Fleam angle in saws

Re: Fleam angle in saws

John Pappas

>Wiley, Leonard Lee's book, "The Complete Guide to Sharpening" has a pretty good paragraph about fleam...what you achieve with different angles. Not in depth, but may add to what you have so far.

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Stephen in Utah

>I have a book 'Woodwork for Secondary Schools' by Griffith 1916 and in the saw sharpening sections it mentions the fleam or side angle.

Stephen

Re: Fleam angle in saws

JohnHoffman

>Check out the Arts & Mysteries column in Popular Woodworking issue number 157 10/06 "Mystery of saw teeth". If memory serves me, Adam suggested starting at a 20 degree fleam on crosscut saws.

Regards

JH

Re: Fleam angle in saws *LINK*

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>Linked below should be a pretty good article on saw sharpening in the articles section here, with a pretty good section on fleam angle. Probably all you would ever need to know to sharpen saws.


Saw Sharpening article

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>John,

Thank you very much for the Leonard Lee reference. I honestly had forgotten how good Leonard's book actually is. A real goldmine. The section on p. 150, 'Pointing the Teeth', bears out what I am experiencing. Particularly the part about how the increasing fleam angle--from 0 degrees at rip, to 10-20 degrees for angled or all-round crosscut, to higher fleams which are more specialized for 90 degree crosscuts.

Thanks again, Wiley

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>Thank you Stephen,

I am much interested in finding older texts, if possible. Disston's Lumberman Handbook dates from the same era as your reference, and I have sent for a copy.

For older texts, Moxon is disappointing on saws, and I don't find much in Peter Nicholson's book from the 1830's. But still looking.

Thank you, Wiley

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>John,

Thank you! Adam is an excellent reference, and is keenly attuned to discovering the old ways. What I am especially trying to learn is how different fleam angles were used for different purposes--in the days when all sawing was done by hand saw culture. I am seeing this variation in Japanese saws, but there are only a few sawsmiths left, and the language barrier makes it difficult to know their thinking--plus, they're still guarding their 'arts and mysteries'!

Wiley

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>Moses,

Thank you for the reference to Pete Taran's article on sharpening. He is one of the few who describes the cross-cutting action, likening it to paring. This may be of some help in figuring out why more fleam can be better when cross-cutting at 90, while less fleam works better at angles other than 90.

Wiley

Re: Fleam angle in saws

mikew

>There is not a lot of written info, excepting strong opinion in the likes of Charles L. Johnson's book, "Saw Dictionary, The Builders Guide." Published about 1907.

I have not read the book [never could find a copy], but Don McConnell has a message in the Old Tools archive discussing the book and Johnson's thoughts. That said, my thoughts largely echo Johnson's opinions as per the OT thread. But for a cabinet maker vs. a carpenter there are differences and so Johnson needs to be read in the context that he wasn't writing form the perspective of using really hard woods.

That's a book reference, the remainder is my own bias and blathering.

It really comes down to what sawing experience one desires and how many saws one is willing to own and sharpen differently.

In general, pure cross cuts in softer hardwoods and in softwoods can benefit from lots of fleam and a bit more rake than in harder woods. If for no other reason than it can be an extremely clean and fast cut. But on harder woods, the tips will begin to dull quicker. Not a problem if one can sharpen their own saws [and they should].

On really hard woods, a stronger edge is nice to have and this requires less fleam angle. Unless, of course, one sharpens their own saws...But 25 degrees of fleam and less rake [say 15 degrees] makes for a great cross cut in harder woods and can do decent ripping too. The great fleam makes for smoother cutting in harder woods. But, here's the recurring theme, it will dull faster and one should file more often.

And there are other considerations...but it really depends on what one desires in their sawing experience and how many saws one is willing to own and sharpen differently. [Changed the wording from above a little, did ya catch that .]

