greater distance which tends to be a relaxed grip.

I think it really comes down to me having to by a bigger selection of
tools
--
John

Darrell Feltmate wrote:

Hi John
Actually a 2" opening sounds huge and 4" depth short for ordinary hollowing
tools. I habitually use a 3/4" to 1" opening and 7" or 8" depth although I
have done deeper. Some times the simplest tools are the best. For endgrain I
like hook tools and for side grain like you are doing, scrapers or in other
words, typical inserted tip tools. A 3/16" HSS tool bit in a 1/2" to 3/4"
shaft is just fine. Take a look here
http://www.aroundthewoods.com/brace.shtml
the arm brace really makes a difference; and here for hollowing
http://aroundthewoods.com/hollow1.shtml including a couple of clips showing
the cutting tips at work.

I'm not a fan of the arm brace at all....
I do a fair bit of turning, and have built up tools that allow me to
safely go pretty deep, but just don't want to deal with the arm brace
types.

My rationale is that if I am using an arm brace, and there is actually
a catch, it will tend to be worse than if I'm holding normally. If I do
get a catch, I want to be able to release the tool if needed so I don't
get really hurt. The arm brace would only transfer the force and tend
to break an arm...

On the other hand, I love stabilized tools (where the force is taken by
the lathe bed or an outboard rig). In fact, some of my deep hollowing
tools allows me to reach over 3 feet into a vessel without any real
effort on my part. The tools have a tip that can handle a varity of
bits (from hook to disk to square machine tool bits in a variety of
shapes, both cutting and scraping tools), and the bodies are made of a
10 foot long section of thick wall 1 1/2" square steel tubing (each).
Support by the rest near the top edge of the vessel, and an outrigger
that supports it about five feet back (and also has a top bar that keeps
it from rising from the outrigger) transfers all of the downward force
to the rest, and all of the upwards force to the outrigger, so all I
need to do is concentrate on moving the tool back and forth and/or in
and out and not in actually holding it up or worrying about a catch.
The steel of the rest and a "slick plastic" surface on the outrigger
means it's easy to slide the tool back and forth or in and out. In
fact, with this setup I've never actually had a catch, as the cutting
part of the tool is always presented at the same angle and not allowed
to twist, which tends to be one of the typical mechanisms that cause
catches.

When I was freehanding deep vessels, on more than one occasion I got a
catch and was thankful I wasn't using a brace, as the catch only caused
me to lose grip on the tool, so all I needed to do to recover was step
back and hit the emergency stop of the lathe. No personal damage, and
(once you stop swearing and realize what could have happened) who cares
what happens to the wood if it saved your body from damage?

Now, given the desire to create really massive and/or long tools, I
wouldn't recommend anyone do really deep work without a stabilized rig,
but if you're doing relatively smaller work, you can do just fine with
longer than normal tools and common sense.

Sorby used to have a series of "texas tools" where the handle was nearly
two feet long and the steel part of the tool was 12 or 15" long. I got
the skew, plus 3/8 and 1/2" bowl gouges of this series. I've
successfully hollowed nearly 12 inches deep with the bowl gouges, and
really wish I'd bought at least another set while they were still
available. Since then, I've made a number of tools from 3/4 or 1 inch
round steel stock (24" or more long) and a couple with 3/4 x 1 inch
rectangular stock with correspondingly long handles. They tend to be
heavy, but the balance isn't bad at all, as I can fill the handles with
lead shot for the deep hollowing, and the extra mass helps keep them
from moving around. With 12 inches hanging past the rest, and nearly
three feet behind it, there's a great amount of leverage, and even an
interrupted cut or knots don't really make for a problem. I wouldn't
even think of trying to hollow 8" deep with a standard gouge (or hook or
scraper) because the leverage isn't anywhere as good. (8" deep, 14" of
handle behind the rest is less than 2:1, but one of the shop made tools
has 12" deep and 36" behind the rest for 3:1 leverage plus the mass of
the handle to help keep it from moving.) Physics is a wonderful thing
to get acquainted with again!

For the brave of heart, I've actually watched a couple of guys hollow
right up to the ferrule with a standard tool, but they had it in a death
grip that was very tiring, and took light cuts to begin with. As you
might guess, I wouldn't recommend it, but some people will try anything
(and a few will actually get away with it).

Good Luck, Be Safe!
--Rick

In message , mac davis
writes
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:05:49 GMT, John wrote:

longer, thicker scrapers are always good if you can afford them (I can't)

Type of rest can be as important with a scraper as where it is, IMO..
For stuff like you're doing, I really like a box scraper rest...
(Item G in link below)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...at=1,330,49238

I like the simple design of that rest. Luckily I have the stock, cut off
saw and welder to make something like it so can give it a try

You get better support and can usually get some of the rest inside the opening
that you're working..

