Based on favorable comments and reviews in this group and others, I recently
purchased a Veritas Power Sharpening System. After having used it for a
couple of weeks and sharpening every tool I could find with a cutting edge
(it's so easy), I'm convinced that I made the right choice. It produces an
edge that cuts as well or better than any I've been able to obtain with my
oil, or water stones, in a fraction of the time. I also like the fact
that's it's a dry system, so I don't have to contend with the oil / water
mess, which in my small shop is a huge plus!
That said I'm having trouble obtaining a micro-bevel that's exactly parallel
to the primary bevel. This in no way affects the sharpness of the edge, but
when it comes time to re-sharpen, I'm forced to remove more metal than would
otherwise be necessary to get back to the primary bevel.
As an example, on a 1 5/8 wide plane blade, the micro bevel on one end is
nearly 1/16 wide while the bevel on the opposite end is barely perceptible.
One thing that I find very interesting is that the bevel is always heavier
on the left side of the blade. This occurs even if I run the tool holder
and blade on the opposite side of the platter.
I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar problem and found a solution.
I've talked to the folks at Lee Valley and they've been more than
cooperative and helpful. They've even gone so far as to ship me new
platters and media, in case mine were out of spec. Unfortunately, that
didn't solve the problem. I'm starting to wonder if maybe my technique is
at fault, or my expectations are too high.
Here are a few additional details:
- Both 3mm and 4mm platters are flat within .001 inches (when running there
is slight wobble (~.003) but this is consistent between platters.
- The tool bar is parallel to the platters - I have checked this several
times.
- There are no air bubbles between the media and platter (LV suggested
applying the PSA disks under water and even though this sounds
strange, it works great - zero air bubbles)
Excellent summation Mark. Now at least there is something on the Web
regarding this issue. When I posted my initial message, I couldn't find a
single mention of the problem. Maybe someone from Veritas will read it and
come up with a permanent solution. Stop to think of it, maybe I'll just
forward the Google link to them for comment.
According to their web site, Lee Valley will be at the Milwaukee woodworking
show in February. I live in Chicago, which is only 80 miles away, so I may
just pack up the sharpener along with my sacrificial plane blade and haul it
up there. If they can't make it work either, and I'm confident they won't,
they might be more inclined to address the problem. It's been my experience
that both Lee Valley and Veritas have a genuine concern about quality and
once they're convinced that a problem really exists, they do something about
it.
I don't see how the system could not have assymetric sharpening. I
claim that with even pressure on each side, you will get a different
amount of metal removal. Here's my thughts:
The edge fartherest from the center of the disc, has more sandpaper go
under it. I assume Veritas/Lee Valley engineers have shown the
difference is neglible. Let me see if I can rough out a calculation:
Assume the width of the blade in an inch and a half.
Assume the inner edge of the blade is 3 inches from the center (r = 3).
The outer edge is then 4.5 inches from the center (r + 1.5).
Assume the disk is rotating at 600 RPM.
The inner part of the blade passes over 2 * pi * r * 600 inches = 11310
inches per minute.
The outer part passes over 2 * pi * (r + 1.5) * 600 = 16965 inches per
minute
Thus the outer edge experiences 16965/11310 * 100 = 50% more!
Am I wrong? If so, how?
On Dec 2, 11:37 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Based on favorable comments and reviews in this group and others, I recently
> purchased a Veritas Power Sharpening System. After having used it for a
> couple of weeks and sharpening every tool I could find with a cutting edge
> (it's so easy), I'm convinced that I made the right choice. It produces an
> edge that cuts as well or better than any I've been able to obtain with my
> oil, or water stones, in a fraction of the time. I also like the fact
> that's it's a dry system, so I don't have to contend with the oil / water
> mess, which in my small shop is a huge plus!
>
> That said I'm having trouble obtaining a micro-bevel that's exactly parallel
> to the primary bevel. This in no way affects the sharpness of the edge, but
> when it comes time to re-sharpen, I'm forced to remove more metal than would
> otherwise be necessary to get back to the primary bevel.
>
> As an example, on a 1 5/8" wide plane blade, the micro bevel on one end is
> nearly 1/16" wide while the bevel on the opposite end is barely perceptible.
> One thing that I find very interesting is that the bevel is always heavier
> on the left side of the blade. This occurs even if I run the tool holder
> and blade on the opposite side of the platter.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar problem and found a solution.
> I've talked to the folks at Lee Valley and they've been more than
> cooperative and helpful. They've even gone so far as to ship me new
> platters and media, in case mine were out of spec. Unfortunately, that
> didn't solve the problem. I'm starting to wonder if maybe my technique is
> at fault, or my expectations are too high.
>
> Here are a few additional details:
>
> - Both 3mm and 4mm platters are flat within .001 inches (when running there
> is slight wobble (~.003) but this is consistent between platters.
>
> - The tool bar is parallel to the platters - I have checked this several
> times.
>
> - There are no air bubbles between the media and platter (LV suggested
> applying the PSA disks under water and even though this sounds
> strange, it works great - zero air bubbles)
Never Enough Money wrote:
> Thus the outer edge experiences 16965/11310 * 100 = 50% more!
>
> Am I wrong? If so, how?
You are exactly right. I initially wrote very favorable reviews about
the system on this forum, but after several years, have become
disenchanted.
I found that over time, the right side of all of my blades were ground
down much more than the left. (The instructions suggest using the
right side of the disk, which is why the right was always worn down
more.) I suggest putting a square up to each blade. I found that
every blade -- plane, chisel, etc. was shorter on the right than the
left. They all had a consistent arc.
After spending a bunch of time trying to adjust things to get it right,
I finally just gave up. The courser the paper on the disk, the worse
the blade gets out of square. The 80x blue disks is the worst
offender. I am convinced this is a design problem and not a setup
problem because I checked that the disk (with paper applied) was flat
and found that if I move the blade to the other side of the disk, the
left side will be ground more than the right.
It seemed to me that the problem gets worse as the paper dulls. That
may be because the outermost grit is not used as much as the inner. It
seems counterintuitive, but as I use the machine, I move the blade back
and forth, so the outermost edge of the disk gets hit very
infrequently. If you see sparks on the 80x on the outside, but not the
inside, then you know for sure the outer is sharper than the inner.
The sharper grit on the outside exacerbates the problem because that
part of the disk is sharper *and* traveling faster. I think the system
works much better with sharp paper and that's why at first the system
seems great, but it gets worse and worse. It doesn't take long for the
paper to be dull enough to achieve this effect.
On a chisel that is 1" or less, it usually isn't a big deal, but with a
2" plane blade, the difference is pretty significant and you end up
using up a lot of the 9 micron paper trying to get the edge all the way
across. You may be able to work around this problem by switching the
blade back and forth between the left and the right sides. Of course
the blade will be crowned, but many people see that as an advantage.
As I mentioned before, I finally just gave up. Lately I have been
doing the bulk of the "grinding" with 60 grit Norton 3x paper on glass
and then finish up with 3M abrasives, each at a higher microbevel. I
made very simple sharpening jigs based on the designs on Brent Beach's
website and everything seems to be going well. When I started on the
60 grit, I was amazed at how much metal I had to remove to get the
bevel square again.
We'll see what I say in a few years...
Mark
Mark,
I read with much interest your analysis below. Though I'm not sure I
agree.
I got the Veritas power sharpener several months ago and have been
wrestling with this problem since day one: the cutting edge is simply
not square to the side edge of a blade. (To the original poster,
Woodworker1, I do not put micro bevels on my blades.)
I have determined that the problem is that the tool/blade holder flexes
and therefore the blade just does not contact the platter flat. If you
register the blade against one shoulder of the holder versus the other
shoulder, the un-squareness also shifts to the other side of the blade.
Try this: mount a blade (say 1.5 inches wide) in the tool holder and
set the entire thing on a flat surface so that the blade cutting edge
and the holder legs contact the table. Then tighten up the clamp nuts:
you can see one blade corner lift up off the tabletop. If you shift
the blade to square it against the opposite shoulder on the holder and
tighten the clamp up, then the other side of the blade lifts up off the
table. So, even though the blade is exactly square to the tool holder,
the entire holder is flexing.
It is true that the outboard part of the blade (nearer the outside of
the platter) is seeing higher tangential velocities. However, as long
as the blade contacts the platter flat, this is not an issue.
I went back and forth with Veritas customer service about this and they
kept saying that I was over tightening the clamp bar. I said that I
was only tightening as much as necessary so that the blade does not
shift during the sharpening process. Ultimately they could not help
me. I am really not happy with either the sharpener or Lee Valley's
response. Though I 'm not sure what I expected from them. If what I
say is true, then the entire tool holder needs to be re-designed. If
not actually re-designed, then at least seriously beefed up,
strengthened.
Larry
Mark Wells wrote:
> Never Enough Money wrote:
> > Thus the outer edge experiences 16965/11310 * 100 = 50% more!
> >
> > Am I wrong? If so, how?
