Honing a flat back and easy honing of a bevel

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

lwilliams

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
The thread on the barkwindjammer sharpening is long and this is a bit of a topic change so I thought I'd start a different thread. First a couple quotes that spawned this post:

Paul Chapman":30m777hw said:
barkwindjammer":30m777hw said:
It takes no more exertion to hone the face (back) than it does the bevel

BWJ, I think your proposal to hone just the back (flat side) of the blade is fundamentally flawed. If you look carefully at a plane blade that is blunt, you will see that the sharp edge has become rounded. That roundness is on both faces of the blade and must be removed to create a sharp edge. You won't be able to do this by honing just the flat side of the blade (unless you use something like the ruler trick but that is not what we are discussing here). The only practical way of removing the roundness from both sides of the blade is to hone the bevel. You will be able to feel when it has been removed as it will create a burr on the flat side of the blade.
Cheers :wink:
Paul

David C":30m777hw said:
So do I. (Flawed)

More effort will be required because the area of the flat side is much greater than that of the bevel. Therefore more metal will have to be removed.

David Charlesworth

It doesn't take any more effort. In fact, it takes less effort. If one takes care of their sharpening stones and tools, things get pretty easy. If you keep the stones flat and the faces of the tools flat, each sharpening is actually doing the prep work for subsequent sharpening. Abrasives are actually a collection of tiny cutting edges and, like all cutting edges, they get dull. Water stones and white or pink grinding wheels are more friable than oil stones or normal grinding stones so the expose fresh abrasive on their own. The problem with this is that the friable abrasives lose their shape quickly and it's very difficult to maintain the desired shape. Dressing oil stones and grey wheels keeps the abrasive fresh and careful dressing maintains proper flatness or shape.

If you keep the tool's face flat and your stones flat, you'll instantly be working the whole face of the tool when you work on the flat face. The same goes for when you switch to a finer grit stone. There's no wasted time and effort getting the steel to conform to an out of flat stone.

Here's a photo of the wear bevel that forms on the face of a middle pitch single iron. This particular iron is 1 5/8" wide and has been used on beech:

wear-bevel.jpg


It's easy to see the bright line at the cutting edge. This wear bevel is very shallow in its penetration into the face of the iron but is considerably longer in its length streaming back from the cutting edge.

Yesterday Don and I had the chance to see what it would take to remove the wear bevel. I've always said three or four passes on a freshly dressed medium India stone. Don has been teaching a young guy to prepare stock by hand and our middle pitch trying plane had two days of pretty heavy use in poplar. This is the 2 1/4" wide iron as it came out of the plane:

face_wear1.jpg


The discoloration in both these photos, I believe, is caused by wood particles adhering to the steel through adhesive wear. The bright wear bevel is where the heat generated by viscoelastic compression of the wood acts as a catalyst to adhesive wear to the metal and metal particles actually adhere to the wood causing the dulling wear. The color of the wood particles is due to being scorched by the heat. Beech, being more dense, generates more heat so the iron that planed the beech has a darker discoloration.

Don honed the iron while I watched. He prefers to use a fine India as his coarse stone when honing but asked if I wanted him to use a medium India because it would remove the wear faster. I told him I wanted him to hone just like he usually does. It took two passes on a 2" X 8" fine India stone to remove the wear. Not forward and back but just single forward passes. At least he thought he had all the wear gone. I asked him to take a third pass just to make sure because three passes are no big deal and I wanted to be able to post a larger photo if anyone asked.

Here's the iron after those three passes:

face_wear2.jpg


The wear bevel is removed all the way to the cutting edge. A fine India is about the same as a 400 grit water stone and the abrasive signatures from the stone run across the iron. What looks like it might be abrasive signatures running the length of the iron is residual oil because that's the direction he wiped the blade. It only takes another three or four passes to remove the abrasive signatures of even a medium India stone when using a freshly dressed translucent hard Arkansas. The translucent stone is about the same as a 6000 grit water stone.

I have no idea how many passes it would take to remove about 1/32" of steel if just working on the bevel but it would be a lot if you hone the whole bevel.

I don't hone the whole bevel. I grind at 25º and hone at about 30º. I grind to keep the honed bevel small, never grinding all the way to the edge unless I have major damage to repair. Those times I do grind at the edge, I do it at 90º to the face of the iron and then restore the bevel but always leaving a small 90º flat to be honed away. I only use coarse (36 grit) grey grinding wheel I keep well dressed.

Here's the honed bevel after grinding to manage its size:

hone1.jpg


As you can see it's about 1/32". I regrind to shrink the honed bevel when it gets to much more than 1/16". I raise a wire edge when honing the bevel in a pass or two. You don't need to waste time tinkering with a honing guide for a pass or two, it's easy to maintain an accurate enough honing angle for just a pass or two. I only use two stones, and India and a translucent. I to strop but only a pass or two to remove any remnants of a wire edge.