As you say to pointing the rest into the hole and laying the tool on
it length wise hence having a large surface area of contact would
definitely increase stability

Something else I just remembered which is probably a big factor is the
height of the rest to centreline of work piece. I was looking into this
the other week, and found that the lowest height of standard tool rest
is (using metric here) 5mm below centre, with the tool being 7mm thick (
One reason I have been looking at an upgrade to the lathe. But if I make
some rests I can drop that height


As you get more experience with the scraper, you'll also have less catches..
it's actually pretty hard to get one once your technique smooths out..


I must say I only get a handful but they are often spectacular, but if I
can reduce the controllable variables maybe I will make none
--
John

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:41:31 GMT, "Darrell Feltmate"
wrote:

Hi John
Actually a 2" opening sounds huge and 4" depth short for ordinary hollowing
tools. I habitually use a 3/4" to 1" opening and 7" or 8" depth although I
have done deeper. Some times the simplest tools are the best. For endgrain I
like hook tools and for side grain like you are doing, scrapers or in other
words, typical inserted tip tools. A 3/16" HSS tool bit in a 1/2" to 3/4"
shaft is just fine. Take a look here
http://www.aroundthewoods.com/brace.shtml
the arm brace really makes a difference; and here for hollowing
http://aroundthewoods.com/hollow1.shtml including a couple of clips showing
the cutting tips at work.

Yeah, Darrell, but you've been doing this a few months longer than John has...
;~]

I can remember when hollowing a box with a 2 or 3" opening to a depth of a few
inches was challenging..
Then, again, that's when I ran to Harbor Freight and bought a set of cheap
forstner bits..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:58:49 GMT, John wrote:

In message , mac davis
writes
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:05:49 GMT, John wrote:

longer, thicker scrapers are always good if you can afford them (I can't)

Type of rest can be as important with a scraper as where it is, IMO..
For stuff like you're doing, I really like a box scraper rest...
(Item G in link below)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...at=1,330,49238

I like the simple design of that rest. Luckily I have the stock, cut off
saw and welder to make something like it so can give it a try

Cool.. if you lived in my neighborhood, I'd keep ya busy!
While you're at it, make some flat-topped rests in like 3", 5" and so on, the
sizes that you can't buy...

As you say to pointing the rest into the hole and laying the tool on
it length wise hence having a large surface area of contact would
definitely increase stability

Yes, and maybe just as important, it gets you used to good angle on the scraper
and will minimize catches..

Something else I just remembered which is probably a big factor is the
height of the rest to centreline of work piece. I was looking into this
the other week, and found that the lowest height of standard tool rest
is (using metric here) 5mm below centre, with the tool being 7mm thick (
One reason I have been looking at an upgrade to the lathe. But if I make
some rests I can drop that height

I'm going through the results of doing just that...
When I was using the 14" Jet, I bought several rests and most were a an inch too
long for use on the Jet, so I shortened them..

Now that I've moved up to the Nova I find that those rests are too short to use
on it... ya just never win..lol

As you get more experience with the scraper, you'll also have less catches..
it's actually pretty hard to get one once your technique smooths out..


I must say I only get a handful but they are often spectacular, but if I
can reduce the controllable variables maybe I will make none

I've found that as you get more experienced and more comfortable, and have
enough catches, they become much smaller.. and because you've "been there, done
that", your reaction is a lot milder, which minimizes damage to the wood, tool
and you, and keeps the laundry bill lower..

I really hadn't thought about that until I recently got the Nova and read about
the spindle sensing going on in it's brain and that if it detects a catch it
stops the motor...
I realized that it's been a long time since I had the real "thunk" kind of catch
that makes the belt slip... the few I have now are more of a "tap" and are
easily corrected..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"John" wrote in message
...

As you say to pointing the rest into the hole and laying the tool on it
length wise hence having a large surface area of contact would definitely
increase stability

Something else I just remembered which is probably a big factor is the
height of the rest to centreline of work piece. I was looking into this
the other week, and found that the lowest height of standard tool rest is
(using metric here) 5mm below centre, with the tool being 7mm thick ( One
reason I have been looking at an upgrade to the lathe. But if I make some
rests I can drop that height


Don't jump too fast. Remember, the piece is rotating, and the edge in
contact wants to twist the handle, not tip. Not a lot of gain in the box
toolrests except in bottoming unless you can extend them inside the turning
and up close to the sides.