>
> You are exactly right. I initially wrote very favorable reviews about
> the system on this forum, but after several years, have become
> disenchanted.
>
> I found that over time, the right side of all of my blades were ground
> down much more than the left. (The instructions suggest using the
> right side of the disk, which is why the right was always worn down
> more.) I suggest putting a square up to each blade. I found that
> every blade -- plane, chisel, etc. was shorter on the right than the
> left. They all had a consistent arc.
>
> After spending a bunch of time trying to adjust things to get it right,
> I finally just gave up. The courser the paper on the disk, the worse
> the blade gets out of square. The 80x blue disks is the worst
> offender. I am convinced this is a design problem and not a setup
> problem because I checked that the disk (with paper applied) was flat
> and found that if I move the blade to the other side of the disk, the
> left side will be ground more than the right.
>
> It seemed to me that the problem gets worse as the paper dulls. That
> may be because the outermost grit is not used as much as the inner. It
> seems counterintuitive, but as I use the machine, I move the blade back
> and forth, so the outermost edge of the disk gets hit very
> infrequently. If you see sparks on the 80x on the outside, but not the
> inside, then you know for sure the outer is sharper than the inner.
> The sharper grit on the outside exacerbates the problem because that
> part of the disk is sharper *and* traveling faster. I think the system
> works much better with sharp paper and that's why at first the system
> seems great, but it gets worse and worse. It doesn't take long for the
> paper to be dull enough to achieve this effect.
>
> On a chisel that is 1" or less, it usually isn't a big deal, but with a
> 2" plane blade, the difference is pretty significant and you end up
> using up a lot of the 9 micron paper trying to get the edge all the way
> across. You may be able to work around this problem by switching the
> blade back and forth between the left and the right sides. Of course
> the blade will be crowned, but many people see that as an advantage.
>
> As I mentioned before, I finally just gave up. Lately I have been
> doing the bulk of the "grinding" with 60 grit Norton 3x paper on glass
> and then finish up with 3M abrasives, each at a higher microbevel. I
> made very simple sharpening jigs based on the designs on Brent Beach's
> website and everything seems to be going well. When I started on the
> 60 grit, I was amazed at how much metal I had to remove to get the
> bevel square again.
>
> We'll see what I say in a few years...
>
> Mark
Even if the holder is perfect, how could you ever overcome the problem
I mentioned in my earlier post on this topic? The outer edge sees a lot
more paper than the inner edge so you'll always have asymmetry...
Unless somehow the pressure on the outer edge is lightened up to
perfectly compensate for the extra papaer it sees (that'd be difficult,
I think).
[snip]
[email protected] wrote:
> In your experience with the machine, did you also have problems with the
> primary and micro bevels not being parallel, or simply the fact that your
> blades were being ground out of square?
Sorry, yes, the primary and micro bevels were not parallel. The course
abrasives take off material faster than the fine abrasives, so more of
the right side of the blade is taken off by the course. When you move
to the fine abrasive, it is trying to "catch up" and remove material
from the left to make the blade even. At least that's what I think is
happening.
There is also another factor here. The jig that holds the blade
registers against the back of the blade. (That is correct because
otherwise they would have to account for the blade thickness to set the
angle properly.) If you tighten the jig too much, you can deform the
jig and make the bevels not parallel, even with sharp abrasives. There
is an extensive discussion of that in the instructions.
Here is an experiment I would try: On either the 80x or the 100 micron
abrasive, grind on the left and the right side of the disk. You can
clearly see the scratches made by each because they will be at
different angles. Make the scratches meet roughly in the middle of the
blade. Then move to the 9 micron and do the same thing. Using this
technique, you may be able to get a micro-bevel all the way across. If
that method works, then it would seem that this is an issue with the
abrasives. If it doesn't, then it might be the jig.
Mark
[email protected] wrote:
> I have determined that the problem is that the tool/blade holder flexes
> and therefore the blade just does not contact the platter flat. If you
> register the blade against one shoulder of the holder versus the other
> shoulder, the un-squareness also shifts to the other side of the blade.
I agree that deformation of the jig is also an issue, but it seems like
I was able to work through that problem. Your problem may have been
worse because you weren't doing the micro-bevel. If you do a
microbevel, then the primary and microbevel may not be exactly
parallel, but you can quickly grind the micro-bevel all the way across
the blade. Because of what I assume is dulling paper, I eventually got
to the point where it was difficult to get a microbevel all the way
across the blade.
> Try this: mount a blade (say 1.5 inches wide) in the tool holder and
> set the entire thing on a flat surface so that the blade cutting edge
> and the holder legs contact the table. Then tighten up the clamp nuts:
> you can see one blade corner lift up off the tabletop. If you shift
> the blade to square it against the opposite shoulder on the holder and
> tighten the clamp up, then the other side of the blade lifts up off the
> table. So, even though the blade is exactly square to the tool holder,
> the entire holder is flexing.
My theory is that if the disk is flat and I move the blade from the
right side of the disk to the left and the outboard part of the blade
still gets ground down faster than the inboard, then jig deformation or
bar alignment is not the problem. It seems that if disk speed were not
an issue and the blade was misaligned, then the same side would be
ground down on the left or right side of the disk.
Also, I learned from making my own jigs that to be able to accurately
set a bevel angle without taking into account the thickness of the
blade, then you have to register the jig against the back of the blade.
That's exactly what the jig does. Therefore, the deformation of the
clamping bar is not as important as deformation of the rest of the jig.
That's a theory, anyway.
> I am really not happy with either the sharpener or Lee Valley's
> response. Though I 'm not sure what I expected from them.
I agree. I'm not happy, but not sure what to expect from them. I do
know that I bought the first honing jig, which "everybody" said was
great and it turned out to be worthless because the blade shifts. Then
I bought this machine, which "everybody" said is great. It has turned
out less than satisfactory. I'm not about to buy the new honing jig.
That's why I made my own.
Mark
Mark Wells wrote:
> I agree. I'm not happy, but not sure what to expect from them. I do
> know that I bought the first honing jig, which "everybody" said was
> great and it turned out to be worthless because the blade shifts. Then
> I bought this machine, which "everybody" said is great. It has turned
> out less than satisfactory. I'm not about to buy the new honing jig.
> That's why I made my own.
>
> Mark
Mark, I had the Veritas Honing Jig, and had the same trouble - the
blade would not stay square. I returned it and got the Mark II Jig
which is just great. Everything that is wrong with the original jig was
fixed with the Mark II.
As for the micro-bevel, the Mark II jig accomplishes it by offsetting
the wheel - which has the effect of twisting the blade in relation to
the abrasive, resulting in the microbevel not being parallel with the
primary bevel. Maybe this is just how Veritas chose to handle the
microbevel on all of their sharpening systems. With the Mark II jig,
I've just used a playing card under the roller to create an even
microbevel.
If you end up returning the powered system, look into the Mark II jig -
I've been very happy with it.
Mike
George wrote:
> Think I may have a thought. Go here
> http://www.makita.com/assets_product/9820-2/owners_manuals/9820-2.pdf and
> look at the picture and instructions in the center of page 8. I would
> assume that the same would be true for the Veritas, given the similarity.
Good thought. I think there is one big difference with the Makita,
though. It actually uses a stone, which wears away so the wheel ends
up sloped down toward the outside. The Highland Hardware instructions
have more detail about that:
http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/library/9820-2.pdf (Disclaimer: I
have never seen or used a Makita sharpener.)
Mark
Never,
I don't think that this is true. As long as the blade holder holds the
blade perfectly flat to the abrasive platter, how can the blade be
ground out of square ?
Yes the outboard side of the blade does see a greater platter
velocitiy, or as you put it: the blade sees extra paper. Agreed. But as
long as the blade is held rigid, flat and in its original geometry
relative to the platter, the entire length along the bevel must be
ground uniformly.
Maybe, one way maybe to think of it is: even though the outer edge of
the blade wants to be ground at a faster rate, the opposite end of the
blade, the inner end (where grinding is going slower) is holding up the
rest of the blade, up off the paper. So the entire bevel eventually
gets ground down to the same level.
Now if the blade holder deforms, as I maintain, then you get crap.
Larry
Never Enough Money wrote:
> Even if the holder is perfect, how could you ever overcome the problem
> I mentioned in my earlier post on this topic? The outer edge sees a lot
> more paper than the inner edge so you'll always have asymmetry...
> Unless somehow the pressure on the outer edge is lightened up to
> perfectly compensate for the extra papaer it sees (that'd be difficult,
> I think).
>
>
> [snip]
George wrote:
> Principle behind the technique is to take the entire piece off the stone
> edge smoothly, so that the grind is equal all the way. Think that might
> work regardless. Stone doesn't wear very fast anyway, especially not with
> the lube.
Going off the edge of the platter is a good thing to try. I never did
try that because the Veritas instructions explicitly say to stay away
from the edge of the disk. If my patience returns, I'll give it a try.
