Too bloody right! :lol:Jacob":gixb7bqq said:Still a waste of ale though - i'd rather drink 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.dannyr":2pua4ipc said:Mike and D_W
maybe cool it?.........
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!MikeG.":1slbk28t said:
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.Jacob":338kuc21 said::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.
Much appreciated, Graham.G S Haydon":397cl5ch said: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
And therein lies the rub.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.
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:SammyQ":i3vogr2e said:And therein lies the rub.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.
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.
This isn't an opinion thread.Cheshirechappie":39x5a3um said: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:
That's only your opinion....D_W":2qnesn6k said: