Does anybody sharpen their lathe tools on an arkansas stone, or does this
take entirely too much time? Seeing I sharpen all my knives on an eight
inch stone why not do my gouges and skews also. And, if it is possible,
just how long do you think it would take to do a 3/4 gouge???

Just wondering........

In article rs.com,
"buckaroo" wrote:

Does anybody sharpen their lathe tools on an arkansas stone, or does this
take entirely too much time? Seeing I sharpen all my knives on an eight
inch stone why not do my gouges and skews also. And, if it is possible,
just how long do you think it would take to do a 3/4 gouge???

Such people may exist, but most of us go straight from grinding, or
perhaps power-honing, to cutting, and back to griding, and back to
cutting...it's possible, but would be very tedious.

Fiddling with the perfect edge is an idea that does not survive too long
when you need to cut wood in a reasonable fashion - you'll cut more
distance in 5 minutes turning that you will in a month of hand-paring
with bench chisels, which should explain why most of us do not typically
use slow fiddly methods to get the ultimate edge on lathe tools. Fast
methods to get a near-ultimate edge are far more effective in getting
work done...

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

In article rs.com,
says...
Does anybody sharpen their lathe tools on an arkansas stone, or does this
take entirely too much time? Seeing I sharpen all my knives on an eight
inch stone why not do my gouges and skews also. And, if it is possible,
just how long do you think it would take to do a 3/4 gouge???

Just wondering........


I'm probably in the minority, but I have a couple of tools that I stone
the edge for. This is after using a file, sandpaper, coarse/fine hones,
then a ceramic "stone" for the final edge.

Of course, I use these tools so infrequently and for such a short period
of time that I don't mind the time or effort in keeping in practice with
the old-slow methods.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:21:20 -0700, "buckaroo"
wrote:

Does anybody sharpen their lathe tools on an arkansas stone, or does this
take entirely too much time? Seeing I sharpen all my knives on an eight
inch stone why not do my gouges and skews also. And, if it is possible,
just how long do you think it would take to do a 3/4 gouge???

Personally, I seldom grind and tend to do touch-up honing with a
diamond hone from DMT. Two of them, actually. I have a medium grit
bench stone and a medium and fine grit folding stone. I take a couple
of minutes with that and even my ASP 2060 tools are shaving sharp.

Arkansas stones are nice for knives, but cut entirely too slow for me
to want to try to hone my turning tools on them.


--
Chuck *#:^)
chaz3913(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
Anti-spam sig: please remove "NO SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.


September 11, 2001 - Never Forget


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I have found that the US made diamond fine Eze lap LF model very affordable
for honing.
Re- honing: The ground edge under a microscope is like lots of sharp icicles
or fine points. Innitially this seems sharp but very quickly the points
break off and the edge loses its keeness. When you hone the edge (under a
microscope) looks like a gentle rolling wave and is much stronger and will
last longer. In my opinion, comments welcome.

This is why it is important to have a hollow ground bevel on your tools, to
enable the hone to touch only the heel and the extreeme cutting edge of the
tool when applied. Re grinding must take place from time to time.
If you sharpen on a belt or side of the grinder then honing is not as
effective because the flat surface when honed produces a convex bevel which
I nick-named a rock & roll bevel.
Then the cutting edge of the tool is hard to define when applied to the
wood. This is particularly noticable when using a skew but the same applies
to a gouge when looking for a high level of finnish off the tool. "SANDING
SUCKS THE LUNGS"

Hope this is of help
Also the tool lasts longer honed

--
Cheers
Ken Port
Tool Designer
www.woodcut-tools.com

Sure, Ken. I'll comment.

Take your douzuki and crosscut with it.
Smooth, isn't it? And even with those fragile, long teeth, it'll do it over
and over

Now pull it sideways across your board.
Looks like hell. Not to mention if you press a bit you'll bend and rotate
some teeth.

That's why cutting angle is more important than honing.


"Ken Port" wrote in message
...

Re- honing: The ground edge under a microscope is like lots of sharp
icicles
or fine points. Innitially this seems sharp but very quickly the points
break off and the edge loses its keeness. When you hone the edge (under a
microscope) looks like a gentle rolling wave and is much stronger and will
last longer. In my opinion, comments welcome.