Honing doesn't have to be tedious or slow. It's only a few seconds from dull to sharp using this traditional method. Two stones fit in an area less than a square foot and the stones are boxed so it's just a matter of lifting off the lids and dressing the two stones to set up. Clean-up is just a matter of wiping the stones and putting the lids back on the stones. You are never dealing with more liquid than you can quickly wipe up with a single wipe.
 
The thinking behind the ruler trick is exactly the same as Larry, and so many other craftsmen, apply to the bevelled side.

Why polish large areas of metal that are not cutting? The ruler trick polishes a narrow band of back, adjacent to the edge, probably not wider than 1 to 1.5 mm. (Never for chisels).

Good grief ! A fine stone of 400 grit? When starting to flatten a blade we only use 800grit. My edges are polished on both sides with 8,000grit and the electron microscope photos in Leonard Lee's book "Sharpening) clearly show a smoother edge than from Arkansas stones. No wonder the traditional tradesman liked a strop.

The ruler trick has no trouble removing the wear bevel on the flat side, though if a blade had been used for far too long it might need to be repeated. (Recently I have been checking this with a microscope). I raise a wire edge by working the bevel on an 800 grit stone, and then raise the angle by about 2 degrees before polishing the front of this bevel on an 8,000 stone. A short burst of ruler trick completes the edge. A simple side clamping honing guide is very helpful for being sure about these angles.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth
 
Everybody who's blades make such shavings is the winner.

wear-bevel.jpg


Regardless of the method.

Cheers Pedder
 
It's not quite "exactly the same," David. The goal of working on the flat face is to remove dubbing at the edge. The dubbing can be caused by dulling wear, out of flat honing medium or it can be self-inflected and intentional like with the ruler trick. Intentional dubbing has to be bigger than the dulling wear for it to be effective. It also has to be removed at each sharpening or it becomes an ever growing time bomb that introduces uncertainty and makes results less predictable. If you have to remove it at each sharpening, why put it there? Especially when dulling wear is so easy to remove in the first place and introducing more dubbing requires one to waste time tinkering around with unnecessary paraphernalia.

I'm often amused by people examining woodworking cutting edges under microscopes and with micro photography. I never see micro photographs of the results of cutting edges on wood surfaces. I guess it all depends on one's ultimate goal in sharpening. I prefer my sharpening to be as fast and simple as possible so that it's not a barrier to working with sharp tools.
 
lwilliams":tn1kui49 said:
It's not quite "exactly the same," David. The goal of working on the flat face is to remove dubbing at the edge. The dubbing can be caused by dulling wear, out of flat honing medium or it can be self-inflected and intentional like with the ruler trick. Intentional dubbing has to be bigger than the dulling wear for it to be effective. It also has to be removed at each sharpening or it becomes an ever growing time bomb that introduces uncertainty and makes results less predictable. If you have to remove it at each sharpening, why put it there? Especially when dulling wear is so easy to remove in the first place and introducing more dubbing requires one to waste time tinkering around with unnecessary paraphernalia.

I'm often amused by people examining woodworking cutting edges under microscopes and with micro photography. I never see micro photographs of the results of cutting edges on wood surfaces. I guess it all depends on one's ultimate goal in sharpening. I prefer my sharpening to be as fast and simple as possible so that it's not a barrier to working with sharp tools.

Exactly :wink:
 
lwilliams":2yaiwbes said:
It also has to be removed at each sharpening or it becomes an ever growing time bomb that introduces uncertainty and makes results less predictable.

Hi Larry,

I understand your thinking, but in practice you remove some of the length of the ruler trick bevel each time you hone the bevelled side, so the ruler trick bevel always remains small.

But the secondary on the bevelled side grows doesn't it...? True, but over its life a plane iron it gets substantially shorter than it does thinner - as do chisels, therefore much more material must be being removed from the length than the thickness with each sharpening.

The advantage of working such a very small area is that it makes it easy to completely replace the scratch pattern of the preceding grit, so the part of the surface that counts - the bit that forms the cutting edge is as refined as the abrasive you are using is capable of. I'm sorry but your photographs don't suggest a true mirror finish on any of the surfaces except perhaps the secondary bevel.

The ruler trick is no more likely to behave in the same way as dubbing than the secondary bevel is. Dubbing caused by wear is rounded, a very shallow back bevel or secondary bevel caused by abrasion is flat.
 
Well Larry I am so glad that you are amused. Unfortunately your attitude is rather indicative of a closed mind.

The thinking is "exactly the same". Grinding allows honing of a narrow bevel, ruler trick allows polishing of a narrow area of the back.

