New hand planes?

[D_W]

I can't help but feel that a lot of the "musts" (ruler/no ruler, strop/no strop etc.) are derived from a particular person's method of sharpening.

For example, looking at David's article here http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... uler_trick, the first few images neatly illustrate the problem with a worn stone causing a belly on the underside of the plane iron; meaning the edge cannot be hit after the stone is flattened. But... if a person only ever used abrasive sheets on glass, or diamond plates (which I understand stay flat), would that not render this whole bellying problem irrelevant?

My point being that any particular stage in a sharpening technique isn't always required/irrelevant in isolation; it's about the whole process you use.

Avoiding bellying and stone hollowing can be as simple as managing the stone while sharpening, but generally that requires freehanding. It certainly is more efficient than flattening stones every few items sharpened.

 

[swagman]

Watch this video from 10.30 min. to see how complex sharpening a plane iron needs to be; also note the top surface of the stone looks to be slightly bellied.

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/la-suisse-au- ... 64421#t=27

Stewie;

 

[Jacob]

Watch this video from 10.30 min. to see how complex sharpening a plane iron needs to be; also note the top surface of the stone looks to be slightly bellied.

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/la-suisse-au- ... 64421#t=27

Stewie;

Yep. Just a few seconds. No effin about! Actually I'd take a lot longer myself, say 30 seconds to a minute.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Watch this video from 10.30 min. to see how complex sharpening a plane iron needs to be; also note the top surface of the stone looks to be slightly bellied.

http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/la-suisse-au- ... 64421#t=27

Stewie;

Yep. Just a few seconds. No effin about! Actually I'd take a lot longer myself, say 30 seconds to a minute.

I suppose we should make allowances for your more advanced years..... ( :wink: :lol

Slightly more seriously, If you want a cambered blade, I guess a slightly dished stone is actually very handy.

Cheers, W2S

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Slightly more seriously, If you want a cambered blade, I guess a slightly dished stone is actually very handy.

Cheers, W2S

That is, indeed, a perfectly valid point of view.

Another point of view is that a stone dished across it's width is a severe impediment to to a 'straight across' edge such as that required for a rebate plane iron. Flat stones can be used to sharpen cambered blades and 'straight' ones, and are therefore more versatile.

Personally, I veer to the latter point of view; I've found by experience that it makes life easier in the end.

Each to their own, however!

 

[sploo]

Avoiding bellying and stone hollowing can be as simple as managing the stone while sharpening, but generally that requires freehanding. It certainly is more efficient than flattening stones every few items sharpened.

Indeed, but, again, my point is about specific techniques for specific hardware. As an extreme example; imagine talking to a guy that had only ever sharpened using abrasive sheets on flat glass plates and had never even heard of stones - the whole "world" of flattening stones, bellies on blades etc would be entirely alien to him, and anyone discussing techniques for tackling that (bellied blade) would seem to be talking nonsense (based on his contextual understanding).

What I see in sharpening discussions is people describing (and sometimes promoting) steps as being really useful/important (and sometimes even magic bullets), but without perhaps the necessary disclaimer of "I sharpen using these steps/tools; if you're new to sharpening and you're using these other methods then some steps in what I'm describing won't be relevant to you". The problem is that noobs see a magic bullet and get confused about whether or not they need it.

 

[Jacob]

..... The problem is that noobs see a magic bullet and get confused about whether or not they need it.

You don't need it! There are no magic bullets.
The jig looks like a good one, but in fact makes sharpening more difficult and generates all these endless discussions and the vast collection of solutions to the jig problem (flatness being No 1). Good for sales though!

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Sploo, you are correct. There are many methods of sharpening (and what does it matter which one you choose as long as your edges are sharp). Experience may tell you whether a method is efficient or not. Observations, based on experience, may be offered to make it more efficient. This works as long as the observations are about THAT method, and are not a recommendation to change to another method ... which ends up as a personally taken criticism.

Regards from Yorkshire

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

The ad hoc approach gives rise to the need for tearing off wire edges in endgrain and stropping.

Accurate waterstone methods do not.

I am always astonished by the amount of time Paul Sellers spends on stropping. (Was it 50 strokes on each side?)

David

The manner in which Sellers uses a (too heavily?) charged strop is more as a finishing stone than anything else. The overall method seems fast enough to be used in a professional or school setting however.

 

[David C]

Jacob like concavity, hollow, in the length of a new chisel, as this aids quick removal of grinding marks near the edge. We all do!

Presumably he does not like convexity, which I was taught to call belly. He advises sending these back to manufacturer. So do I.

He fails to see that identical issues apply to plane blades.

