Chris Friesen wrote:
If you skew the blade slightly so that it is parallel to the mouth of
the plane, do you get better results?

I'll try that and see.

Lastly, is the blade properly sharp? You should be able to shave hairs
off your arm really easily.

Yeah, it seems quite sharp to me. Nobody's noticed the bald spot
on my left forearm, but it's there. :-)

Thanks.

As little out of square as you describe would make no difference. The
lateral adjuster will take care of that.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I just got the Veritas system. In trying to sharpen a plane iron,
I can't seem to get an edge which is square to the sides of the
iron. I just found this thread while googling for solutions to
the problem.

I should admit now that I'm a newbie when it comes to hand
planes. I'm trying to learn. I've got Garret Hack's book and
Lee's book and I've watched two of Charlesworth's videos.

Anyway, here's my question: If the edge is very slightly
out of square, how big of a problem is it? Is it possible
to even use a plane which has a blade that is sharpened very
slightly out of square?

In my latest attempt to use the Veritas, the result looks pretty
good. It's not square, but it's awfully close. With a precision
square, I can barely see light coming through at one side of
the sharpened edge.

But when I put the blade into the plane (a Record #4) and try
to take a shaving, only one side of the blade cuts at all.

I am of course still going to try and figure out how to get
a square edge, but I'm guessing the squareness of the
edge is not my only problem. The results I'm seeing make
me think that my real problem is in the setup of the plane.

So I'm looking for any advice from those with more experience.
I'm sort of anticipating one of two responses:

1. Yes, Eric, you're probably doing something wrong in the
setup of the plane. A plane iron with a slightly out of square
edge can basically be used, even though it's not optimal. Go
study more of the beginner-oriented plane stuff.

2. Sorry Eric, actually the edge on the plane iron has to be
perfectly square. The tiniest error will basically render the
plane unusable in the manner you describe.

Thanks in advance!

Eric Sink

--

wrote:
Excellent summation Mark. Now at least there is something on the Web
regarding this issue. When I posted my initial message, I couldn't find
a
single mention of the problem. Maybe someone from Veritas will read it
and
come up with a permanent solution. Stop to think of it, maybe I'll just
forward the Google link to them for comment.

According to their web site, Lee Valley will be at the Milwaukee
woodworking
show in February. I live in Chicago, which is only 80 miles away, so I
may
just pack up the sharpener along with my sacrificial plane blade and
haul it
up there. If they can't make it work either, and I'm confident they
won't,
they might be more inclined to address the problem. It's been my
experience
that both Lee Valley and Veritas have a genuine concern about quality
and
once they're convinced that a problem really exists, they do something
about
it.

I have been looking for a review of that system. If I am guessing
right it is the Veritas, flat plate, dry abrasive disk system you are
using??? If anyone else has bought this I hope they will post their
opinions here. It looks like it should work, at least from the
catalog description.

By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
here?

Please keep us posted.

A search on this forum should turn up a thread on the subject. The general
opinion in that thread is that it is difficult to impossible to sharpen
squarely. The OP was not at all happy with it.
"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
...
I have been looking for a review of that system. If I am guessing
right it is the Veritas, flat plate, dry abrasive disk system you are
using??? If anyone else has bought this I hope they will post their
opinions here. It looks like it should work, at least from the
catalog description.

By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
here?

Please keep us posted.

Yes, it's the Veritas. Its proper name is:

Veritas Mk.II Power Sharpening System

and currently you can see it on the web he

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...35&cat=1,43072

Yes, its a flat horizontal plate with abrasives stuck onto it,
spinning at 650 RPM.

Yes, it seems to be very, very difficult to use this thing to
get an edge which is square to the side of the blade.

However, it also seems that this problem isn't fatal.
As I said, I'm a newbie with planes. Last night's session
went much better. I fiddled with the lateral adjuster and
cleaned the plane and tuned it carefully and tried it in
several different boards.

In general, I'm still annoyed that I can't get a square
edge, but I'm less concerned than before.

Search the web and you'll find lots and lots of people
who really like this sharpening system. It's not perfect,
but after using it for a couple days, I can see why it's
popular.

--
Eric Sink


Joe Bleau wrote:
I have been looking for a review of that system. If I am guessing
right it is the Veritas, flat plate, dry abrasive disk system you are
using??? If anyone else has bought this I hope they will post their
opinions here. It looks like it should work, at least from the
catalog description.

By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
here?

Please keep us posted.

In article k.net,
says...
A search on this forum should turn up a thread on the subject. The general
opinion in that thread is that it is difficult to impossible to sharpen
squarely. The OP was not at all happy with it.
"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
...
(snip
By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
here?

