veritas chisels

Re: geometry

Also in his book "Tage Frid Teaches Woodworking" 1979, page 35

Question

In the video, how long a time is the chisel on the buffing wheel?

Question

Why ask me this question?? Go to YouTube and watch it for yourself and then you will be able to say that what Frid is doing is similar to what is being discussed here.....or......no, it is not the same thing and explain why it is different.

I have never commented on this subject one way or the other (at least, not that I can recall).....I'm content to be on the sideline with this.....I was just intrigued with Charlie's colorful characterization and went to see if there was any footage of Frid using a buffer.....and there is. 

Re: Question

I checked Roger’s video link. Tage Frid shows a two-step procedure for chisel sharpening.  First, he grinds a new fresh primary bevel on a flat-bed belt sander, 220g.  He raises a primary burr on this belt sander.  

Then he moves to a buffing wheel charged with metal-polishing compound.  His presentation angle looks considerably more than tangent.  He buffs for several seconds (you can’t tell exactly how long, due to video editing)—but he buffs the bevel side until he has removed the burr from the chisel back, so he is buffing to remove metal.  He doesn’t touch the back—he buffs until he has gone through the hinge on the bevel side.  Ends by saying the chisel is shaving sharp, which he says he normally demonstrates in live class sessions.

Wiley

Re: geometry

It's always a little strange to see people arguing against facts they made up on their own, that nobody ever claimed, and then patting themselves on the back for proving a counterpoint. 

Randall rosenthal was the person in the back of my mind who said he only used a buffer to maintain carving chisels - it seemed difficult to grasp but all he had was a huge library of work to prove it. The entire koch sharpening system appears to do something similar, though I'm not willing to buy one just to see what it does. 

All I did was parameterize variables so that people could repeat them, and then test what I was doing to make sure it worked better than anything else that was also easily done. 

Frid is mentioned below. Eons ago, you badgered me during one of your bouts about how tage frid used a belt sander and a cork belt. At one point, I was actually in store at supergrit when visiting my parents, and bought two cork belts to give it a try. It worked like shit because the belts beat up the edge. We can tell how successful frid was at communicating this method by the enormous group of people who mention it when someone asks about sharpening. 

The rest of this discussion gets complicated about shapes of bevels or whatever, and I don't really know any of that stuff beyond what's been requested for measurement. It seems pretty simple - make the bevel shallow, hone so that you have control over the shape the buffer leaves, and buff. 

Experiments While Testing

While testing, I wanted to experiment and make sure there wasn't something fast and better. What I found was that the tertiary bevel on a same setup only needs to be very small if the objective is to stop damage. For good chisels 34 degrees seemed to eliminate damage and the tertiary bevel if installed with a jig after freehanding the second bevel could be thousandths, like barely visible. For less good, add a degree or two. 

But, the feel of the initial edge in maple was getting toward dull and the characteristics of the cut were poor (more bouncing in the cut, more shooting off of the slivers). This all followed some years of using the slowest stone I could find (and fine) to hand roll the tip of the edge freehand, which still works well. The buffer just does a little bit better at it, it's faster, it cares a whole lot less about ideal tool hardness or burrs that can form from deflection, and it doesn't care as much about the shape of a bevel. 

I think the bevel shape matters. I don't know why it does and could suppose a bunch of maybes, but they're happening at a tiny scale and the outcome is easier to perceive and observe than the mechanism. 

It is interesting to note.....

.......That the hostile comments that have largely killed this part of WC come from people that never offer any evidence that they make anything.  If all you ever do is watch YouTube video and troll Forums it is easy to dismiss some valuable information that used to be more often revealed here before the site became a debating forum.  If you don't ever use a chisel for making a drawer or a case you will never see the benefit of a tiny convex bevel, nor how it differs from using a buffing wheel to sharpen. Fact!  Most people that make stuff find the Unicorn information a game changer.  Note I used the word "information" and did not use the word "invention" which was never claimed.  

The convex bevel tip is one of many ideas that came from Weaver that changed how I make stuff.  But, if you don't make stuff these ideas are of no value so there is no downside of driving Weaver and others, from the Forum.  I fault not only the hostile posters but the onlookers that never speak up, and the moderators, if we have any, that don't step in when needed.  The result a useless dying Forum.  

This thread revels why this part of WC is dying.  In case you haven't noticed it is dying.  If your intent is to kill it off for good keep up the hostility.  It will (and has) drive off the people that try to make the forum useful to someone wanting to learn.  

multiple factors

The negativity has really always been part of the forums, but the discussion and showing of actual work used to be common. There was a critical mass of stuff among the critical ass crowd. It just isn't really there on the hand tool side - anywhere that I can find. 

The critical mass was really an offshoot of peoples' interest. I always found delight in Don McConnel's answering questions with real stuff, or people trying to make things or try something new with real substance. Larry and Warren's arguing about the double iron, and Todd - there was substance in it and all three were actually doing things or involved. So the main effort was elsewhere, and the forum was a place to discuss it. I think that so called main effort - actually doing things with hand tools with some curiosity - it's not there and so neither is substantive discussion about it. 

The messages side looks like it's doing well, and on other forums, the projects and sort of general areas are doing fine - the hand tool parts are pretty much dead. it just is what it is. 

Re: It is interesting to note.....

Hi Bill,

This forum has always been my favorite, and I have learned a lot from it. Yes, there are negative comments from time to time, but I can work through those.    Another reason why I see this forum dying is that there are frequently posts entered on the message forum that belong here, not on the other forum.  I don't buy the comment that this forum is dying so I post on the message forum.  Just my 2 cents.

  Ron

bill may have used the word dead...

...I did, too. The forum is not dead, just this subtopic, which was what made me unhappy with the assertion that it would somehow spring to life again if only woodworking was discussed. 

The last year is enough to show that it is. The general woodworking areas on most forums seem to be fine. 

Re: veritas chisels

2023-02-18

[...]

Unfortunately, Veritas products have been coming into our warehouse in very small batches and the back order list is being fulfilled in the order they were placed with us. We are as frustrated as you are with this as we pride ourselves on customer service but this is out of our control.

Please see the attached link with some of Robin Lee’s comments regarding our backorder delays.

[...]