When one purchases a saw from the 'Bay or elsewhere, a decision was made at one time by someone--either thoughtfully or not--about how that saw was/is going to work. I cannot urge people enough to learn to file and try other filings.

Carl Bilderback sent me some of the patented saw filings he had researched. There are a lot of them and in some of the patent filings there are little tid-bits about why the filing warrants a patent. Most are bunk. But in playing with some of them, they do demonstrate what the person who "invented" a particular filing was thinking.

But all they do in general is show how to form the teeth of a Western handsaw or backsaw to accomplish certain results for a given circumstance. Most are really only applicable to softwoods. A few notable ones are great in hardwoods.

Gotta get back to the shop. Take care, Mike

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Don McConnell

>I may regret this, but since Mike has mentioned Charles Johnson's _Saw Dictionary_, I guess I'll pass on his summary chart of rake/pitch and bevel/fleam angles. Along the lines of Mike's comments, Johnson was located in the state of Washington and appears to mostly have had experience sharpening saws for construction work, so his recommendations may be best suited for working in softer woods. Though I'm not convinced that's exclusively true.

Fine Cut-Off - 10 degree pitch, 40 degree fleam, and 10-11-12 ppi

Coarse Cut-Off - 15 degree pitch, 40 degree fleam, and 7- 8 - 9 ppi

Rip Saw - 3 to 7 degree pitch, 2 to 5 degee fleam, and 5 1/2-6-7 ppi

Long Miter - 5 to 7 degree pitch, 5 to 10 degree fleam, and 5 1/2-6-7 ppi

Short Miter - 5 degree pitch, 10 to 20 degree fleam, and 7-8-9-10-11-12 ppi

I've translated his fleam angles to correspond to our usage, today. While he doesn't discuss fleam angle usage with regard to hard and soft woods, he elsewhere states that the typical off-cut (crosscut) fleam angle is from 30 to 40 degrees, and should never be more than 45. I think the intent is that the 30 degree fleam angle would be more suitable for hard woods. Still fairly radical by today's standards.

After looking at Holtzapffel's illustration of "typical" handsaw teeth (which also shows a fleam angle of 30 degrees), I decided to file a sash saw to a configuration of 10 degree pitch and 30 degree fleam - as an experiment. Well, I hated it, as it seemed prone to "catching" during use. But, after playing around with it for a while, I found that it cut smoothly and quickly *if* I placed absolutely no downward pressure on the saw. I even came to like it and think it might have some merit.

But, I've not had much chance for further experimentation (seem to keep busy with planes), and am reluctant to recommend trying it because it is so technique dependent. In fact, my suspicion is that saw manufacturers have tended to go with lesser fleam angles because they are more forgiving.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Re: Fleam angle in saws

paul womack

>What texts are there which discuss the choice of fleam angle?

Discuss may be too stroing a word, but it's mentioned...

Whilst "Grimshaw on Saws" (considerd the saw filers bible at one time) is not available on line that I know of, it's predeccessors have been made available by Gary Robert mighty Toolmera site:

H W Holly, 1864

Fred Hodgson

I'm assuming you've read the Diston information, but here's some others, in pamphlet form. I afraid they're stronger on bold statements, not discussion. Perhaps Mr Cherubini's rhetoric is in period with his techniques :-)

saw pamphlets (amongst others)

BugBear

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Don McConnell

>Paul, Wiley, et al

Robert Grimshaw, _Saws ... __, c. 1882, is available online, at Google books.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Re: not "full view"?

paul womack

>

Re: not "full view"?

Don McConnell

>Paul,

The full text of Robert Grimshaw _Saws ..._ is viewable on Google books. At least with my browser (Safari).

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Re: not "full view"?

paul womack

>I gotta ask your help here, Don.

I've searched for

robert grimshaw saws

on books.google.com - all books

The top hit has tag "2uofAAAAMAAJ"

and is ascribed: Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized Nov 20, 2006

But I am only offered "snippet view" and a link saying "Where's the rest of this book?" , which basically says the owner didn't want full info out on the web.