(snip)

I wasn't part of the original thread but I do own the tool and have had
it long enough to disparage it. I saw the tool at a woodworking show a
few years ago, the first iteration of the machine, which wasn't even in
production at the time. And I really wanted it, thinking, at last, an
affordable surface grinder.

To some extent it is that. The problem is, I think, the sandpaper wears
unevenly and quickly, and that's the source of the "out of square"
problems. (The sandpaper is not cheap and so far as I know you can only
buy it mailorder.)

Veritas will tell you that it really doesn't matter, the plane iron will
be sharp, and while that is basically true it is not what I thought I
was buying into.

I can't blame Lee-Valley for not making a $20,000 surface grinder for
almost $400, but if I could do it over again, I would buy a Tormek.

My 2 cents, etc

I participated on the original thread and wanted to provide an update.

First, about the edge being square, I would say that a little light
showing through when you put a square up to the edge is fine. I have
noticed that almost none of my chisels or planes have parallel sides,
so if you reference off one side when sharpening and the other when
measuring, you will see that kind of variation. The problem is if the
micro-bevel can't reach the edge of the tool or if it is so far out of
square that you can't adjust your plane to take a full-width shaving.

My problem was that a portion of the bevel, specifically the "right"
side, near the outside of the abrasive disk, was getting ground down
more than the rest of the bevel. This was particularly bad with the
80x abrasive and made it difficult to get the micro-bevel to go all the
way to the edge. The micro-bevel would reach the edge except for the
last 1/8" or so. Just before the right edge, the secondary bevel would
taper off and the micro-bevel would not reach the tip of the blade.

I have been working with Lee Valley support on this issue and they have
been responsive (as usual). They sent me new platters and new
abrasives in different grits than I had. The grits they sent me were
120x, 220x, 500x, 1200x. Using these grits and the new platters, I was
able to consistently grind a good primary bevel and secondary bevel. I
really like the 120x and 220x abrasives. The 120x is still pretty
fast, but not nearly as brutal as the 80x. It seems better for cases
where the bevel is already pretty close.

Like I said, using these new abrasives, the machine worked well. I
have become convinced that the problem I was having was related to
abrasive wear. I think what happened with my old 80x is that I
ventured near the edge of the disk, which was seldom used. The
abrasive was not worn down as much, so it cut much more aggressively.
That made the bevel not flat, which made it difficult for the 9 micron
reach the tip of the blade. This is not a phenomenon specific to this
machine. The other day I was using the Scary Sharp method with 15
micron paper and when I ventured too close to the edge of the abrasive,
which was new and sharp, much more metal came off part of that part of
the bevel. I have not yet worn out these new abrasive disks, so I
don't have a feel for how long they last.

I asked Lee Valley if there was a way to take the blade off the edge of
the platter or something similar to make the abrasive wear more evenly
and the answer was a sophisticated version of "not really."

Mark

LDR wrote:
To some extent it is that. The problem is, I think, the sandpaper wears
unevenly and quickly, and that's the source of the "out of square"
problems. (The sandpaper is not cheap and so far as I know you can only
buy it mailorder.)

I think the higher grits, 80x, 120x, etc. are just 8" Klingspor PSA
disks with a center hole punched out. The back of the nut in the
center can be used to punch out the hole in the middle. It looks to me
that that is the intended purpose of that little post. The finer
grits appear to be 3M micro-abrasives. In any case, you can buy from
sources other than LV, but the abrasives seem to be pretty expensive
everywhere.

I can't blame Lee-Valley for not making a $20,000 surface grinder for
almost $400, but if I could do it over again, I would buy a Tormek.

I think if I were to do it again, I would shape the bevel using either
a 1" belt sander, a course silicon carbide bench stone, or maybe good
quality sandpaper on glass. Then I would finish up with scary sharp.
I've come to believe that it is unrealistic for a machine to do the
whole thing. The machine should just be used to speed up the primary
bevel shaping.

Mark

In article . com,
says...

LDR wrote:
To some extent it is that. The problem is, I think, the sandpaper wears
unevenly and quickly, and that's the source of the "out of square"
problems. (The sandpaper is not cheap and so far as I know you can only
buy it mailorder.)

I think the higher grits, 80x, 120x, etc. are just 8" Klingspor PSA
disks with a center hole punched out. The back of the nut in the
center can be used to punch out the hole in the middle. It looks to me
that that is the intended purpose of that little post. The finer
grits appear to be 3M micro-abrasives. In any case, you can buy from
sources other than LV, but the abrasives seem to be pretty expensive
everywhere.

I can't blame Lee-Valley for not making a $20,000 surface grinder for
almost $400, but if I could do it over again, I would buy a Tormek.