I've seen this analogy before, and while it may seem to offer simple
wisdom, it really isn't a proper representation of the geometry involved
with turning tools.

If you examine a those japanese teeth, you will see that the geometry is
such that the base of the tooth is much wider from front to back, than
from side to side. The dozuki tooth is really not all different in
geometry from a turning tool, except that it is comparable to only a
narrow cross section of a turning tool edge. But along that cross
section, there will be similar bevel angles and similar buttressing
behind the cutting edge. The only place where crosscut (but not rip)
teeth differ is that they are angle which is the "set" of the tooth.

From side to side, the tooth does not have the same geometry, indeed at
the front of the tooth, the angle to the side is actually negative
(i.e., like \--- rather than like /--)with respect to the body of the
tool as a result of the set on crosscut blades and is verticle {i.e.
|--) on rip tooth blades. There is not buttressing behind the tooth. So
yes the tooth is weaker in this direction, but solely due to the nature
of the geometry, a geometry that is not in any way comparable to a bowl
gouge.

When it comes to cutting, the reality is that a more coarsely ground
edge does not have teeth in line like a comb. Rather the are offset
along each of those grooves you can see/feel from the coarseness of the
grit. The finer the abrasive material, the less the offset, and the less
the teeth are exposed with less buttressing. Honing lessens the amount
of displacement by making smaller, more shallow grooves and leveling off
the greatest areas of displacement.


Accordingly, Ken is right in his description. There are lots of
objective tests that have demonstrated that a honed edge, for a given
geometry and cutting angle, will be a longer lasting edge. I personally
don't care if you hone or not, if you are satisfied with the results of
your sharpening, that's all that counts for you. But objectively, a
properly honed edge will make a cleaner cut and will last longer.

Lyn

George wrote:
Sure, Ken. I'll comment.

Take your douzuki and crosscut with it.
Smooth, isn't it? And even with those fragile, long teeth, it'll do it over
and over

Now pull it sideways across your board.
Looks like hell. Not to mention if you press a bit you'll bend and rotate
some teeth.

That's why cutting angle is more important than honing.


"Ken Port" wrote in message
...


Re- honing: The ground edge under a microscope is like lots of sharp

icicles

or fine points. Innitially this seems sharp but very quickly the points
break off and the edge loses its keeness. When you hone the edge (under a
microscope) looks like a gentle rolling wave and is much stronger and will
last longer. In my opinion, comments welcome.

Thanks Lyn J
Its a shame some people take these things as a personal affront.
It can be discouraging to people like myself who are just trying to give
genuine professional advise with the view of dispelling some of the myth
surrounding our trade. This is where your in depth explanation is most
helpful by comparison to my quick simple summary (mainly because I don't
have the talent you do Lyn

--
Cheers
Ken Port
Tool Designer
www.woodcut-tools.com

Good opinions and discussion, Ken & Lyn. I reckon one turner's myth is
another turner's gospel. I didn't see any personal affront taken nor
desire to discourage a professional opinion. Whether professionals or
amateurs or we unwashed in betweens, all our posts are a bit of self
embellishment, aren't they? Arch

Fortiter,

White smoke, and the return.

"Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote in message
link.net...
I've seen this analogy before, and while it may seem to offer simple
wisdom, it really isn't a proper representation of the geometry involved
with turning tools.

Oh, yeah, you're incorrect.

"When you hone the edge (under a microscope) looks like a gentle rolling
wave and is much stronger and will
last longer. In my opinion, comments welcome. "

Ok, comments _favoring_ would have been welcome? You should have said so.

One quick try to twist your thinking a bit. Let us say we come off a 120
grit stone - scratches on average 102 microns. Broadside on, we can do no
better than 120. If we take the same length of gouge in contact with the
wood and rotate it 60 degrees from the horizontal, we've got the equivalent
of 240 grit, with the numbers increasing very rapidly as we approach the
vertical. Now, if we assume a gouge, we can actually have the leading
edge - the attacking point - vertical, with the bottom of the gouge trailing
away. At that point all the individual fibers see is the thickness of the
edge, not the projections, and in a macro look, we're running maybe a 1000
grit.