Percentage play lies in limiting the amount of metal in contact while
scraping by using a narrow bit like Darrel or the other makers of hollowing
tools, or increasing the amount of metal in contact when cutting, thereby
stabilizing on the place you've been to get where you want to go. It's the
principle behind "shear scraping," which is cutting without benefit of a
guiding bevel. If you use the side of your cutter or buy one of those
depth-limiting kinds like the Munro, you're following precept two.

Other thing you may have noticed about the commercial tools is that they get
you handle swing by curving the bit holder, yet keep the bit in line with
the main handle to minimize leverage and twist.

One principle I learned from the first book I ever read on turning (old
bodger name of Frank Pain) was that you can't get a catch if your cut is
above the wood. Inside, that means below the center, outside, above.
Figure your toolrest height from those principles, and things will go a bit
easier.

From what everyone has said, and looking into the tools mentioned and
more, I have an impression that the tools that have a 'better result' (
I include safer in that) are essentially a very mechanical construction,
almost similar in operation to the tools on a metalworking lathe, albeit
quite a different construction. i.e. the user is not really a part of
the equation other than for moving the tool.

I have found an interesting design in the poolewood catalogue

http://www.poolewood.co.uk/cgi-bin/s...%3a%2f%2fwww%2
epoolewood%2eco%2euk%2facatalog%2findex%2ehtml&WD= reeks%20dave&PN=Dave_Re
eks_Hollowing_Tool%2ehtml%23aDRHT30#aDRHT30

if the link doesn't work try http://www.poolewood.co.uk/
and search for 'dave reeks'

I think that in the coming months I will be constructing something
similar, combined with the ideas mentioned elsewhere in this thread for
the toolhead design. The most obvious extension of the design would be
to include laser guidance

I wonder if anyone here has tried/used a dual laser design for guidance,
all I have seen are single lasers. My thought is either one vertical
laser which is common and one horizontal both pointed to the tip of the
tool edge, or both from above but at 90 degrees to each other Using this
method the thickness of the form could be determined by how close the
lasers are on the surface

Oooh so many ideas to play with
--
John

In message , mac davis
writes

Something else I just remembered which is probably a big factor is the
height of the rest to centreline of work piece. I was looking into this
the other week, and found that the lowest height of standard tool rest
is (using metric here) 5mm below centre, with the tool being 7mm thick (
One reason I have been looking at an upgrade to the lathe. But if I make
some rests I can drop that height

I'm going through the results of doing just that...
When I was using the 14" Jet, I bought several rests and most were a an
inch too
long for use on the Jet, so I shortened them..

Now that I've moved up to the Nova I find that those rests are too short to use
on it... ya just never win..lol

I think it was the JET 3520 I saw which had the best design, with the
hole for the tool rest offset on the banjo, which in theory would allow
as long a stem as you like. This is other than the occasion of avoiding
the lathe bed, and assuming the top of the banjo is low enough

I've found that as you get more experienced and more comfortable, and have
enough catches, they become much smaller.. and because you've "been there, done
that", your reaction is a lot milder, which minimizes damage to the wood, tool
and you, and keeps the laundry bill lower..

My usual result it to loosen the turning in the chuck jaws, and the
worst, using it as a a projectile across the room. Unfortunately with a
minimum speed of 400 I am partly restricted. So tool rest is as close as
possible which helps control the missile

--
John

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:27:42 GMT, John wrote:

Wow.. that's (in my mind) a pretty radical tool, especially for what you're
doing.. I think if I was going to spend that much money trying to imitate a
metal lathe, I'd just use a metal lathe..lol

You might consider a rig like that in the future, John, if you get into hollow
forms and such, but what you need right now to do your 4" deep, 2" wide
hollowing is more practice with the tools you have... Just a little patience and
a learning curve and you could do that hollowing with a bowl gouge.. *g*

Remember that folks have been making cups, pots, vases, etc. for a lot more
years than we've had high tech laser guided carbide robotic arms available..
YMWV

Also, since you seem to have metalworking skills, (wish I did), you might want
to learn a bit from the master and make one of these:
http://aroundthewoods.com/hooktool.shtml

Since I'm metalworking impaired, I have one of these for hollowing:
http://www.woodcraft.com/family.aspx...e=details#tabs

but I wouldn't use it on something less than maybe 5 or 6 inches deep as it
really doesn't work well with shallow stuff..


From what everyone has said, and looking into the tools mentioned and
more, I have an impression that the tools that have a 'better result' (
I include safer in that) are essentially a very mechanical construction,
almost similar in operation to the tools on a metalworking lathe, albeit
quite a different construction. i.e. the user is not really a part of
the equation other than for moving the tool.