I suspected it was a mistake to post. It is clear that you do not understand the ruler trick. The wear bevel is removed perfectly satisfactorily. There are no ticking time bombs. The results are totally predictable and repeatable.

A number of considerably talented woodworkers use and promote the ruler trick; Chris Schwarz, Rob Cosman and Deneb who demonstrates for L-N. I expect they are all missguided as well?

David Charlesworth

And I won't be wasting any more energy on this fruitless dissagreement. People are welcome to use whatever sharpening method they like. I am amused, mystified and irritated by people who choose to write missleading bullshit about methods which clearly and demonstrably work very well indeed.
 
lwilliams":3ja1b52p said:
I'm often amused by people examining woodworking cutting edges under microscopes and with micro photography. I never see micro photographs of the results of cutting edges on wood surfaces.
As possibly one of the worst offenders in this regard I'm reminded of the apocryphal story of a cardinal declining to look through Galileo’s telescope to see the evidence for Galileo’s discoveries. I’ve learned a lot by using my microscope and would like to share some recent results.

For years I’ve been curious about the shape of the worn surface at the very tip of the blade. If you slice through a worn edge and look at it from the side under high magnification, what does it look like? Recently I found out by using a shoulder plane to put progressively more wear on a blade and making images of the blade corner at each stage. The area of wear is roughly the size of the cross-section of a human hair. Here’s the set of images I came up with:

TipComposite.jpg


Using Photoshop I extracted curves showing the worn edge profiles and put them together in this composite:

ProgressiveEdgeWearDiagram.gif


Here’s the same information put together to show the loss of clearance due to these edge shapes:

ClearanceLossDiagram02.gif


Knowing how much metal has been lost from the upper and lower surfaces of the blade is useful in developing an efficient sharpening method. Honing the bevel until a wire edge is raised isn’t enough to get past the entire worn area on the upper surface of the blade. Anyone who has raised a wire edge and then found it difficult to hone it off with a few strokes on the blade back can see why this is so.

As for examining the surfaces produced on wood, a microscope isn't necessary--don't think I haven't tried. The desirable effects of a sharp edge can be seen and felt and so can surface defects caused by a dull one.

I’m not suggesting a microscope is necessary for developing good sharpening technique but interest in what a microscope can reveal might be helpful.
 
Steve Elliott":14ifyhrb said:
..... ..
I’m not suggesting a microscope is necessary for developing good sharpening technique but interest in what a microscope can reveal might be helpful.
There's always a conspicuous omission in these discussions. What about looking at the wood being planed? WIP etc?
DC is huffing and puffing - show us yer WIP Dave, Steve, Larry et al!
 
David C":261qtmwy said:
A number of considerably talented woodworkers use and promote the ruler trick; Chris Schwarz, Rob Cosman and Deneb who demonstrates for L-N. I expect they are all missguided as well?

High profile perhaps, whilst specialising in the promotion/endorsement/sale of tools, books, dvd's, etc.. Quite a few useful tips, but nothing new.

The ruler trick is a trick of the trade that's as old as the hills (The old method involved the use of veneer in place of a rule) and nothing new as a means of improving a blade's effective cutting rake or overcoming defects on the front of an iron - such as dubbing. An excessive degree of dubbing on an iron's edge between whettings tends to - apart from an over soft edge - indicate a shortfall in honing frequency, or - in other words - poor iron maintenance. The ruler trick can overcome this defect, but the real answer is more frequent whetting of the cutting edge with the secondary bevel kept to a minimum in comparison to the primary bevel. Ye olde worlde common workshop practice. :)
 
Steve Elliott":2azhcxzb said:
I’m not suggesting a microscope is necessary for developing good sharpening technique but interest in what a microscope can reveal might be helpful.

A microscope is a splendid tool for understanding and developing techniques, which can then (often) be applied without a microscope.

I'm using yours for this very purpose...

BugBear
 
Steve Elliott":1r5kobh7 said:
lwilliams":1r5kobh7 said:
I'm often amused by people examining woodworking cutting edges under microscopes and with micro photography. I never see micro photographs of the results of cutting edges on wood surfaces.
As possibly one of the worst offenders in this regard I'm reminded of the apocryphal story of a cardinal declining to look through Galileo’s telescope to see the evidence for Galileo’s discoveries. I’ve learned a lot by using my microscope and would like to share some recent results...

Actually Steve, you're the exception. I have a file on my computer where I keep a lot of the stuff you put up. You've changed some of what I believe but reinforced a lot more. I find your post in this thread very helpful and that it confirms much of what I believe. Frequent sharpening is the most effective way to ensure good results and removing barriers to quick sharpening is key to frequent sharpening.