David Charlesworth

 

[Trafalgar]

If bellied tools are sent back to the manufacturer, leaving either flat or concave backs, then there is no real need for any sort of workaround it seems to me. Just register the back flat on the stone and polish away.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob like concavity, hollow, in the length of a new chisel, as this aids quick removal of grinding marks near the edge. We all do!

yes. But over the years this gets lost and you get very slightly nearer to convex. Slightly more difficult to sharpen (lift, but not as much as "the ruler trick" etc) but otherwise matters not a jot, plane or chisel.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I suppose it comes down to your general outlook.

Are you the type of woodworker who regards near enough as good enough, or are you the type who tries to systematically eliminate obstacles to doing the best work you can achieve?

Also - which of those approaches is appropriate in different circumstances?

 

[Jacob]

Good enough is all you need. Anything more is a waste of time by definition.
If there was any evidence that the slight convexity of a well used chisel or plane blade was a problem, then you'd have a point. But there isn't and you don't.

 

[D_W]

Avoiding bellying and stone hollowing can be as simple as managing the stone while sharpening, but generally that requires freehanding. It certainly is more efficient than flattening stones every few items sharpened.

Indeed, but, again, my point is about specific techniques for specific hardware. As an extreme example; imagine talking to a guy that had only ever sharpened using abrasive sheets on flat glass plates and had never even heard of stones - the whole "world" of flattening stones, bellies on blades etc would be entirely alien to him, and anyone discussing techniques for tackling that (bellied blade) would seem to be talking nonsense (based on his contextual understanding).

What I see in sharpening discussions is people describing (and sometimes promoting) steps as being really useful/important (and sometimes even magic bullets), but without perhaps the necessary disclaimer of "I sharpen using these steps/tools; if you're new to sharpening and you're using these other methods then some steps in what I'm describing won't be relevant to you". The problem is that noobs see a magic bullet and get confused about whether or not they need it.

I understand what you're saying. I think, though, that there is too much talk about method and how that yields results. There are certain subtleties that you come up with on your own if you aren't pinned to following paint by numbers, and sharp just is. It's not because of method, it's because we should be able (without analyzing point by point) to look at a tool, decide what we want the profile to be and just make it sharp.

There's a short leap when we're beginners where equipment is probably helpful. If we are going to branch out beyond flat irons and chisels, it's a real hindrance, and I can't think of much worse than getting extremely method specific about every tool instead of just visualizing what we want the tool profile to be and then don't worry so much how we get it - experience and desire for economy will get us there.

As far as films, I think in order to stay away from bench stones, etc, someone has to do a fairly limited amount of work. Sooner or later if you start sharpening profiled irons and gouges, you will get tired of slicing films or limiting yourself to the harsh feel that glass backed films and papers have when the contact point is very small.

There are tons of concepts that everyone wants to master - you take someone who goes out and buys submicron grit and then they read all of this stuff about removing the wire edge after they're done, and they'll have no idea what it is. It may be a waste of time for them to even think about it, but someone on the forums will get them tied up in it. It (sharpening) should be subtle, quick, successful, whatever the method.

 

[D_W]

Good enough is all you need. Anything more is a waste of time by definition.
If there was any evidence that the slight convexity of a well used chisel or plane blade was a problem, then you'd have a point. But there isn't and you don't.

It's hard for beginners to manage subtleties, that's about all there is. It's a mistake to talk about things on a sliding scale with folks who spend most of their time teaching beginners who cannot yet think for themselves.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Good enough is all you need. Anything more is a waste of time by definition.
If there was any evidence that the slight convexity of a well used chisel or plane blade was a problem, then you'd have a point. But there isn't and you don't.

How good is 'good enough'? What do you need to do to achieve it in different circumstances? Does someone fitting out starter homes need the same tools maintained the same way as someone making fine furniture to the highest standards? How about someone making Sussex trugs, or repairing 18th century marquetry museum pieces? Do they all need the same tools prepared and maintained the same way? I think not. 'Good enough' is different in different circumstances, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Jacob]

..... 'Good enough' is different in different circumstances, ....

Well obviously.
NB you can achieve a very high degree of sharpness with the trad freehand methods and materials - the new sharpening doesn't do anything extra in this respect in spite of the 1000s of different technique details, the millions of words and the vast array of expensive kit.

 

[memzey]

Just a quick question here on how people test their edge tools for their "sharp enough" standard after sharpening; I would count myself as a beginner as I've only been doing woodwork as a hobby for the past year or so. I sharpen freehand on some old oil stones I bought for 50p each at boot fairs and some charged leather glued to a block of wood. With a typical plane iron this takes me about a minute or so including the strop. I then attempt to dry shave some hairs on my arm. If I'm successful without pulling any hairs I think to myself "memzey that's sharp enough" then reassemble the plane and get cracking again. Is this what most people do as well?

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I just use my fingernail/fingertip. If I started shaving my arms, Mrs W2S might start to wonder....