I think if I were to do it again, I would shape the bevel using either
a 1" belt sander, a course silicon carbide bench stone, or maybe good
quality sandpaper on glass. Then I would finish up with scary sharp.
I've come to believe that it is unrealistic for a machine to do the
whole thing. The machine should just be used to speed up the primary
bevel shaping.

Mark

Good advice, Mark, about the abrasives, and thank you. About 3M. They
sell a Mylar designed for extreme polish but they are only available to
industrial sources which do not sell retail. At least that is what 3M
told me. (I wanted it for an Edgepro which I use for kitchen and pocket
knives.)

Not too long I read that the reason most people never learn to sharpen
to their own satisfaction is that they don't stick long enough to one
system. Those words should be illuminated with a picture of me. However,
I do have some redeeming sharpening value, after all. I have learned to
sharpen with a 1700rpm grinder and white wheel, waterstones and a honing
device, thanks in both cases to Lee Valley. My point is that just about
any system will get results; the problem is our inpatience which makes
us willing victims to the demon gimick purveyors in our society. There
probably isn't five minutes difference no matter which way you sharpen a
plane iron.

(For what it's worth: I have had success with the Veritas power grinder
in putting on the microbevel freehand. I do it very quickly and very
slightly and, for me, it come out much better looking and a lot less
aggravating than following the manual.)

LDR wrote:
Good advice, Mark, about the abrasives, and thank you. About 3M. They
sell a Mylar designed for extreme polish but they are only available to
industrial sources which do not sell retail. At least that is what 3M
told me. (I wanted it for an Edgepro which I use for kitchen and pocket
knives.)

You can buy the 3M mylar abrasives from Lee Valley, Tools for Working
Wood, or Japan Woodworker. You just get the PSA sheet and stick it on
the disk and then cut it out. (I did this with the 0.5 micron paper to
get a finer hone.) LV says their disks are aluminum oxide and the
other PSA films are silicon carbide. I'm not sure if that matters.

Mark

Mark,

I read with interest your most recent post. Veritas also sent me new
platters and the milder abrasives. Unfortunately, I didn't have as much
success as you and I'm still having problems. This became most noticeable
when trying to sharpen a 1 ½” Hock plane blade that was 3/16” thick. This
blade as you can imagine has no flex whatsoever and it is nearly impossible
to finesse it in order to straighten out the micro bevel. In this case the
micro bevel was nearly ¼” wide on one edge before a bevel started to appear
on the opposite edge. It was so bad in fact that I wound up having to
re-hone the edge on a water stone.

As I pointed out in my original post, I've measured a wobble of .005” at the
outside edge of the platter (actually ½” in from the outside edge). I spoke
to George Hammond at Veritas Tools and he told me this was within what they
consider a normal tolerance. I originally didn't think this would make much
difference, but after some additional thought it occurs to me that this
could make a significant difference and may well explain why the outside
edge of the blade is ground faster than the inside, resulting in the blade
not being square.

Let me try and explain. Assume for the sake of this example that the
downward pressure on the tool holder is constant and that the blade holder
is held stationary. On every revolution the outside edge (perimeter) of
the platter rises slightly and therefore applies more grinding force to the
outside edge of the blade. As the platter rotates through another 180
degrees the grinding force on the outside edge of blade is very slightly
reduced in relation to the inside edge, but because the relative velocity
at the inside edge is less (and the amount of wobble is also less as you
approach the center of the platter), the net result is that that outside
edge of the blade will still be ground faster. This would also explain why
it's easier to obtain a square edge on a ¾” chisel than a 2” wide plane
blade.

The reason that some users may have better luck than others may simply be
because their machines exhibit less platter wobble. Before I totally give
up on this thing, I'm going to shim the platter at the hub with some .001
brass shim stock and see if I can reduce the wobble. If I can and the
situation improves I'll be a very satisfied (and wiser) user. If not, it's
back to the water stones. As it stands right now, I can't recommend this
system to anyone.

Joel

On Jan 21, 11:15 pm, wrote:
If I can and the
situation improves I'll be a very satisfied (and wiser) user. If not, it's
back to the water stones. As it stands right now, I can't recommend this
system to anyone.

Joel,

It sounds like you are less satisfied now than your original post.
That's a bummer.

I have relegated my system to an expensive grinder. Steve Knight must
have said 100 times on this group that all the power sharpening
systems, Tormek, Makita, etc. are really just grinders and that if you
want to get sharp edges, you have to finish up by hand. I was hoping
the Veritas system would be different because it allows you to use
finer abrasives, but I think I'm wrong.