I learn a lot from various discussions and make an effort to understand what people say. I'm not so invested in an agenda that I dismiss people that disagree with me. I started this thread because of comments about how difficult it is to remove the wear bevel on the flat face of a plane iron by working on the flat face. That's just not true, it's the easiest, fastest approach and it's the traditional approach that evolved of centuries.
 
lwilliams wrote:
I find your post in this thread very helpful and that it confirms much of what I believe.
Back in July you posted on WoodCentral, "You're the one with very fine measuring capability, maybe there's a way to measure what I'm talking about. The depth of the wear bevel into the steel is incredibly shallow, probably quite a bit less than 1/10th the length of the wear bevel."

That was what motivated me to finally do the test with the shoulder plane. It surprised me how much of the wear was on the upper surface of the blade. As you can see in the diagram, with increasing wear the tip of the blade gradually approaches the upper surface of the blade. Most published images of worn blades are based on power tool blades and show a much larger amount of wear on the clearance surface. With hand tools sharpening becomes necessary long before this condition is reached.

My preferred method for sharpening plane blades is with a very narrow back bevel (about .010") which is enough to remove the wear from the upper surface without polishing a large area. With the abrasion-resistant alloy I'm using it's just more practical. When I sharpen chisels I use the method you described but prefer a finer stone for the blade back.
 
Steve,
The fine India is what Don uses as a coarse stone. I thought that was clear in my post. I showed the results of three passes on the coarse stone because I was talking about the ease of removing the wear on the flat face. The coarse abrasive signature of the fine India does make it easy to see that the wear bevel is removed before moving to the translucent hard Arkansas (6000 git in water stone terms). I think Al Breed, who has a life-time of trade experience, was on the right track when he wrote, "Get a 1000 water stone and maybe one more somewhere below 4000. You got suckered on the rest. I bet you sand with less than 1000 grit, so just get the tools sharp enough and stop avoiding doing actual work."

My favorite of your photos was of the pitting on the backs of those two plane irons. This is a signature of adhesive wear. If you want to see it on a bigger scale take a steel wire wheel to cast iron. I didn't respond to the post with that photo because I didn't want to discourage going further with that experiment.
 
lwilliams":n94b8gcm said:
My favorite of your photos was of the pitting on the backs of those two plane irons.
Larry,

I'm drawing a blank about a photo of plane irons with pitted backs. Usually the only pitting I see is on old laminated blades. Or have I misunderstood what you're referring to? Just curious.
 
lwilliams":19m17bb6 said:
Steve,
The fine India is what Don uses as a coarse stone. I thought that was clear in my post. I showed the results of three passes on the coarse stone because I was talking about the ease of removing the wear on the flat face. The coarse abrasive signature of the fine India does make it easy to see that the wear bevel is removed before moving to the translucent hard Arkansas (6000 git in water stone terms). I think Al Breed, who has a life-time of trade experience, was on the right track when he wrote, "Get a 1000 water stone and maybe one more somewhere below 4000. You got suckered on the rest. I bet you sand with less than 1000 grit, so just get the tools sharp enough and stop avoiding doing actual work."

My favorite of your photos was of the pitting on the backs of those two plane irons. This is a signature of adhesive wear. If you want to see it on a bigger scale take a steel wire wheel to cast iron. I didn't respond to the post with that photo because I didn't want to discourage going further with that experiment.

Never a truer word spoken :wink:

It's better and more productive to hone your skills than your irons and blades beyond 4000 grit.
 
Steve Elliott":2o9h2qgg said:
lwilliams":2o9h2qgg said:
My favorite of your photos was of the pitting on the backs of those two plane irons.
Larry,

I'm drawing a blank about a photo of plane irons with pitted backs. Usually the only pitting I see is on old laminated blades. Or have I misunderstood what you're referring to? Just curious.

I think it's a photo you sent to Bill Tindall. It's of two A-2 irons, one TiN coated and the other not coated. I just went to look for it but I must be searching the wrong terms. If you want I can put it up and post it here.
 
Steve,

I would be very interested to hear about "the narrow back bevel" which you use in your sharpening.

What sort of angle do you favour and what method do you use please?

David Charlesworth
 
Larry,

I wish those were my microscope images but they were made at a professional microscopy lab and sent to me by Bill Tindall. Thanks for the clarification.

David,

The back bevels I use are at an angle of 2½ degrees. They are essentially the same as your ruler technique (“trick” seems like a pejorative and I think the technique is valuable) except the higher angle allows the bevel to be confined to a smaller area of the blade back.

When I was trying to get the absolute sharpest edges I could I found that honing the bevel and the back bevel alternately (a few strokes on one, then a few on the other) increased the sharpness. I’m using a jig of my own design that allows me to do that easily. I usually try to keep the focus of my posts on information relating to tools generally rather than jigs but if you’re interested you can see pictures of my jig at http://bladetest.infillplane.com/Elliott_Honing_Jig.jpg

Steve
 

Latest posts

Back
Top