I have found an interesting design in the poolewood catalogue

http://www.poolewood.co.uk/cgi-bin/s...%3a%2f%2fwww%2
epoolewood%2eco%2euk%2facatalog%2findex%2ehtml&WD =reeks%20dave&PN=Dave_Re
eks_Hollowing_Tool%2ehtml%23aDRHT30#aDRHT30

if the link doesn't work try http://www.poolewood.co.uk/
and search for 'dave reeks'

I think that in the coming months I will be constructing something
similar, combined with the ideas mentioned elsewhere in this thread for
the toolhead design. The most obvious extension of the design would be
to include laser guidance

I wonder if anyone here has tried/used a dual laser design for guidance,
all I have seen are single lasers. My thought is either one vertical
laser which is common and one horizontal both pointed to the tip of the
tool edge, or both from above but at 90 degrees to each other Using this
method the thickness of the form could be determined by how close the
lasers are on the surface

Oooh so many ideas to play with


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In message , mac davis
writes
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:27:42 GMT, John wrote:

Wow.. that's (in my mind) a pretty radical tool, especially for what you're
doing.. I think if I was going to spend that much money trying to imitate a
metal lathe, I'd just use a metal lathe..lol

I think because of my background, Avionics QA, Production and R&D I have
too often seen low cost solutions employed to a problem, only to see a
few months later the investment being discarded for a more expensive but
reliable/versatile solution. For that reason I often now invest to save
Another advantage of this approach is one learning curve rather than
two or three.

You might consider a rig like that in the future, John, if you get into hollow
forms and such, but what you need right now to do your 4" deep, 2" wide
hollowing is more practice with the tools you have... Just a little
patience and
a learning curve and you could do that hollowing with a bowl gouge.. *g*

If I can sort my tool rest I think the bowl gouge will work a bit
better. At present with the standard minimum rest height and the rest is
touching the face of surface being turned, to get the bevel to rub the
cutting edge will be almost 1/4 inch above centre.
My latest bowl gouge has better swept wings, and have found that it
seems to work a lot better, but I need some more practice.


Remember that folks have been making cups, pots, vases, etc. for a lot more
years than we've had high tech laser guided carbide robotic arms available..
YMWV
Very true. I think technology has improved some aspects, but also taken
some of the skill out of the process. As I do not consider myself to
have the skill level to achieve quality results, I can use the
technology to fill the gap Maybe one day my skill level will rise so
that I am pleased with my results without the fancy technology


Also, since you seem to have metalworking skills, (wish I did), you might want
to learn a bit from the master and make one of these:
http://aroundthewoods.com/hooktool.shtml
My metalworking skills come from shop work when I was an apprentice, and
what I have picked up over the years through observation , and common
sense, plus an ability to extrapolate concepts to viable to solutions.
My turning skills are a growth from that so if can do it anyone can. On
my second day of turning I created my first captive ring, but that was
just looking at the concept and applying it

Since I'm metalworking impaired, I have one of these for hollowing:
http://www.woodcraft.com/family.aspx...e=details#tabs

I have a simple design ring tool here but I would say it is far less
rugged than the one pictures. The first went back to the store on day
one as the ring was silver soldered to the shaft, unfortunately it was a
poor joint. The second it touched wood it came apart! The replacement
has been more successful, though my understanding is these are suitable
only for end grain and the hollowing I was doing was cross grain.

but I wouldn't use it on something less than maybe 5 or 6 inches deep as it
really doesn't work well with shallow stuff..
I have a few nice blanks here which are 12inch + deep which I will play
with later in the year, when it gets warmer ) My workshop has recently
been up as high at 6 deg C

--
John

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:16:03 GMT, John wrote:

I have a simple design ring tool here but I would say it is far less
rugged than the one pictures. The first went back to the store on day
one as the ring was silver soldered to the shaft, unfortunately it was a
poor joint. The second it touched wood it came apart! The replacement
has been more successful, though my understanding is these are suitable
only for end grain and the hollowing I was doing was cross grain.

Well, the termite and my other toy, the Supercut "universal tool" are both
supposed to be for end grain but seem to work fine for either orientation..
I'd guess that they're called "end grain" tools because that's a task that most
of us find more difficult than cross grain?

but I wouldn't use it on something less than maybe 5 or 6 inches deep as it
really doesn't work well with shallow stuff..
I have a few nice blanks here which are 12inch + deep which I will play
with later in the year, when it gets warmer ) My workshop has recently
been up as high at 6 deg C

I (no longer) feel your pain.. I used to use my shop about 6 months a year when
we were in the States..
Right now, at 7pm, it's hovering at 22C with the outside temp at 19C


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

One principle I learned from the first book I ever read on turning (old
bodger name of Frank Pain) was that you can't get a catch if your cut is
above the wood. *Inside, that means below the center, outside, above.