Mark
[email protected] wrote:
> Try this: mount a blade (say 1.5 inches wide) in the tool holder and
> set the entire thing on a flat surface so that the blade cutting edge
> and the holder legs contact the table. Then tighten up the clamp nuts:
> you can see one blade corner lift up off the tabletop. If you shift
> the blade to square it against the opposite shoulder on the holder and
> tighten the clamp up, then the other side of the blade lifts up off the
> table. So, even though the blade is exactly square to the tool holder,
> the entire holder is flexing.
I tried that with my jig, but didn't get exactly the same results. To
do the test, I stacked 3 pieces of 1/4" glass. The legs of the jig
were at "level 3" and the blade edge was at "level 1". (If I just put
it on piece, then the clamping bar was in the way.)
I put a 2" plane blade on the left side of the jig. Then I tightened
the left nut and made the right nut match. In that case, the right
side of the blade (as viewed from the jig) was slightly up off the
glass. As I tightened that nut tighter and tighter, it got worse. Ah
ha!
Then I switched the blade over to the right side of the jig. I did the
same experiment in reverse. Unexpectedly, the right side of the blade
still didn't touch. I repeated both experiments a couple of times and
got the same results. Maybe the blade is warped? They said in the
instructions to look out for that.
Then I switched to a 1" chisel. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't
make a blade corner come up off the glass.
I don't know what the problem is, but it sounds like we agree that
there is some kind of design flaw. This doesn't strike me as a
production quality issue.
Mark
[email protected] wrote:
SNIP
> At this point I didn't know what to think, so out of frustration I once
> again put my straight edge across the platter, this time with the abrasive
> disks applied. I was really surprised to see a depression toward the center
> hold down. When I measured the disk without media, it was dead flat. I
> think what's happening, is that the rather thick cloth backing on the 80
> grit paper is being compressed by the brass hold down and pulling the center
> of the platter with it. I measured the depression at around .004" which
> combined with the slight rise at the circumference, is more than enough to
> account for the error we're seeing. It also accounts for the micro-bevel
> not being parallel, because the thinner media on the 3mm platter doesn't
> result in the same problem, in other words, the 3mm platter remains flat.
>
> Your thoughts?
I'm really not sure that I follow what you're saying here. But I'll
take a close look at my setup to see if my platters also get depressed
toward the center. I don't remember actually looking at the flatness of
the installed platter. But I did set up the support bar so that it was
parallel to the side of the platter that I was grinding on. If all
the platters depress the same amount, then referencing the support bar
relative to the left side of the platter, say, would account for the
un-flatness, well enough. If all the platters depresss different
amounts, then this wouldn't work.
I don't undertstand how the grade of abrasive makes any difference in
how much the platters are depressed toward the center. ?
Oh, Mr Lee.....Are you out there? Any chance you can get your
designers to think about this?
Larry
Mark Wells wrote:
> I put a 2" plane blade on the left side of the jig. Then I tightened
> the left nut and made the right nut match. In that case, the right
> side of the blade (as viewed from the jig) was slightly up off the
> glass. As I tightened that nut tighter and tighter, it got worse. Ah
> ha!
>
> Then I switched the blade over to the right side of the jig. I did the
> same experiment in reverse. Unexpectedly, the right side of the blade
> still didn't touch. I repeated both experiments a couple of times and
> got the same results. Maybe the blade is warped? They said in the
> instructions to look out for that.
Mark,
When you switched the blade to the right side and tightened up, did
maybe one of the legs come up off the glass, rather than the blade. I
found this to happen, that the blade was still sitting flat, but the
holder had deformed and one of the legs was now off the table and you
could rock the entire blade/holder.
> Then I switched to a 1" chisel. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't
> make a blade corner come up off the glass.
That's odd. I found that the narrower the blade, the easier it was for
me to get the blade/holder to deform. However, because the blade was
narrower, it was harder to see: the absolute amount that the blade
corner lifted up off the table was less. (am I explaining that
clearly?)
Larry
Excellent explantion. Thank you. It does, as you say, put high demands
on the holder: it must be dead nuts flat.
On Dec 4, 3:52 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Never,
>
> I don't think that this is true. As long as the blade holder holds the
> blade perfectly flat to the abrasive platter, how can the blade be
> ground out of square ?
>
> Yes the outboard side of the blade does see a greater platter
> velocitiy, or as you put it: the blade sees extra paper. Agreed. But as
> long as the blade is held rigid, flat and in its original geometry
> relative to the platter, the entire length along the bevel must be
> ground uniformly.
>
> Maybe, one way maybe to think of it is: even though the outer edge of
> the blade wants to be ground at a faster rate, the opposite end of the
> blade, the inner end (where grinding is going slower) is holding up the
> rest of the blade, up off the paper. So the entire bevel eventually
> gets ground down to the same level.
>
> Now if the blade holder deforms, as I maintain, then you get crap.
>
> Larry
>
> Never Enough Money wrote:
> > Even if the holder is perfect, how could you ever overcome the problem
> > I mentioned in my earlier post on this topic? The outer edge sees a lot
> > more paper than the inner edge so you'll always have asymmetry...
> > Unless somehow the pressure on the outer edge is lightened up to
> > perfectly compensate for the extra papaer it sees (that'd be difficult,
> > I think).
>
> > [snip]
[email protected] wrote:
> That's odd. I found that the narrower the blade, the easier it was for
> me to get the blade/holder to deform. However, because the blade was
> narrower, it was harder to see: the absolute amount that the blade
> corner lifted up off the table was less. (am I explaining that
> clearly?)
Yes, I understand. I went out and conducted the test again. This time
I used a 3/4" chisel and a block plane blade. I paid more attention to
the legs. I couldn't get the jig to deform with the chisel using the
methods of measure I had. With the block plane blade, I was able to
get the jig to deform, but only if I really, really pushed it.
Normally to tighten blades in the jig, I would tighten the nut closest
to the blade and then make the other nut match by looking at the
threads on the post. Then I would turn the jig over and make sure the
clamping bar was not obviously deformed. Using that technique, the
blade seems to be secure and the jig not deformed (at least for me!).
I'll have to lookup when I bought my machine. It was several years
ago, so it is possible that Larry and I have different jigs. The top
bar (attached to the legs) on my jig is pretty beefy. It is
significantly thicker than the clamping bar. The clamping bar is easy
to deform, but I don't think deformation of the clamping bar alone
impacts the performance of the jig.
On the issue of disk flatness, my 80x disk is flat as far as I can
tell. With a straight edge across it in several different chords near
the center, I can't get a 0.003" feeler gauge under it. I also can't
see light under the straight edge. I turned the machine on and it
looks like it is spinning perfectly flat to me. The disk does wobble
slightly laterally, but it's not much and I don't see how that could
matter, anyway.
On the issue of grinding at different rates against the inboard and
outboard edges of the blade, I still think that might be an issue. The
experience of woodworker1 and myself seem to corraborate that. I agree
that if the blade were completely rigid that the rotational speed
wouldn't matter. However, the blade is not rigid, so let me start
speculating: As you grind away material, the blade moves, ever so
slightly, back toward the bar. Furthermore, the operator is applying
pressure to the blade. I know from my hand sharpening that a plane
blade will deform relatively easily under pressure. In hand
sharpening, I use that to my advantage by putting pressure where I need
more honing. That compensates for slight misalignments in the jig. It
seems like blade and/or jig deformation could happen as the operator
applies pressure, which would allow the faster moving abrasive to take
off more material.
Think about it this way: The operator starts grinding. The outboard
side of the blade gets ground a little more quickly and gets very, very
slightly shorter than the inboard side. The operator's pressure then
causes the outboard side to again be next to the disk by very slightly
deforming the blade, jig, bar, or some combination. This process
continues until you reach a limit in which the deformation wouldn't
happen any more. Now the operator picks up the blade and the edge is
not square to the side of the blade.
Maybe try very light pressure? In the past, I have tried only holding
the jig and just applying force to the jig against the bar and not near
the edge of the blade. That seemed to help slightly, but not
significantly.
For the poor sap who finds all this on Google ten years from now,
here's a summary of the problem again: With the Veritas Mk. II Powered
Sharpening System, blades are not ground perpendicular to the edge.
This is usually first noticed when the primary and secondary bevels are
not parallel to each other, but can also be seen if you put a square up
to the edge after grinding. This is not a cosmetic issue. The edge
can easily be out of square enough to impact performance of the blade
and/or make it very difficult to grind a secondary bevel all the way
across the edge.
Mark
[email protected] wrote:
[snip]
> Your thoughts?
What you are describing is exactly what I have experienced. Careful
setup, etc. and the edge is not square.
Mark
Bruce Barnett wrote:
> It sounds logical, but as I picture it, the one corner wears faster,
> and to hold it rigid you have to do so without the edge near the
> center. This seem unstable like a 4-legged chair with one leg shorter
> than the others.