As to strength, the process of honing, unless you are honing to increase the
included angle (microbevel), actually makes the edge thinner by removing the
high points. This makes a nice sharp edge, but one which may be broken by
impact with harder sections or inclusions in the wood, and more likely to
anneal because of reduced heat sink capability.

In my opinion, and I'm willing to say it is my opinion, the critical factor
in removing wood "as it wants to be cut"on the lathe is the cutting angle,
not the grit of the final hone, and for the reasons given. Not to mention
the loss of time when honing. Deburring perhaps, one quick new edge with a
diamond stone even, but certainly nothing near what I do to my carving tools
or even my planes.

"Ken Port" wrote in message
...
Thanks Lyn J
Its a shame some people take these things as a personal affront.
It can be discouraging to people like myself who are just trying to give
genuine professional advise with the view of dispelling some of the myth
surrounding our trade. This is where your in depth explanation is most
helpful by comparison to my quick simple summary (mainly because I don't
have the talent you do Lyn

--
Cheers
Ken Port
Tool Designer
www.woodcut-tools.com

Well George, I wrote a fair number of lines detailing exactly why your
analogy was incorrect, and tried to do so in a sincere and polite
manner. In the end, the turners out there can read both and make their
own judgment.

Lyn

George wrote:
White smoke, and the return.

"Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote in message
link.net...

I've seen this analogy before, and while it may seem to offer simple
wisdom, it really isn't a proper representation of the geometry involved
with turning tools.


Oh, yeah, you're incorrect.

A few comments interspersed below:

George wrote:


One quick try to twist your thinking a bit. Let us say we come off a 120
grit stone - scratches on average 102 microns. Broadside on, we can do no
better than 120. If we take the same length of gouge in contact with the
wood and rotate it 60 degrees from the horizontal, we've got the equivalent
of 240 grit, with the numbers increasing very rapidly as we approach the
vertical. Now, if we assume a gouge, we can actually have the leading
edge - the attacking point - vertical, with the bottom of the gouge trailing
away. At that point all the individual fibers see is the thickness of the
edge, not the projections, and in a macro look, we're running maybe a 1000
grit.

I invite George and other turners to draw a few lines along their own
gouge in the direction of their grinding marks and then look at the
gouge as it is presented to the wood in the positions they use it to
turn. The fallacy the of the above will be evident from this experiment
along. But it really does not end here. George's example is basically
based on a two dimensional model, while in reality the offset of the
cutting points left from grinding occurrs three dimensionally.

As to strength, the process of honing, unless you are honing to increase the
included angle (microbevel), actually makes the edge thinner by removing the
high points. This makes a nice sharp edge, but one which may be broken by
impact with harder sections or inclusions in the wood, and more likely to
anneal because of reduced heat sink capability.

Actually removing "high points" alone would make the edge more blunt.
Refining the surface by honing, when done at the same angle (i.e.
maintaining the same geometry) will in fact make the edge no thinner nor
thicker at any given location. That is, the "planes" (i.e., the plane of
the internal wall of the flute and the plane of the external wall
composing the bevel) will meet at the same angles and offer the same
geometry at a given point. Where things differ is that the points of a
ground edge are not in a linear line due to the grooving of the
abrasive grit. How far they are off linear will be determined by the
coarseness of the grit, i.e., the depth of the grooves. Finer grits will
leave shallower groves that result in a more linear edge, but the
geometry will stay the same if the original angles are kept the same
(and thus the same amount of buttressing of the edge at any given point).


V V V V V vs v v v v v v The actual difference is greater, but
V V V V V v v v v v I can't reduce the line spacing for the

second narrower set. A sharp edge (where the planes meet directly and
consistently along a line) is always desirable because it will, for a
given geometry, generate less resistance to the cut and the points will
be better buttressed by being closer together along that line both in
terms of width and length.

In my opinion, and I'm willing to say it is my opinion, the critical factor
in removing wood "as it wants to be cut"on the lathe is the cutting angle,
not the grit of the final hone, and for the reasons given. Not to mention
the loss of time when honing. Deburring perhaps, one quick new edge with a
diamond stone even, but certainly nothing near what I do to my carving tools
or even my planes.

Lots of things are significant factors including cutting angle (i.e.,
the angle of presentation of the edge to the wood), geometry of the
cutting edge, and refinement (I actually prefer this term to "sharpness"
as I think it more accurately describes the process and effect) of the
edge.

In the end though, I would again say that there have been several
empirical studies of edge life, and all have shown that the more refined
(i.e, sharper, honed) edge lasted longer and cut cleaner longer. Thats
not opinion, but rather impartial findings. One of the best of these
studies was done in Britain and the other two have been done in the US.
I have confirmed this, Steven Russell confirmed this, Fred Holder has
commented on it and Jerry Glaser himself hones his personal gouges and
has remarked on the desirablility of a very sharp edge and uses an EZlap
or diamond paper on wood stick hone for his personal gouges. As I said
before, it is up to every individual turner to determine for themselves
if the advantages of a more refined edge are important to them, but it
is really quite clear that when measured comparisons are made, the more
refined edge will last longer and cut cleaner.

Lyn

BTW, has anyone used the new honing grinder with the plaid wheels and
built in microscope, jig and bidet? Tools are said to be so sharp that
the included angles meet at infinity. Arch

Fortiter,

Hi Arch,
Just got the new model a few weeks ago. I immediately set to work on a
multi-tool, multi angle investigation to determine the proper
orientation of the plaid. As has been hinted at by others, the correct
orientation of the tool to the plaid lines is the crucial factor in
performance. If I get a chance, I'm going to try to come by finer and
finer plaids (which is where the microscope will really come in handy).
I figure that if I can get down to .5 micron plaids, the real benefits
will come to the fore.

It will take me a while to get that testing out of the way, but then I
hope to move on to varying the colors of the plaids. Tartans, etc. I
have a suspicion the proper Scottish plaids will do best for the
O-Donnell grind, but perhaps not so well for the Celtic grinds. Probably
won't make any difference on the Jordan or Ellsworth grinds, but I'll
try to write up the findings nonetheless. I was hoping I might be able
to entice you into serving as consultant on the appropriate tartans.

The jig really is essential, and the rate of carraige action is almost
sure to be the deciding factor, but I don't think I will know for sure
until the influence of the earlier two variables are clearly defined.
Actually the Scottish influence comes through here as well, making me
suspect that the manufacturer is revealing a bloodline not particularly
consistent with their surname.

Anyway, I sure you can appreciate that after this near herculean researh
endeavor, the need for the bidet becomes quite apparent.

Lyn

Arch wrote:

BTW, has anyone used the new honing grinder with the plaid wheels and
built in microscope, jig and bidet? Tools are said to be so sharp that
the included angles meet at infinity. Arch

Fortiter,

Hi Lyn, Touche! ROTFL while I await your expose. Arch

Fortiter,

Too funny Lyn!! I think you've been hanging out with Arch too long...

Peter Teubel
Milford, MA
http://www.revolutionary-turners.com

!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"
html
Lynn wrote....."it is up to every individual turner to determine for
brthemselves if the advantages of a more refined edge are important to
them, but it
bris really quite clear that when measured comparisons are made, the
brmore refined edge iwill last longer/i and cut cleaner".
br  The italics are mine.  It seems to me that the answer to
this discussion is "exactly how much longer" versus how much additional
time to hone properly.  If it takes 5 minutes to hone the edge and
it cuts 5 minutes longer (or less) before needing resharpening then it
becomes an exercise that the turner chose, or not, to do.  Perhaps
the ideal would be to keep one gouge/tool honed for those final, delicate
cuts and just use the tool off of the grinder until one gets to that point.
pJim
br 
p"Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote:
blockquote TYPE=CITEWell George, I wrote a fair number of lines detailing
exactly why your
branalogy was incorrect, and tried to do so in a sincere and polite
brmanner. In the end, the turners out there can read both and make their
brown judgment.
pLyn
pGeorge wrote:
br White smoke, and the return.
br
br "Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote in message
br a .earthlink.net"news:ioxzb.27384$n56.7610@newsread 1.news.pas.earthlink.net/a...
br
brI've seen this analogy before, and while it may seem to offer simple
brwisdom, it really isn't a proper representation of the geometry involved
brwith turning tools.
br
br
br Oh, yeah, you're incorrect.
br
br/blockquote
/html

Wonderful response Lyn. Glad you're back in the groove.

Fred Holder
http://www.fholder.com

In article k.net, Lyn J.
Mangiameli says...