Seems to me you got this exactly backwards. Inside below center the
catch drives the tool into the wood. Same with outside above. Inside
above center a catch drives the tool into air. Same with outside
below.

"ebd" wrote in message
...
One principle I learned from the first book I ever read on turning (old
bodger name of Frank Pain) was that you can't get a catch if your cut is
above the wood. Inside, that means below the center, outside, above.

Seems to me you got this exactly backwards. Inside below center the
catch drives the tool into the wood. Same with outside above. Inside
above center a catch drives the tool into air. Same with outside
below.

Nope, Catch comes from raising the nose of the tool into wood or the wood
coming down into the nose of the tool. Keeping air over the tool keeps from
catching. Puts you at 8:45 inside, 9:15 out as optimum. The bevel on the
wood keeps you steady and away from a roll and catch.

On Feb 23, 7:49*pm, "George" wrote:
"ebd" wrote in message

...

One principle I learned from the first book I ever read on turning (old
bodger name of Frank Pain) was that you can't get a catch if your cut is
above the wood. Inside, that means below the center, outside, above.

Seems to me you got this exactly backwards. Inside below center the
catch drives the tool into the wood. Same with outside above. Inside
above center a catch drives the tool into air. Same with outside
below.

Nope, Catch comes from raising the nose of the tool into wood or the wood
coming down into the nose of the tool. Keeping air over the tool keeps from
catching. Puts you at 8:45 inside, 9:15 out as optimum. The bevel on the
wood keeps you steady and away from a roll and catch.

Of course you are talking non-cense George.
A catch is a un-controlled dig into the wood, be it a spindle or bowl,
inside or outside.
That means the tool is taken by the turning wood in its turning
direction.
A tool inside a bowl cutting above centre height will be pushed down
into air, end of catch, and a tool cutting below centre, will gat
pushed down also, but into the wood, digging into a mayor catch.
A tool cutting on the outside of a bowl below centre will be pushed
down into the air. above center just the opposite.
Maybe you have to draw a picture george, and see what a tool does,
when it gets caught on the outside of a turning, it goes down george,
it makes an arc george, as the tool rest is the fulcrum, and the tool
going down will have the end swing away from the wood.
Maybe someone can draw a picture for you george, have a nice day
george

wrote in message
...

Maybe you have to draw a picture george, and see what a tool does,
when it gets caught on the outside of a turning, it goes down george,
it makes an arc george, as the tool rest is the fulcrum, and the tool
going down will have the end swing away from the wood.
Maybe someone can draw a picture for you george, have a nice day
george

But, Leo, something you just can't seem to comprehend is that it DOESN'T get
caught because it has no wood over it to catch it, save the minimum required
to start a shaving; which goes where the turner wants it to go. The motion
of the turning wedges left outside, also into air, or wedges right inside
into the open area. We can also be even smarter, and take advantage of the
flute in the tool instead of the sides. That way the natural curve ( allows
most of the sharp catching but easily cutting edges to be forward, not up at
all.

The purpose is to prevent a catch so we don't have silly analyses of what
happens if you do, Leo.

But, Leo, something you just can't seem to comprehend is that it DOESN'T get
caught because it has no wood over it to catch it, save the minimum required
to start a shaving;

Over it is irrelevant, the rotation, torque, force is down. Once
again, you need to draw it George. Once the catch starts the tip
follows a downward arc with the rotational point at the tool rest.
Functionally this makes the gouge longer, pushing the tip ever deeper
into the wood - unless of course you are holding the gouge SO loose
that it flys back at you.

"ebd" wrote in message
...
But, Leo, something you just can't seem to comprehend is that it DOESN'T
get
caught because it has no wood over it to catch it, save the minimum
required
to start a shaving;

Over it is irrelevant, the rotation, torque, force is down. Once
again, you need to draw it George. Once the catch starts the tip
follows a downward arc with the rotational point at the tool rest.
Functionally this makes the gouge longer, pushing the tip ever deeper
into the wood - unless of course you are holding the gouge SO loose
that it flys back at you.

Nope. The catch does not occur. That's the beauty of it. The gouge,
positioned flute ( or flute ) for outside, can't dig deeper, because the
rotation wants to wedge it out into open air from below if you roll the top
in to take a heavy shaving.

Whatever.