Yes, exactly. As long as someone or something (the tool/blade holder)
firmly holds the chair in its original orientation with the 3 longer
legs in contact with the ground, the one shorter leg cannot contact the
ground until the 3 longer legs are all equally shortened or ground down.
Mark Wells wrote:
> Yes, I understand. I went out and conducted the test again. This time
> I used a 3/4" chisel and a block plane blade. I paid more attention to
> the legs. I couldn't get the jig to deform with the chisel using the
> methods of measure I had. With the block plane blade, I was able to
> get the jig to deform, but only if I really, really pushed it.
>
> Normally to tighten blades in the jig, I would tighten the nut closest
> to the blade and then make the other nut match by looking at the
> threads on the post. Then I would turn the jig over and make sure the
> clamping bar was not obviously deformed. Using that technique, the
> blade seems to be secure and the jig not deformed (at least for me!).
That is what I try to do: count threads or use a caliper to make sure
the gap between the top of the tool holder and the clamping bar is
equal on both sides. I find that if the face and back of the blade are
co-planar (like a plane iron) then I don't need that much clamp
pressure to hold it still. If I try to clamp up a chisel that has some
angle, however slight, between the face and back surfaces, then there
is no way I have been able to clamp it up, so that it doesn't move,
without deforming the holder. I've even tried a strip of the
self-adhesive high friction tape on the tool holder, but it just
squishes away to nothing. I guess the point, which you have already
made repeatedly, is that one shouldn't have to go through all this
fussing to simply grind a square edge on a blade with a $350
*sharpening system*.
> I'll have to lookup when I bought my machine. It was several years
> ago, so it is possible that Larry and I have different jigs. The top
> bar (attached to the legs) on my jig is pretty beefy.
I got my machine about 6 months ago. It is beefy-Not.
>It is significantly thicker than the clamping bar. The clamping bar is
>easy to deform, but I don't think deformation of the clamping bar alone
> impacts the performance of the jig.
I agree. It doesn't matter that the clamp bar bends.
> On the issue of grinding at different rates against the inboard and
> outboard edges of the blade, I still think that might be an issue. The
> experience of woodworker1 and myself seem to corraborate that. I agree
> that if the blade were completely rigid that the rotational speed
> wouldn't matter. However, the blade is not rigid, so let me start
> speculating: As you grind away material, the blade moves, ever so
> slightly, back toward the bar. Furthermore, the operator is applying
> pressure to the blade. I know from my hand sharpening that a plane
> blade will deform relatively easily under pressure. In hand
> sharpening, I use that to my advantage by putting pressure where I need
> more honing. That compensates for slight misalignments in the jig. It
> seems like blade and/or jig deformation could happen as the operator
> applies pressure, which would allow the faster moving abrasive to take
> off more material.
>
> Think about it this way: The operator starts grinding. The outboard
> side of the blade gets ground a little more quickly and gets very, very
> slightly shorter than the inboard side. The operator's pressure then
> causes the outboard side to again be next to the disk by very slightly
> deforming the blade, jig, bar, or some combination. This process
> continues until you reach a limit in which the deformation wouldn't
> happen any more. Now the operator picks up the blade and the edge is
> not square to the side of the blade.
> Maybe try very light pressure? In the past, I have tried only holding
> the jig and just applying force to the jig against the bar and not near
> the edge of the blade. That seemed to help slightly, but not
> significantly.
This could indeed happen, that finger pressure near the gringing edge
slightly rocks the blade, forcing it to go out of flat relative to the
platter. Maybe when I have an afternoon to totally flush down the
toilet I will experiment once again. However, I was, just like you,
mindful of this possibility and believe that I purposely did not apply
pressure to the blade near the grinding edge. I very patiently let the
abrasive do its work, applying minimum pressure nearer the holder and
main bar. Again, if the holder is deforming given my method of
operation, then this just reinforces my main gripe - that the tool
holder is too flimsy and needs to be re-designed.
I was thinking that it wouldn't be horrible to have two or several
types of holder. A universal design would be nice, but it doesn't have
to be so. For parallel sided blades, either plane irons or chisels, a
side clamping mechanism would be best. It would solve the two main
issues: 1. It would be self squaring. 2. You would need much less force
to hold the blade still.
> For the poor sap who finds all this on Google ten years from now,
> here's a summary of the problem again: With the Veritas Mk. II Powered
> Sharpening System, blades are not ground perpendicular to the edge.
> This is usually first noticed when the primary and secondary bevels are
> not parallel to each other, but can also be seen if you put a square up
> to the edge after grinding. This is not a cosmetic issue. The edge
> can easily be out of square enough to impact performance of the blade
> and/or make it very difficult to grind a secondary bevel all the way
> across the edge.
>
> Mark
George wrote:
> "Never Enough Money" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Excellent explantion. Thank you. It does, as you say, put high demands
> > on the holder: it must be dead nuts flat.
> >
>
> No, the tool holder must be a constant distance across the highest point of
> the paper or stone. The Makita directions I mentioned refer to it when they
> say take the edge off the stone and cut uphill by tilting the rest. Where
> you've ground already needn't be a drag on the stone or grit, you're done
> with it, and would rather it grabbed air.
>
> The obsession with flat abrasives and holders is nice, but if you pass the
> blade across a 1/16 wide jeweler's blade at a consistent distance, you'd get
> a straight edge. Don't take the work away from the holder by pressing into
> the stone, that's honing. This is still grinding.
Yes. I agree. I like the example of the very narrow abrasive. Still,
the tool-holder/blade/abrasive geometry must remain constant throughout
the grinding operation. The blade can be slid side to side, as when
you use a narrow belt sander, but the tool-holder must not deform.
Leuf wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but if the setup consistently makes the
> blade out of square then why can't you just set up the jig slightly
> out of square to compensate?
> -Leuf
Not stupid at all. I had just about gotten to this, when I ran out of
steam and soured on the whole thing. I'm not sure that the out of
squareness is consistent enough to compensate simply by skewing the jig
bar. (I still think flexing of the holder is the issue) Still, I bet
you could get much closer to accceptability.
On Dec 6, 5:41 am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
No, the tool holder must be a constant distance across the highest
point of
> the paper or stone.
Doesn't that mean "flat" -- flat with respect to the paper?
I just got the Veritas system. In trying to sharpen a plane iron,
I can't seem to get an edge which is square to the sides of the
iron. I just found this thread while googling for solutions to
the problem.
I should admit now that I'm a newbie when it comes to hand
planes. I'm trying to learn. I've got Garret Hack's book and
Lee's book and I've watched two of Charlesworth's videos.
Anyway, here's my question: If the edge is very slightly
out of square, how big of a problem is it? Is it possible
to even use a plane which has a blade that is sharpened very
slightly out of square?
In my latest attempt to use the Veritas, the result looks pretty
good. It's not square, but it's awfully close. With a precision
square, I can barely see light coming through at one side of
the sharpened edge.
But when I put the blade into the plane (a Record #4) and try
to take a shaving, only one side of the blade cuts at all.
I am of course still going to try and figure out how to get
a square edge, but I'm guessing the squareness of the
edge is not my only problem. The results I'm seeing make
me think that my real problem is in the setup of the plane.
So I'm looking for any advice from those with more experience.
I'm sort of anticipating one of two responses:
1. Yes, Eric, you're probably doing something wrong in the
setup of the plane. A plane iron with a slightly out of square
edge can basically be used, even though it's not optimal. Go
study more of the beginner-oriented plane stuff.
2. Sorry Eric, actually the edge on the plane iron has to be
perfectly square. The tiniest error will basically render the
plane unusable in the manner you describe.
Thanks in advance!
Eric Sink
--
[email protected] wrote:
> Excellent summation Mark. Now at least there is something on the Web
> regarding this issue. When I posted my initial message, I couldn't find a
> single mention of the problem. Maybe someone from Veritas will read it and
> come up with a permanent solution. Stop to think of it, maybe I'll just
> forward the Google link to them for comment.
>
> According to their web site, Lee Valley will be at the Milwaukee woodworking
> show in February. I live in Chicago, which is only 80 miles away, so I may
> just pack up the sharpener along with my sacrificial plane blade and haul it
> up there. If they can't make it work either, and I'm confident they won't,
> they might be more inclined to address the problem. It's been my experience
> that both Lee Valley and Veritas have a genuine concern about quality and
> once they're convinced that a problem really exists, they do something about
> it.
Chris Friesen wrote:
> If you skew the blade slightly so that it is parallel to the mouth of
> the plane, do you get better results?
I'll try that and see.
> Lastly, is the blade properly sharp? You should be able to shave hairs
> off your arm really easily.
Yeah, it seems quite sharp to me. Nobody's noticed the bald spot
on my left forearm, but it's there. :-)
Thanks.
Yes, it's the Veritas. Its proper name is:
Veritas Mk.II Power Sharpening System
and currently you can see it on the web here:
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=48435&cat=1,43072
Yes, its a flat horizontal plate with abrasives stuck onto it,
spinning at 650 RPM.