Hi Arch,
Just got the new model a few weeks ago. I immediately set to work on a
multi-tool, multi angle investigation to determine the proper
orientation of the plaid. As has been hinted at by others, the correct
orientation of the tool to the plaid lines is the crucial factor in
performance. If I get a chance, I'm going to try to come by finer and
finer plaids (which is where the microscope will really come in handy).
I figure that if I can get down to .5 micron plaids, the real benefits
will come to the fore.

It will take me a while to get that testing out of the way, but then I
hope to move on to varying the colors of the plaids. Tartans, etc. I
have a suspicion the proper Scottish plaids will do best for the
O-Donnell grind, but perhaps not so well for the Celtic grinds. Probably
won't make any difference on the Jordan or Ellsworth grinds, but I'll
try to write up the findings nonetheless. I was hoping I might be able
to entice you into serving as consultant on the appropriate tartans.

The jig really is essential, and the rate of carraige action is almost
sure to be the deciding factor, but I don't think I will know for sure
until the influence of the earlier two variables are clearly defined.
Actually the Scottish influence comes through here as well, making me
suspect that the manufacturer is revealing a bloodline not particularly
consistent with their surname.

Anyway, I sure you can appreciate that after this near herculean researh
endeavor, the need for the bidet becomes quite apparent.

Lyn

Arch wrote:

BTW, has anyone used the new honing grinder with the plaid wheels and
built in microscope, jig and bidet? Tools are said to be so sharp that
the included angles meet at infinity. Arch

Fortiter,

Lyn,


Actually, the feed sack burlap weave works best for the Appalachian-American
grind I prefer

John Jordan

..www.johnjordanwoodturning.com
Lyn J. Mangiameli wrote in message
hlink.net...

It will take me a while to get that testing out of the way, but then I
hope to move on to varying the colors of the plaids. Tartans, etc. I
have a suspicion the proper Scottish plaids will do best for the
O-Donnell grind, but perhaps not so well for the Celtic grinds. Probably
won't make any difference on the Jordan or Ellsworth grinds, but I'll
try to write up the findings nonetheless. I was hoping I might be able
to entice you into serving as consultant on the appropriate tartans.

Lyn

Arch wrote:

BTW, has anyone used the new honing grinder with the plaid wheels and
built in microscope, jig and bidet? Tools are said to be so sharp that
the included angles meet at infinity. Arch

Fortiter,

And we Brits didnt think you guys did "irony"
Ken
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Well George, I wrote a fair number of lines detailing exactly why your
analogy was incorrect, and tried to do so in a sincere and polite
manner. In the end, the turners out there can read both and make their
own judgment.

Lyn

George wrote:
White smoke, and the return.

"Lyn J. Mangiameli" wrote in message
link.net...

I've seen this analogy before, and while it may seem to offer simple
wisdom, it really isn't a proper representation of the geometry involved
with turning tools.


Oh, yeah, you're incorrect.

I don't have a special signature grind or anything, but I find different
weaves work better for different types of work. Ballusters and such work
done in my blue collar worker mode benefit from denim laced with beer and
spit, whilst my art turnings are done with buffing wheels made with
alternate layers of old turtlenecks and tweed jackets and loaded with a
finely ground paste of beard trimmings and pipe tobacco.

-mike paulson, fort collins, co


In article ,
John Jordan wrote:

Lyn,


Actually, the feed sack burlap weave works best for the Appalachian-American
grind I prefer

John Jordan

.www.johnjordanwoodturning.com
Lyn J. Mangiameli wrote in message
thlink.net...

It will take me a while to get that testing out of the way, but then I
hope to move on to varying the colors of the plaids. Tartans, etc. I
have a suspicion the proper Scottish plaids will do best for the
O-Donnell grind, but perhaps not so well for the Celtic grinds. Probably
won't make any difference on the Jordan or Ellsworth grinds, but I'll
try to write up the findings nonetheless. I was hoping I might be able
to entice you into serving as consultant on the appropriate tartans.

Lyn

Arch wrote:

BTW, has anyone used the new honing grinder with the plaid wheels and
built in microscope, jig and bidet? Tools are said to be so sharp that
the included angles meet at infinity. Arch

Fortiter,