My current strategy, which I am still learning, is to grind the primary
bevel on the Veritas system and then hone by hand, making a secondary
bevel that is 5 degrees higher than the primary bevel. When I
resharpen, I just work on the secondary bevel (by hand). When the
secondary bevel gets too big, I go back to the Veritas and regrind the
primary. HOWEVER, I don't grind the primary all the way back to the
edge. I carefully watch the grinding progress to make sure that I
don't hit the edge of the blade. Using this scheme, the issues of
inconsistent grinding are much less of an issue.

Given my use of the Veritas, I think a 1" belt sander would have worked
just as well.

BTW, I tried a 4" belt sander, thinking that I could get a more
consistent bevel on a 2" blade than a 1" belt sander. The 4" sander
seemed to grind down the two corners of the bevel much faster than the
middle. I don't know if the paper was wrapping around the edge or
what, but I think with a 1" belt sander, you could much more easily
correct that by grinding more in the middle of the blade than at the
corners.

Mark

"Mark Wells" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Jan 21, 11:15 pm, wrote:
Steve Knight must
have said 100 times on this group that all the power sharpening
systems, Tormek, Makita, etc. are really just grinders

True, of course, using a wetstone is a grinding process too.

and that if you
want to get sharp edges, you have to finish up by hand.

Not at all true. Machine sharpened edges can be just as sharp as hand
sharpenend ones. The Tormek, in particular, takes care of that with the
leather wheel.

I was hoping
the Veritas system would be different because it allows you to use
finer abrasives, but I think I'm wrong.

I have had a Makita wet grinder for about 15 years. I have used it
primarily for sharpening my 8" joiner blades and it has served me
well. Occasionally I use a DMT diamond plate to flatten the 1000 grit
Makita original stone. When, in the past year, I moved to the scary
sharp system I started using a 1" belt sander and spent a lot of time
creating a jig that allowed me to get the bevel I was looking for. I
was never really satisfied with the belt sander for some the reasons
already mentioned in this thread. Now I use the Makita before moving
to my plate glass and mylar microabrasive sheets. I also use the
Veritas Mk II jig. The whole system works great and the Makita puts a
more polished finish on the primary bevel faster and with more ease
than the belt sander.

Joe

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:32:16 GMT, "CW" wrote:


"Mark Wells" wrote in message
roups.com...


On Jan 21, 11:15 pm, wrote:
Steve Knight must
have said 100 times on this group that all the power sharpening
systems, Tormek, Makita, etc. are really just grinders

True, of course, using a wetstone is a grinding process too.

and that if you
want to get sharp edges, you have to finish up by hand.

Not at all true. Machine sharpened edges can be just as sharp as hand
sharpenend ones. The Tormek, in particular, takes care of that with the
leather wheel.

I was hoping
the Veritas system would be different because it allows you to use
finer abrasives, but I think I'm wrong.

I agree with you that you can get a mighty sharp edge using a power
sharpening system. In fact I think the Veritas system does a fine job as
far as that goes, assuming you use the appropriate abrasives. My main
complaint with the system is and always has been that it's nearly impossible
to get a square edge, with a micro bevel that's anywhere near parallel to
the primary bevel, especially on wide, thick blades. Initially I didn't
think this was a big deal because the difference between the two bevels was
slight and easily overcome by applying a bit more pressure to one side of
the blade, or the other. Unfortunately, what I ultimately came to realize
was that the problem becomes far worse as the blades get wider and / or the
abrasives began to wear. As I pointed out in my last posting, the problem
became so bad on one of my 3/16” thick Hock plane irons (for a wooden plane)
that I had to revert back to my water stones.

Now I suppose I could forget the micro bevel and just work the entire
cutting surface of the blade at one angle, but that makes short work of the
9 micron disks, which are both expensive and a pain to replace. It also
does nothing to insure that the blade is ground square, which can be a real
problem in certain situations. An example that comes to mind is setting up
a precision wooden smoothing plane with limited lateral adjustment capacity
and tightly set chip breaker.

It might be possible to improve the results by using different abrasives,
tweaking the blade holder slightly, using both the left and right sides of
the platter, etc., but for nearly $400 I don't think I should have to. In
my opinion, at this price point I should receive a precision device, capable
of precision results, which the Veritas PSS certainly is not. As an aside,
it's interesting to note that the Lap Sharp, which is essentially the same
design, has none of these problems. In general, I'm a big fan of Veritas
products but I think they need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

On Jan 25, 9:17 am, wrote:

As an aside,
it's interesting to note that the Lap Sharp, which is essentially the same
design, has none of these problems.


Is this really true ? Do you know this from acual experience ?
I've been wondering if the Lap-Sharp was better in regard to
the issues we've been discussing here.
It certainly is more expensive.