Yes, it seems to be very, very difficult to use this thing to
get an edge which is square to the side of the blade.
However, it also seems that this problem isn't fatal.
As I said, I'm a newbie with planes. Last night's session
went much better. I fiddled with the lateral adjuster and
cleaned the plane and tuned it carefully and tried it in
several different boards.
In general, I'm still annoyed that I can't get a square
edge, but I'm less concerned than before.
Search the web and you'll find lots and lots of people
who really like this sharpening system. It's not perfect,
but after using it for a couple days, I can see why it's
popular.
--
Eric Sink
Joe Bleau wrote:
> I have been looking for a review of that system. If I am guessing
> right it is the Veritas, flat plate, dry abrasive disk system you are
> using??? If anyone else has bought this I hope they will post their
> opinions here. It looks like it should work, at least from the
> catalog description.
>
> By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
> the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
> shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
> here?
>
> Please keep us posted.
I participated on the original thread and wanted to provide an update.
First, about the edge being square, I would say that a little light
showing through when you put a square up to the edge is fine. I have
noticed that almost none of my chisels or planes have parallel sides,
so if you reference off one side when sharpening and the other when
measuring, you will see that kind of variation. The problem is if the
micro-bevel can't reach the edge of the tool or if it is so far out of
square that you can't adjust your plane to take a full-width shaving.
My problem was that a portion of the bevel, specifically the "right"
side, near the outside of the abrasive disk, was getting ground down
more than the rest of the bevel. This was particularly bad with the
80x abrasive and made it difficult to get the micro-bevel to go all the
way to the edge. The micro-bevel would reach the edge except for the
last 1/8" or so. Just before the right edge, the secondary bevel would
taper off and the micro-bevel would not reach the tip of the blade.
I have been working with Lee Valley support on this issue and they have
been responsive (as usual). They sent me new platters and new
abrasives in different grits than I had. The grits they sent me were
120x, 220x, 500x, 1200x. Using these grits and the new platters, I was
able to consistently grind a good primary bevel and secondary bevel. I
really like the 120x and 220x abrasives. The 120x is still pretty
fast, but not nearly as brutal as the 80x. It seems better for cases
where the bevel is already pretty close.
Like I said, using these new abrasives, the machine worked well. I
have become convinced that the problem I was having was related to
abrasive wear. I think what happened with my old 80x is that I
ventured near the edge of the disk, which was seldom used. The
abrasive was not worn down as much, so it cut much more aggressively.
That made the bevel not flat, which made it difficult for the 9 micron
reach the tip of the blade. This is not a phenomenon specific to this
machine. The other day I was using the Scary Sharp method with 15
micron paper and when I ventured too close to the edge of the abrasive,
which was new and sharp, much more metal came off part of that part of
the bevel. I have not yet worn out these new abrasive disks, so I
don't have a feel for how long they last.
I asked Lee Valley if there was a way to take the blade off the edge of
the platter or something similar to make the abrasive wear more evenly
and the answer was a sophisticated version of "not really."
Mark
LDR wrote:
> To some extent it is that. The problem is, I think, the sandpaper wears
> unevenly and quickly, and that's the source of the "out of square"
> problems. (The sandpaper is not cheap and so far as I know you can only
> buy it mailorder.)
I think the higher grits, 80x, 120x, etc. are just 8" Klingspor PSA
disks with a center hole punched out. The back of the nut in the
center can be used to punch out the hole in the middle. It looks to me
that that is the intended purpose of that little post. The finer
grits appear to be 3M micro-abrasives. In any case, you can buy from
sources other than LV, but the abrasives seem to be pretty expensive
everywhere.
> I can't blame Lee-Valley for not making a $20,000 surface grinder for
> almost $400, but if I could do it over again, I would buy a Tormek.
I think if I were to do it again, I would shape the bevel using either
a 1" belt sander, a course silicon carbide bench stone, or maybe good
quality sandpaper on glass. Then I would finish up with scary sharp.
I've come to believe that it is unrealistic for a machine to do the
whole thing. The machine should just be used to speed up the primary
bevel shaping.
Mark
LDR wrote:
> Good advice, Mark, about the abrasives, and thank you. About 3M. They
> sell a Mylar designed for extreme polish but they are only available to
> industrial sources which do not sell retail. At least that is what 3M
> told me. (I wanted it for an Edgepro which I use for kitchen and pocket
> knives.)
You can buy the 3M mylar abrasives from Lee Valley, Tools for Working
Wood, or Japan Woodworker. You just get the PSA sheet and stick it on
the disk and then cut it out. (I did this with the 0.5 micron paper to
get a finer hone.) LV says their disks are aluminum oxide and the
other PSA films are silicon carbide. I'm not sure if that matters.
Mark
On Jan 21, 11:15 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> If I can and the
> situation improves I'll be a very satisfied (and wiser) user. If not, it's
> back to the water stones. As it stands right now, I can't recommend this
> system to anyone.
Joel,
It sounds like you are less satisfied now than your original post.
That's a bummer.
I have relegated my system to an expensive grinder. Steve Knight must
have said 100 times on this group that all the power sharpening
systems, Tormek, Makita, etc. are really just grinders and that if you
want to get sharp edges, you have to finish up by hand. I was hoping
the Veritas system would be different because it allows you to use
finer abrasives, but I think I'm wrong.
My current strategy, which I am still learning, is to grind the primary
bevel on the Veritas system and then hone by hand, making a secondary
bevel that is 5 degrees higher than the primary bevel. When I
resharpen, I just work on the secondary bevel (by hand). When the
secondary bevel gets too big, I go back to the Veritas and regrind the
primary. HOWEVER, I don't grind the primary all the way back to the
edge. I carefully watch the grinding progress to make sure that I
don't hit the edge of the blade. Using this scheme, the issues of
inconsistent grinding are much less of an issue.
Given my use of the Veritas, I think a 1" belt sander would have worked
just as well.
BTW, I tried a 4" belt sander, thinking that I could get a more
consistent bevel on a 2" blade than a 1" belt sander. The 4" sander
seemed to grind down the two corners of the bevel much faster than the
middle. I don't know if the paper was wrapping around the edge or
what, but I think with a 1" belt sander, you could much more easily
correct that by grinding more in the middle of the blade than at the
corners.
Mark
On Jan 25, 9:17 am, [email protected] wrote:
> As an aside,
> it's interesting to note that the Lap Sharp, which is essentially the same
> design, has none of these problems.
Is this really true ? Do you know this from acual experience ?
I've been wondering if the Lap-Sharp was better in regard to
the issues we've been discussing here.
It certainly is more expensive.
I have had a Makita wet grinder for about 15 years. I have used it
primarily for sharpening my 8" joiner blades and it has served me
well. Occasionally I use a DMT diamond plate to flatten the 1000 grit
Makita original stone. When, in the past year, I moved to the scary
sharp system I started using a 1" belt sander and spent a lot of time
creating a jig that allowed me to get the bevel I was looking for. I
was never really satisfied with the belt sander for some the reasons
already mentioned in this thread. Now I use the Makita before moving
to my plate glass and mylar microabrasive sheets. I also use the
Veritas Mk II jig. The whole system works great and the Makita puts a
more polished finish on the primary bevel faster and with more ease
than the belt sander.
Joe
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:32:16 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 11:15 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Steve Knight must
>> have said 100 times on this group that all the power sharpening
>> systems, Tormek, Makita, etc. are really just grinders
>
>True, of course, using a wetstone is a grinding process too.
>
>> and that if you
>> want to get sharp edges, you have to finish up by hand.
>
>Not at all true. Machine sharpened edges can be just as sharp as hand
>sharpenend ones. The Tormek, in particular, takes care of that with the
>leather wheel.
>
>> I was hoping
>> the Veritas system would be different because it allows you to use
>> finer abrasives, but I think I'm wrong.
>>
>
IMHO a 1/16" wide micro bevel has been on the grinder too long.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Based on favorable comments and reviews in this group and others, I
> recently
> purchased a Veritas Power Sharpening System. After having used it for a
> couple of weeks and sharpening every tool I could find with a cutting edge
> (it's so easy), I'm convinced that I made the right choice. It produces
> an
> edge that cuts as well or better than any I've been able to obtain with my
> oil, or water stones, in a fraction of the time. I also like the fact
> that's it's a dry system, so I don't have to contend with the oil / water
> mess, which in my small shop is a huge plus!
>
> That said I'm having trouble obtaining a micro-bevel that's exactly
> parallel
> to the primary bevel. This in no way affects the sharpness of the edge,
> but
> when it comes time to re-sharpen, I'm forced to remove more metal than
> would
> otherwise be necessary to get back to the primary bevel.
>
> As an example, on a 1 5/8" wide plane blade, the micro bevel on one end is
> nearly 1/16" wide while the bevel on the opposite end is barely
> perceptible.
> One thing that I find very interesting is that the bevel is always heavier
> on the left side of the blade. This occurs even if I run the tool holder
> and blade on the opposite side of the platter.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar problem and found a
> solution.
