Duffed Eclipse 36 Honing Guide

[xy mosian]

Today I duffed my Eclipse 36. I hadn't checked that the wheel would rotate before using it on a diamond plate. Result? A flat on the wheel. Now it is probably not worth repairing, but I've had it a long time and grown attached to it. To be fair a clone I bought a couple of years ago is reasonable having only a little more play in the guide rods, but I would like to explore the possibilities of a repair.

Would someone with an Eclipse 36 please measure the wheel diameter as I'm getting variable results from my Sketchup drawings and what is left of the real thing. That way I can look into a new part being made.

Thanks in advance, and please check the free rotation of the wheel on yours.

xy

 

[mtt.tr]

If you give me the diamiter i will turn you one

 

[bugbear]

I've not seen that on an Eclipse before - somehow they made the bearing to survive the grinding paste that is the inevitable side effect of sharpening.

The Record #161 honing guide with the ball though - that's normally seen with the ball looking like a disco mirror ball - lots of little flat surfaces!

BugBear (expecting Jacob shortly)

 

[xy mosian]

mtt.tr. That is extremely generous of you, I'll take you up on that just as soon as I get the information.

bugbear. The point is that, once stripped, I found all the gunge between the wheel and its axle, it stuck just too long. Should clean it out, , many years of sawdust and a little oil. Of course once a small flat is formed it just keeps on getting bigger, especially on a course diamond plate.

xy

 

[Benchwayze]

Over the years, wouldn't a stone reduce the wheel diameter anyway? Evenly, of course.

I know Eclipse made things to last, so I wonder what grade of steel would have been used for the wheel.

Because my hands are starting to shake more than a fresh made jelly, I am having to use a honing guide. I chose a Veritas though!

John

 

[xy mosian]

You may be right John, and that may be the reason for some of the dispcrepencies I'm getting with the maths. Of course it could also be me. Personally I would think that there should be no wear at the point of contact between the wheel and the stone, as in a car tyre. Unless there is slippage between the two, the contact is effectively on and off.
As for the material I have just put a file, nothing fancy, across the flat and it took no effort to make a groove with the corner. Now then have I worn away a surface?
Perhaps someone with a long used example would like to see if there are signs of wear, or not.

xy

 

[Benchwayze]

Mos.

If you can get the wheel off, could you fix it onto a rod. Chuck it in a drill, and whiz it around with a file against it until it's circular again. It would be smaller in diameter, but you would just need to recalibrate the distance you project the blade for the angles. There's loads'a stuff on the forum about that I shouldn't wonder. How much is a new Eclipse Guide btw, in case my drastic measure messes it up!
John

 

[Paul Chapman]

I have three of them but can only find two at the moment. One measures 18.9mm and the other 18.8mm. One has had many years more use than the other, so you could say that wear is not an issue.

Hope this helps.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[xy mosian]

John, good idea that, sadly the if I turn the wheel to the diameter of the flat then the castings would rub on the stone, well very nearly. I'll take mtt.tr up on his very kind offer. I priced a new model, different casting these days, from memory £12 and a few pence at Buck and Hickman.

Paul, brilliant brilliant. Those are the diameters I came up with by scaling from a photograph. 18.5mm actually but certainly near enough.

Onto sketchup to make up a drawing and then to contact mtt.tr again.

Thanks all for your help.

xy

 

[RogerP]

Just to spoil the party. I've measured my virtually unused one and it's 19.06mm - which is 3/4". As these things were made back in "those" days I guess that's the original size.

 

[xy mosian]

Roger, you havn't spoilt the party at all. Now I know I will upset some about here. But the measured wheels, I had a little difficulty picking one edge in the 'photo, vary from 18.8mm. to 19.06mm. on the diameter. Now by my reckoning that is about 5 thous of an inch on the radius total variation. Well within manufacturing tolerances to my mind. The contensious bit? I cannot see that making a ha'porth of difference to the angle at the sharp end. There I've said it.
I agree about the 3/4" original bar size, I just wonder how easy it would be to mount a bar in such a way that a hole could be drilled on centre. A great deal easier to mount and then trim the outside as well.

Thanks for taking the trouble to measure your guide.
On with the drawing!

xy

 

[xy mosian]

mtt.tr. p.m. sent as I now have all dimensions.

xy

 

[RogerP]

I agree about the 3/4" original bar size, I just wonder how easy it would be to mount a bar in such a way that a hole could be drilled on centre. A great deal easier to mount and then trim the outside as well.
xy

I would think it easiest to take it down to size from a slightly larger bar.

 

[xy mosian]

I agree Roger, at least that's the way I would do it given the tackle.

xy

 

[toolsntat]

I agree about the 3/4" original bar size, I just wonder how easy it would be to mount a bar in such a way that a hole could be drilled on centre.

xy

Floating 3 jaw chuck on pillar drill bed
Put a piece of round steel in drill chuck
Lower round steel into floating chuck and tighten
Do NOT start up drill :roll: :lol:
Floating 3 jaw chuck is now centred to drill
Clamp floating chuck in position on drill bed
Release round steel, insert drill , 3/4 bar and drill

Must admit it was holes through wooden balls that the above method was used for but with careful working practice a good result should avail in steel :wink:

Andy

 

[mtt.tr]

This is about a 5 minute job on the lathe so no sweat

 

[bugbear]

Well within manufacturing tolerances to my mind. The contensious bit? I cannot see that making a ha'porth of difference to the angle at the sharp end. There I've said it.

Absolute bevel angles don't matter that much - a couple of degrees tolerance is probably allowable. Further, the Eclipse design varies the angle anyway (slightly) with the thickness of the blade being sharpened.

Not contentious at all, so don't worry.

Speaking personally, I wouldn't have put this much effort into repairing a #36; they're widely available and cheap (at car boots), but sometimes a successful project is its own reward.

BugBear

 

[xy mosian]

Hi Andy, I'd not thought of that suggestion. My thinking was based around production techniques and wondering just how accurate self centring three jaw lathe chucks were. I discounted independant jaws as taking too long to set up.

Bugbear, I'm not worried about the absolute angles at all, there may be some who are. Seldom do I have need to accurately control the various bevel angles, normally working to "It's sharp, it'll do me". I agree about worthiness of a repair with this '36. I don't get to boot sales so I do not often come across other examples. Had things been different then perhaps a repair would not have been attempted. Still, as you suggested, I feel better having fixed it. It is only a hobby after all, for me.

xy

 

[toolsntat]

An earlier model of this guide used to have the clamping notches the other way up so the chisel face was always at the same trigonometric position 8)
Why they changed it I'll never know,does anyone :?:

Andy