Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
By D_W
#1333027
MikeG. wrote:
dannyr wrote:Mike and D_W

maybe cool it?.........


Erm.......you'll notice that the last post from me was 2 days ago. And that DW & I are having a civil exchange in another thread. Your message is unnecessary.


I'm not offended by the way. I usually learn something from people who are willing to engage in stiff discussion. We know all kinds of things about each other now, and if I had an architecture question, I would head right to you for advice, even if you referred to me as twit yankee!
By D_W
#1333029
Jacob wrote::lol:
He's persuaded me that I must try harder! I've been having a go with fine Arkansas stones for a change. They are very slow but OK on small chisels. They bring up a shine very quickly which proves that they work even though the tool seems to slide over without much feel of abrasion. This seems to sort sheep from goats - you can actually see better when an edge is going and some tools hold the edge better than others.


Slow, but perfect for the method that I described because the slowness allows you to work a tiny tip only, still get the benefits and not grind off a steep facet that is troublesome on the next go around.

Fine ark stones cut slightly harder carbon steel finely and less hard steel less finely. A good tool for estimating the hardness of steels, and at the same time separate the fine work irons (like ward) from site irons that were specified to be fast to sharpen.

The relatively soft abrasive in them makes them cut off uniform scratches with sharp peaks, but then be not so effective at further flattening an area with large polished spots.
By D_W
#1333031
G S Haydon wrote:I'll try and keep my response quick!

I have followed David's online info for a while. Anyone who takes the time to post a whole series on making a jack plane, and further to that they are superb gets my attention. In addition he's made infills and tried out a whole bunch of stuff. He made a couple of planes for a chap called Brian Holcombe (a very fine furniture maker) for the fun of it. He's hard to keep up with though!

He has also stated that he didn't like modern steels very much. From what I can work out, he's saying that some of the modern steels he was not keen on, he is now on board with them. He's also seeing the benefit of honing to a higher level and wanting to pass that on. He just likes to do it with a lot of evidence!

I hope he keeps posting, even though it's pretty heavy going at times :)


Much appreciated, Graham.

You're correct that I had a severe bias toward carbon steel, and the big surprise was that v11 turns out to be true to the marketing hype. It's the only steel i can think of that provides benefits outweighing detriments for most users vs a carbon steel iron. It's still going to be a no for most without power grinders, though, as the grinding resistance is proportional to its longevity performance and it has twice as long in the wood to find unexpected damage.

And important to note separately, I don't think it's a "must buy" for anyone despite living up to its claims. I hate that kind of mentality and the assumption that goes along with it ("you should have my preferences")

As is typical for me, though, I didn't replace my own irons with more lv irons, I took advantage of the xrf results to find the steel type and then made my own and have given some away with a more classic aesthetic.
By SammyQ
#1333187
The numerical data is on planed length and weight planed. It is not a two standard deviation observation with 95% confidence, it's data from the result of trials.


And therein lies the rub.

David, I echo Graham Haydon. You have provided a great deal of information and pointed out how two empirical studies parallel your observations. I, for one, applaud your efforts and will benefit from your interpretations. I have a strong understanding of 95% C.L., two-tailed testing, ANOVA, residuals, n-axes orthogonal residuals, yada yada...they are not moot here, (but I can see MikeG's argument that they should be, albeit with a more intensive data set). You posted observations (with some empirical data) in the same manner as the school of Darwin, William Cobbett, Konrad Lorenz et al, then drew attention to (scientific method) parallel studies allied to your work. I, for one, am happy that you have demythed some accepted canons of sharpening lore and clarified and made more straightforward a common chore.

Thank you.

Sam
By SammyQ
#1333289
Jacob, I dont know the last three authors you mention, sorry. My three were lumped together simply because they were notable for observing and recording - in some detail - the world around them. I reckoned David W had emulated them.
Sam
By SammyQ
#1333370
Yup. 'E were a rural vicar or curate, BUT...his natural history recorded notes were on a par with, say, Sir Peter Scott. For Cobett's time period, that is remarkable.
I like appropriate words accurately used and in a minimalist context for clear transmission of information.
I'm also fond of word play, so maybe I'll give your recommendations a try. In return, please try Ngaio Marsh?

Sam
By D_W
#1333399
SammyQ wrote:
The numerical data is on planed length and weight planed. It is not a two standard deviation observation with 95% confidence, it's data from the result of trials.


And therein lies the rub.

David, I echo Graham Haydon. You have provided a great deal of information and pointed out how two empirical studies parallel your observations. I, for one, applaud your efforts and will benefit from your interpretations. I have a strong understanding of 95% C.L., two-tailed testing, ANOVA, residuals, n-axes orthogonal residuals, yada yada...they are not moot here, (but I can see MikeG's argument that they should be, albeit with a more intensive data set). You posted observations (with some empirical data) in the same manner as the school of Darwin, William Cobbett, Konrad Lorenz et al, then drew attention to (scientific method) parallel studies allied to your work. I, for one, am happy that you have demythed some accepted canons of sharpening lore and clarified and made more straightforward a common chore.

Thank you.

Sam


Thanks, sam - it's a bit of a false assumption that a statistically complete (to the level of confidence you'd like) trial would be more useful than trials of this type, anyway. here's why:
* it can't even be assumed that my results in beech will be directly applicable to other woods
* it can't be assumed years later that irons from retailers will be identical
* it can't be assumed that my test of 2 1/2 to 3 thousandth targeted shavings implies the same thing for thick shavings or thinner (who knows?)

A real studied look at what's going on makes it so that you could only conclude that you could perform the same test and get the same result when we're just working wood, and it won't be identical to the test. We really want to know if we spend the extra $12, are we getting our money's worth out of V11 (probably), or if we spend the same and get A2 assuming that it's substantially superior (probably not - I think it's more favorable for the maker than the user). Or can we say that the highly alloyed irons don't do as good of a job (as uniform) - I don't think we can say that, but my experience even with a guide (for control in the study) is that I consistently came up short getting all of the damage out of the very tough irons and they were mostly sharpened under the scope, but not completely - i'd guess that most of the things people conclude about quality problems with decent irons have to do with improper sharpening.

Before we run off and plane half a million feet in a single type of test (so that we can be all knowing and shout down any other observations), we have to understand the value of the data we're collecting and what it's useful for. These plane iron tests are useful for the observations gained in their context. If I were to publish all of this stuff, some groups of people would view them and say "I'm getting the V11 chisels, they last twice as long"

(despite the fact that I didn't test any chisels and other tests that show no real advantage in plane wear for high end japanese steel show the opposite for chisels - they're really hard to beat with modern process high alloy stuff).
By D_W
#1333416
Cheshirechappie wrote:Well - you learn something every day! I never knew that Charles Darwin and William Cobbett had opinions on sharpening!

But hey, why not? Almost everybody else does. :lol:


This isn't an opinion thread.
By Cheshirechappie
#1333430
D_W wrote:
Cheshirechappie wrote:Well - you learn something every day! I never knew that Charles Darwin and William Cobbett had opinions on sharpening!

But hey, why not? Almost everybody else does. :lol:


This isn't an opinion thread.


That's only your opinion....