If you're doing something different I'd love to follow your example to the full text.

BugBear

Re: not "full view"?

Don McConnell

>Hi Paul, et al,

The google site seems a little erratic right now, so it may be best to wait a while. But, I simply go to the Advanced Book Search page of Google books, enter "Saws" in the title box, and "Robert Grimshaw" in the author box, click the "Full View Books" button and I get two hits. I haven't checked out every single page, but the full text appears to be there and I get no query about the remainder of the text.

Don McConnell

Eureka Springs, AR

Re: Fleam angle in saws *LINK*

mikew

>Hi BB,

Grimshaw's book is available for purchase via Astragal Press. I would hold out for finding the Google version, though. While it isn't a bad book, the info on handsaws seems mostly from Holtzapffel's book.

Take care, Mike


Grimshaw on Saws

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>Don,

Thank you so much for reprinting Chas. Johnson's recommendations. I have been on a search for his book, but so far no dice.

The thing about your tabulation that strikes me is how amazingly close his turn-of-the-last-century fleam recommendations are to the Japanese saws I am looking at--that is, those still made within the pre-machine tradition of a 100+ years ago. The rakes are different, as the Japanese makers use more aggressive rakes. But the fleam similarities make me wonder if, at one time in the western tradition, when hand saws were still the main means for getting sawing done--perhaps Johnson's recommendations would not have been thought bizarre. Still have to run down all of Bugbear's references, for comparison.

Mike, thank you for your comments. This is a good time and place to commend Mike Wenzloff for his innovative saw business. Not so long ago I received a 28"/6-point rip saw from Mike, that was breasted; had fairly aggressive rake offset by a few degrees fleam, and progressive fleam to make it easy starting; the saw was lightly set, offset by a heavy double taper. This is a fantastic hardwood saw, and I might add was delivered extremely sharp.

Wiley

Re: Fleam angle in saws

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>Paul,

Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge of danged near everything! The references look interesting enough to own, so I've started--with Grimshaw, which is least expensive.

Thank you very much! Wiley

Re: not "full view"? *LINK*

Peter Evans

>Paul, I have been corresponding with the Uni of Michigan library, who indicate that full view is only available in the US. To quote "In the US, the Google Books version is completely available online. Because of your geographic location, you may be prevented from viewing the complete book, due to copyright restrictions."

I am following up what the "copyright restrictions" might be for a book published in 1882. Hard to see how "copyright" has anything to do with it. My query to Google is thus far unanswered; the Uni is very prompt with answers, although I suspect it will take a few more message exchanges to get the full story.

ALSO, how many other works are in this situation? A quick search through Google suggests that most (all?) Uni of Michigan material is not available on full view to non-US; Stanford Uni seems to be in same boat.

Google says "you'll find different results in books no longer under copyright in the U.S. and books in the public domain internationally." The example Google provide suggests that around 80% of works are excluded to international readers. I was unable to find any explanation for the legal basis of the exclusion.

Short term - for those who need a copy, perhaps one of our US cousins could download a copy of Grimshaw and upload to a more world-friendly site.

OR

You could go to the competitor OPEN CONTENT ALLIANCE, and download a copy, 31mb, (1880 ed) from the Uni of California, who seem to have no international copyright fantasies.

http://www.archive.org/index.php to search

http://www.archive.org/details/sawshistorydevel00grimrich for Grimshaw on Saws

Long term - how do we foreigners access the Google material?

Peter in Sydney, who has a reprint of Grimshaw next to him.


Google article public domain

Re: ah hah!

paul womack

>Paul, I have been corresponding with the Uni of Michigan library, who indicate that full view is only available in the US. To quote "In the US, the Google Books version is completely available online. Because of your geographic location, you may be prevented from viewing the complete book, due to copyright restrictions."

Thanks for that great research.

BugBear