> I've talked to the folks at Lee Valley and they've been more than
> cooperative and helpful. They've even gone so far as to ship me new
> platters and media, in case mine were out of spec. Unfortunately, that
> didn't solve the problem. I'm starting to wonder if maybe my technique is
> at fault, or my expectations are too high.
>
> Here are a few additional details:
>
> - Both 3mm and 4mm platters are flat within .001 inches (when running
> there
> is slight wobble (~.003) but this is consistent between platters.
>
> - The tool bar is parallel to the platters - I have checked this several
> times.
>
> - There are no air bubbles between the media and platter (LV suggested
> applying the PSA disks under water and even though this sounds
> strange, it works great - zero air bubbles)
You are quite correct though, in this case, it really doesn't matter as it
happens the same way no matter what side of the wheel he sharpens on. The
real question is, why put the micro bevel on in the first place? The only
reason for a micro bevel is to save time when resharpening. During the
initial edge formation, there is no need for it. If it were me, after
initial sharpening on the machine, I would do any touch ups by hand. Only
when the micro bevel got to large would I go back to the machine. Of course,
I wouldn't use the machine in the first place but that's up to him.
"Never Enough Money" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't see how the system could not have assymetric sharpening. I
> claim that with even pressure on each side, you will get a different
> amount of metal removal. Here's my thughts:
>
> The edge fartherest from the center of the disc, has more sandpaper go
> under it. I assume Veritas/Lee Valley engineers have shown the
> difference is neglible. Let me see if I can rough out a calculation:
>
> Assume the width of the blade in an inch and a half.
> Assume the inner edge of the blade is 3 inches from the center (r = 3).
> The outer edge is then 4.5 inches from the center (r + 1.5).
>
> Assume the disk is rotating at 600 RPM.
>
> The inner part of the blade passes over 2 * pi * r * 600 inches = 11310
> inches per minute.
> The outer part passes over 2 * pi * (r + 1.5) * 600 = 16965 inches per
> minute
>
> Thus the outer edge experiences 16965/11310 * 100 = 50% more!
>
>
> Am I wrong? If so, how?
>
> On Dec 2, 11:37 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > Based on favorable comments and reviews in this group and others, I
recently
> > purchased a Veritas Power Sharpening System. After having used it for a
> > couple of weeks and sharpening every tool I could find with a cutting
edge
> > (it's so easy), I'm convinced that I made the right choice. It produces
an
> > edge that cuts as well or better than any I've been able to obtain with
my
> > oil, or water stones, in a fraction of the time. I also like the fact
> > that's it's a dry system, so I don't have to contend with the oil /
water
> > mess, which in my small shop is a huge plus!
> >
> > That said I'm having trouble obtaining a micro-bevel that's exactly
parallel
> > to the primary bevel. This in no way affects the sharpness of the edge,
but
> > when it comes time to re-sharpen, I'm forced to remove more metal than
would
> > otherwise be necessary to get back to the primary bevel.
> >
> > As an example, on a 1 5/8" wide plane blade, the micro bevel on one end
is
> > nearly 1/16" wide while the bevel on the opposite end is barely
perceptible.
> > One thing that I find very interesting is that the bevel is always
heavier
> > on the left side of the blade. This occurs even if I run the tool
holder
> > and blade on the opposite side of the platter.
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar problem and found a
solution.
> > I've talked to the folks at Lee Valley and they've been more than
> > cooperative and helpful. They've even gone so far as to ship me new
> > platters and media, in case mine were out of spec. Unfortunately, that
> > didn't solve the problem. I'm starting to wonder if maybe my technique
is
> > at fault, or my expectations are too high.
> >
> > Here are a few additional details:
> >
> > - Both 3mm and 4mm platters are flat within .001 inches (when running
there
> > is slight wobble (~.003) but this is consistent between platters.
> >
> > - The tool bar is parallel to the platters - I have checked this several
> > times.
> >
> > - There are no air bubbles between the media and platter (LV suggested
> > applying the PSA disks under water and even though this sounds
> > strange, it works great - zero air bubbles)
>
[email protected] wrote:
> In my latest attempt to use the Veritas, the result looks pretty
> good. It's not square, but it's awfully close. With a precision
> square, I can barely see light coming through at one side of
> the sharpened edge.
>
> But when I put the blade into the plane (a Record #4) and try
> to take a shaving, only one side of the blade cuts at all.
If you skew the blade slightly so that it is parallel to the mouth of
the plane, do you get better results? If so, then that's the basic
solution.
If you still don't get good results, then you need to start working on
the plane itself, and/or your technique.
Lastly, is the blade properly sharp? You should be able to shave hairs
off your arm really easily.
Chris
On 5 Dec 2006 21:24:05 -0800, "Mark Wells" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>For the poor sap who finds all this on Google ten years from now,
>here's a summary of the problem again: With the Veritas Mk. II Powered
>Sharpening System, blades are not ground perpendicular to the edge.
>This is usually first noticed when the primary and secondary bevels are
>not parallel to each other, but can also be seen if you put a square up
>to the edge after grinding. This is not a cosmetic issue. The edge
>can easily be out of square enough to impact performance of the blade
>and/or make it very difficult to grind a secondary bevel all the way
>across the edge.
This may be a stupid question, but if the setup consistently makes the
blade out of square then why can't you just set up the jig slightly
out of square to compensate?
-Leuf
"Mark Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I agree. I'm not happy, but not sure what to expect from them. I do
> know that I bought the first honing jig, which "everybody" said was
> great and it turned out to be worthless because the blade shifts. Then
> I bought this machine, which "everybody" said is great. It has turned
> out less than satisfactory. I'm not about to buy the new honing jig.
> That's why I made my own.
Think I may have a thought. Go here
http://www.makita.com/assets_product/9820-2/owners_manuals/9820-2.pdf and
look at the picture and instructions in the center of page 8. I would
assume that the same would be true for the Veritas, given the similarity.
> Mark
>
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> I would agree and that's precisely my problem. I don't start to get any
> bevel on the right side of the blade until the left side is nearly at
1/16".
If you don't get an answer to your problem here, you might want to contact
Lee Valley customer service. It's unusual for them not to be able to suggest
proper procedures for the use of their products.
"Never Enough Money" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Excellent explantion. Thank you. It does, as you say, put high demands
> on the holder: it must be dead nuts flat.
>
No, the tool holder must be a constant distance across the highest point of
the paper or stone. The Makita directions I mentioned refer to it when they
say take the edge off the stone and cut uphill by tilting the rest. Where
you've ground already needn't be a drag on the stone or grit, you're done
with it, and would rather it grabbed air.
The obsession with flat abrasives and holders is nice, but if you pass the
blade across a 1/16 wide jeweler's blade at a consistent distance, you'd get
a straight edge. Don't take the work away from the holder by pressing into
the stone, that's honing. This is still grinding.
"Mark Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On Jan 21, 11:15 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Steve Knight must
> have said 100 times on this group that all the power sharpening
> systems, Tormek, Makita, etc. are really just grinders
True, of course, using a wetstone is a grinding process too.
> and that if you
> want to get sharp edges, you have to finish up by hand.
Not at all true. Machine sharpened edges can be just as sharp as hand
sharpenend ones. The Tormek, in particular, takes care of that with the
leather wheel.
> I was hoping
> the Veritas system would be different because it allows you to use
> finer abrasives, but I think I'm wrong.
>
Neil -
The blade is absolutely square to the holder and the final edge is square to
the side of the blade. I have tried to apply pinpoint pressure to the right
side of the blade as you suggest and although this helps, it's kind of hit
or miss. It most often results in a MB that's kind of barrel shaped, with
the right and left sides being deeper than the center. I'm starting to
wonder if the tool holder may somehow be out of alignment, even though I
don't have super accurate way to measure this.
Joel
"Mark Wells" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
>> Think I may have a thought. Go here
>> http://www.makita.com/assets_product/9820-2/owners_manuals/9820-2.pdf and
>> look at the picture and instructions in the center of page 8. I would
>> assume that the same would be true for the Veritas, given the similarity.
>
> Good thought. I think there is one big difference with the Makita,
> though. It actually uses a stone, which wears away so the wheel ends
> up sloped down toward the outside. The Highland Hardware instructions
> have more detail about that:
> http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/library/9820-2.pdf (Disclaimer: I
> have never seen or used a Makita sharpener.)
>
Principle behind the technique is to take the entire piece off the stone
edge smoothly, so that the grind is equal all the way. Think that might
work regardless. Stone doesn't wear very fast anyway, especially not with
the lube.
I downloaded the Highland pdf. Not the same one they sent with mine years
ago, so I'll make a comparative to see what might have changed since then.
Tough to believe the number of planer and jointer blades I've run through
it. It's repaid many times over. Used to run a pair of blade sets every
month up at the school.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> A search on this forum should turn up a thread on the subject. The general
> opinion in that thread is that it is difficult to impossible to sharpen
> squarely. The OP was not at all happy with it.
> "Joe Bleau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> (snip> >
> > By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
> > the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
> > shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
> > here?
> >
(snip)
I wasn't part of the original thread but I do own the tool and have had
it long enough to disparage it. I saw the tool at a woodworking show a
few years ago, the first iteration of the machine, which wasn't even in
production at the time. And I really wanted it, thinking, at last, an
affordable surface grinder.
To some extent it is that. The problem is, I think, the sandpaper wears
unevenly and quickly, and that's the source of the "out of square"
problems. (The sandpaper is not cheap and so far as I know you can only
buy it mailorder.)
Veritas will tell you that it really doesn't matter, the plane iron will
be sharp, and while that is basically true it is not what I thought I
was buying into.
I can't blame Lee-Valley for not making a $20,000 surface grinder for
almost $400, but if I could do it over again, I would buy a Tormek.
My 2 cents, etc
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> LDR wrote:
> > To some extent it is that. The problem is, I think, the sandpaper wears
> > unevenly and quickly, and that's the source of the "out of square"
> > problems. (The sandpaper is not cheap and so far as I know you can only
> > buy it mailorder.)
>
> I think the higher grits, 80x, 120x, etc. are just 8" Klingspor PSA
> disks with a center hole punched out. The back of the nut in the
> center can be used to punch out the hole in the middle. It looks to me
> that that is the intended purpose of that little post. The finer
> grits appear to be 3M micro-abrasives. In any case, you can buy from
> sources other than LV, but the abrasives seem to be pretty expensive
> everywhere.
>
> > I can't blame Lee-Valley for not making a $20,000 surface grinder for
> > almost $400, but if I could do it over again, I would buy a Tormek.
>
> I think if I were to do it again, I would shape the bevel using either
> a 1" belt sander, a course silicon carbide bench stone, or maybe good
> quality sandpaper on glass. Then I would finish up with scary sharp.
> I've come to believe that it is unrealistic for a machine to do the
> whole thing. The machine should just be used to speed up the primary
> bevel shaping.
>
> Mark
>
Good advice, Mark, about the abrasives, and thank you. About 3M. They
sell a Mylar designed for extreme polish but they are only available to
industrial sources which do not sell retail. At least that is what 3M
told me. (I wanted it for an Edgepro which I use for kitchen and pocket
knives.)
Not too long I read that the reason most people never learn to sharpen
to their own satisfaction is that they don't stick long enough to one
system. Those words should be illuminated with a picture of me. However,
I do have some redeeming sharpening value, after all. I have learned to
sharpen with a 1700rpm grinder and white wheel, waterstones and a honing
device, thanks in both cases to Lee Valley. My point is that just about
any system will get results; the problem is our inpatience which makes
us willing victims to the demon gimick purveyors in our society. There
probably isn't five minutes difference no matter which way you sharpen a
plane iron.
(For what it's worth: I have had success with the Veritas power grinder
in putting on the microbevel freehand. I do it very quickly and very
slightly and, for me, it come out much better looking and a lot less
aggravating than following the manual.)
Mark,
I read with interest your most recent post. Veritas also sent me new
platters and the milder abrasives. Unfortunately, I didn't have as much
success as you and I'm still having problems. This became most noticeable
when trying to sharpen a 1 ½ Hock plane blade that was 3/16 thick. This
blade as you can imagine has no flex whatsoever and it is nearly impossible
to finesse it in order to straighten out the micro bevel. In this case the
micro bevel was nearly ¼ wide on one edge before a bevel started to appear
on the opposite edge. It was so bad in fact that I wound up having to
re-hone the edge on a water stone.
As I pointed out in my original post, I've measured a wobble of .005 at the
outside edge of the platter (actually ½ in from the outside edge). I spoke
to George Hammond at Veritas Tools and he told me this was within what they
consider a normal tolerance. I originally didn't think this would make much
difference, but after some additional thought it occurs to me that this
could make a significant difference and may well explain why the outside
edge of the blade is ground faster than the inside, resulting in the blade
not being square.
Let me try and explain. Assume for the sake of this example that the
downward pressure on the tool holder is constant and that the blade holder
is held stationary. On every revolution the outside edge (perimeter) of
the platter rises slightly and therefore applies more grinding force to the
outside edge of the blade. As the platter rotates through another 180
degrees the grinding force on the outside edge of blade is very slightly
reduced in relation to the inside edge, but because the relative velocity
at the inside edge is less (and the amount of wobble is also less as you
approach the center of the platter), the net result is that that outside
edge of the blade will still be ground faster. This would also explain why
it's easier to obtain a square edge on a ¾ chisel than a 2 wide plane
blade.
The reason that some users may have better luck than others may simply be
because their machines exhibit less platter wobble. Before I totally give
up on this thing, I'm going to shim the platter at the hub with some .001
brass shim stock and see if I can reduce the wobble. If I can and the
situation improves I'll be a very satisfied (and wiser) user. If not, it's
back to the water stones. As it stands right now, I can't recommend this
system to anyone.
Joel
I agree with you that you can get a mighty sharp edge using a power
sharpening system. In fact I think the Veritas system does a fine job as
far as that goes, assuming you use the appropriate abrasives. My main
complaint with the system is and always has been that it's nearly impossible
to get a square edge, with a micro bevel that's anywhere near parallel to
the primary bevel, especially on wide, thick blades. Initially I didn't
think this was a big deal because the difference between the two bevels was
slight and easily overcome by applying a bit more pressure to one side of
the blade, or the other. Unfortunately, what I ultimately came to realize
was that the problem becomes far worse as the blades get wider and / or the
abrasives began to wear. As I pointed out in my last posting, the problem
became so bad on one of my 3/16 thick Hock plane irons (for a wooden plane)
that I had to revert back to my water stones.
Now I suppose I could forget the micro bevel and just work the entire
cutting surface of the blade at one angle, but that makes short work of the
9 micron disks, which are both expensive and a pain to replace. It also
does nothing to insure that the blade is ground square, which can be a real
problem in certain situations. An example that comes to mind is setting up
a precision wooden smoothing plane with limited lateral adjustment capacity
and tightly set chip breaker.
It might be possible to improve the results by using different abrasives,
tweaking the blade holder slightly, using both the left and right sides of
the platter, etc., but for nearly $400 I don't think I should have to. In
my opinion, at this price point I should receive a precision device, capable
of precision results, which the Veritas PSS certainly is not. As an aside,
it's interesting to note that the Lap Sharp, which is essentially the same
design, has none of these problems. In general, I'm a big fan of Veritas
products but I think they need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
He did that.
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I would agree and that's precisely my problem. I don't start to get any
> > bevel on the right side of the blade until the left side is nearly at
> 1/16".
>
> If you don't get an answer to your problem here, you might want to contact
> Lee Valley customer service. It's unusual for them not to be able to
suggest
> proper procedures for the use of their products.
>
>
A search on this forum should turn up a thread on the subject. The general
opinion in that thread is that it is difficult to impossible to sharpen
squarely. The OP was not at all happy with it.
"Joe Bleau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have been looking for a review of that system. If I am guessing
> right it is the Veritas, flat plate, dry abrasive disk system you are
> using??? If anyone else has bought this I hope they will post their
> opinions here. It looks like it should work, at least from the
> catalog description.
>
> By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
> the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
> shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
> here?
>
> Please keep us posted.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Neil -
>
> The blade is absolutely square to the holder and the final edge is square
> to
> the side of the blade. I have tried to apply pinpoint pressure to the
> right
> side of the blade as you suggest and although this helps, it's kind of hit
> or miss. It most often results in a MB that's kind of barrel shaped, with
> the right and left sides being deeper than the center. I'm starting to
> wonder if the tool holder may somehow be out of alignment, even though I
> don't have super accurate way to measure this.
>
I think you're concentrating on something the wood doesn't know or care
about just because you can see it. It's cosmetic, not functional. The
difference in edge deflection, if you buy something from Ed to measure it,
would be in the tens of thousandths if that, and well within the elasticity
of the wood you're planing. If it works, don't look.
I have been looking for a review of that system. If I am guessing
right it is the Veritas, flat plate, dry abrasive disk system you are
using??? If anyone else has bought this I hope they will post their
opinions here. It looks like it should work, at least from the
catalog description.
By "out of square" I assume you refer to the bevel not be square to
the edge of the plane iron. It seems to me you can correct that
shifting the blade to the left or right or am I missing something
here?
Please keep us posted.
Mark,
In your experience with the machine, did you also have problems with the
primary and micro bevels not being parallel, or simply the fact that your
blades were being ground out of square?
After reading your comments, I'm inclined to think that my problem may be
due to the different rates of abrasive wear between the coarse disks and the
9 micron disk used to apply the micro bevel. If the relative rate of
abrasive wear at the disk circumference was slightly greater on the coarse
disks than on the 9 micron disk, the effect would be exactly as I've
observed. As I think about it, the problem gets worse as the abrasives
wear. This would be consistent with your observations. The only problem is
that it doesn't explain why the micro bevel seems to always be greater on
the left side of the blade, no matter which side of the platter I run it on.
I'm going to recheck that tomorrow; my observations may have been in error.
Joel
I spent some time experimenting this morning and I think I may have figured
out what's going on.
First, I agree with Larry, as long as the blade is held parallel to the
platter surface, the amount or speed of the abrasive passing under the blade
should be of no practical consequence. Consider a worst case scenario; no
abrasive at the center of the disk tapering to unused abrasive at the
circumference. Even in this worst case, the difference in the amount of
metal removed between the inside and outside edges of the blade, would be
limited to the size of the abrasive particle. In the case of the 100 micron
disk, this would be hard to measure. It certainly wouldn't account for the
error that I and others on this group have observed. On the other hand,
there is no question that Mark's observations are correct. The outside edge
of the blade definitely gets ground down more than the inside edge, and by a
rather significant amount.
As I gave this some thought, it occurred to me that the thickness of the
platters may not be consistent. Sure enough, when I measured the thickness
across the radius of the platters, I found that the outside edge is
approximately .004 inches thicker than the remainder of the disk, probably
as a result of a manufacturing operation. I verified this on three disks.
I'm sure this is one of the reasons why Veritas recommends that you stay
clear of the outside edge. My second thought was that the turntable that
the platters rest on may not be perfectly flat. I checked this by
installing a new (without abrasives) 4mm disk and then laying a precision
straight edge across it. After accounting for the slight increase in
platter thickness at the circumference, everything was dead flat, or at
least within .001 inches. As I indicated in my original post, I was able to
measure a slight bit of wobble at the outside edge as I rotated the platter,
but this was consistent between platters at around .003 inches and shouldn't
affect the bevel.
I next installed a new 100 micron disk on the 4mm platter and a new 9 micron
disk on the 3mm platter. I used a spare 1 5/8 plane blade that I checked
to make sure was both flat (no warp) and had parallel sides. I also ground
the edge square to the sides and put an edge on it using conventional
methods (water stones). I installed the blade in the holder and verified
that it was absolutely square. I also checked to make sure that the edge
remained flat after it was tightened into the holder.
I mounted the 100 micron disk and proceed to sharpen the blade, moving the
holder back and forth along the guide bar, until a slight burr formed across
the entire edge. When moving the holder, I remained approximately ½ from
the center and outside edges. With the care I used setting everything up
and the new media, I expected that I would initially see an edge that was
pretty much square. It wasn't!
At this point I didn't know what to think, so out of frustration I once
again put my straight edge across the platter, this time with the abrasive
disks applied. I was really surprised to see a depression toward the center
hold down. When I measured the disk without media, it was dead flat. I
think what's happening, is that the rather thick cloth backing on the 80
grit paper is being compressed by the brass hold down and pulling the center
of the platter with it. I measured the depression at around .004 which
combined with the slight rise at the circumference, is more than enough to
account for the error we're seeing. It also accounts for the micro-bevel
not being parallel, because the thinner media on the 3mm platter doesn't
result in the same problem, in other words, the 3mm platter remains flat.
Your thoughts?
As little out of square as you describe would make no difference. The
lateral adjuster will take care of that.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I just got the Veritas system. In trying to sharpen a plane iron,
> I can't seem to get an edge which is square to the sides of the
> iron. I just found this thread while googling for solutions to
> the problem.
>
> I should admit now that I'm a newbie when it comes to hand
> planes. I'm trying to learn. I've got Garret Hack's book and
> Lee's book and I've watched two of Charlesworth's videos.
>
> Anyway, here's my question: If the edge is very slightly
> out of square, how big of a problem is it? Is it possible
> to even use a plane which has a blade that is sharpened very
> slightly out of square?
>
> In my latest attempt to use the Veritas, the result looks pretty
> good. It's not square, but it's awfully close. With a precision
> square, I can barely see light coming through at one side of
> the sharpened edge.
>
> But when I put the blade into the plane (a Record #4) and try
> to take a shaving, only one side of the blade cuts at all.
>
> I am of course still going to try and figure out how to get
> a square edge, but I'm guessing the squareness of the
> edge is not my only problem. The results I'm seeing make
> me think that my real problem is in the setup of the plane.
>
> So I'm looking for any advice from those with more experience.
> I'm sort of anticipating one of two responses:
>
> 1. Yes, Eric, you're probably doing something wrong in the
> setup of the plane. A plane iron with a slightly out of square
> edge can basically be used, even though it's not optimal. Go
> study more of the beginner-oriented plane stuff.
>
> 2. Sorry Eric, actually the edge on the plane iron has to be
> perfectly square. The tiniest error will basically render the
> plane unusable in the manner you describe.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Eric Sink
>
> --
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Excellent summation Mark. Now at least there is something on the Web
> > regarding this issue. When I posted my initial message, I couldn't find
a
> > single mention of the problem. Maybe someone from Veritas will read it
and
> > come up with a permanent solution. Stop to think of it, maybe I'll just
> > forward the Google link to them for comment.
> >
> > According to their web site, Lee Valley will be at the Milwaukee
woodworking
> > show in February. I live in Chicago, which is only 80 miles away, so I
may
> > just pack up the sharpener along with my sacrificial plane blade and
haul it
> > up there. If they can't make it work either, and I'm confident they
won't,
> > they might be more inclined to address the problem. It's been my
experience
> > that both Lee Valley and Veritas have a genuine concern about quality
and
> > once they're convinced that a problem really exists, they do something
about
> > it.
>
Try using pinpoint finger pressure to apply more pressure at the right front
corner of the blade to make the micro bevel parallel.
Also check the blade when clamped in the carrier with a square to make sure
it remains squared.
Neill
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Based on favorable comments and reviews in this group and others, I
> recently
> purchased a Veritas Power Sharpening System. After having used it for a
> couple of weeks and sharpening every tool I could find with a cutting edge
> (it's so easy), I'm convinced that I made the right choice. It produces
> an
> edge that cuts as well or better than any I've been able to obtain with my
> oil, or water stones, in a fraction of the time. I also like the fact
> that's it's a dry system, so I don't have to contend with the oil / water
> mess, which in my small shop is a huge plus!
>
> That said I'm having trouble obtaining a micro-bevel that's exactly
> parallel
> to the primary bevel. This in no way affects the sharpness of the edge,
> but
> when it comes time to re-sharpen, I'm forced to remove more metal than
> would
> otherwise be necessary to get back to the primary bevel.
>
> As an example, on a 1 5/8" wide plane blade, the micro bevel on one end is
> nearly 1/16" wide while the bevel on the opposite end is barely
> perceptible.
> One thing that I find very interesting is that the bevel is always heavier
> on the left side of the blade. This occurs even if I run the tool holder
> and blade on the opposite side of the platter.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a similar problem and found a
> solution.
> I've talked to the folks at Lee Valley and they've been more than
> cooperative and helpful. They've even gone so far as to ship me new
> platters and media, in case mine were out of spec. Unfortunately, that
> didn't solve the problem. I'm starting to wonder if maybe my technique is
> at fault, or my expectations are too high.
>
> Here are a few additional details:
>
> - Both 3mm and 4mm platters are flat within .001 inches (when running
> there
> is slight wobble (~.003) but this is consistent between platters.
>
> - The tool bar is parallel to the platters - I have checked this several
> times.
>
> - There are no air bubbles between the media and platter (LV suggested
> applying the PSA disks under water and even though this sounds
> strange, it works great - zero air bubbles)
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:27:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>At this point I didn't know what to think, so out of frustration I once
>again put my straight edge across the platter, this time with the abrasive
>disks applied. I was really surprised to see a depression toward the center
>hold down. When I measured the disk without media, it was dead flat. I
>think what's happening, is that the rather thick cloth backing on the 80
>grit paper is being compressed by the brass hold down and pulling the center
>of the platter with it. I measured the depression at around .004 which
>combined with the slight rise at the circumference, is more than enough to
>account for the error we're seeing. It also accounts for the micro-bevel
>not being parallel, because the thinner media on the 3mm platter doesn't
>result in the same problem, in other words, the 3mm platter remains flat.
>
>Your thoughts?
I have a hard time imagining that nut compressing the backing to
create an even angle all the way out to the edge of the platter, but
the easy way to test would be to enlarge the center hole to the same
size as the nut so that it bears on the platter not the paper. If
that's the problem then it's an easy fix.
-Leuf
[email protected] writes:
> Yes the outboard side of the blade does see a greater platter
> velocitiy, or as you put it: the blade sees extra paper. Agreed. But as
> long as the blade is held rigid, flat and in its original geometry
> relative to the platter, the entire length along the bevel must be
> ground uniformly.
It sounds logical, but as I picture it, the one corner wears faster,
and to hold it rigid you have to do so without the edge near the
center. This seem unstable like a 4-legged chair with one leg shorter
than the others.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.