Having a Second Universal Support?

[GIPPER]

After adjusting the Universal Support (US) for the grinding wheel, then adjusting the US for honing, if I didn't do such a perfect job to begin with, I had to go back and reset the US all over again.  The thought occurred to me, if I had a second US, then I could set one for the grinder and the other for the honing wheel and save the trouble, increase accuracy, and reduce time to try again.  So, I've ordered an additional US.  As always, your thoughts and opinions are appreciated.  Gipper

[Ken S]

Hi, Gipper,

I had the same thought and also purchased a second universal support bar.  I believe the idea has merit.  The theory seems sound. 

I suspect in the real world, we will eventually switch to doing most of our honing freehand.  The image of removing the training wheels from my grandson's bicycle comes to mind.  Until that time, however, consistent honing should help develop a good sense of what really sharp is.  I'm sure we will both find other uses for the second USB.

Ken

[GIPPER]

Thanks Ken S.
The theory, of course, is to change three variables to constants.  ie, protrusion, grinding, and honing.  The second USB will fix two variables.  Since my carving tools have short shanks, I can only have about a 45mm protrusion in the jig.  To fix that, I made a "spacer block" to fit inside the 55mm stop by Tomek on the TTS-100.  I made the "spacer block" exactly 10mm thick which gives me the resulting protrusion of 45mm.  That "fixes" the third variable, protrusion, or at least it should.
It's an interesting theory.  Waiting to receive my second USB.  Then comes "testing" the theory part.  Am I having fun yet? LOL.  Gipper

[Ken S]

Good idea, Gipper.  (at least in theory.....and theory does work sometimes)  I have been kicking around the idea of using the TTS-100 to set standard wheel distances for regular chisels and planes. I placed a piece of white tape inside one of the slots and marked the distances needed for different bevel angles.  I like your 10 mm spacer idea, less chance of measuring error.

I don't expect every idea to work, but I do believe these ideas are a way to push back the frontier of knowledge.

Keep up the experimentation.

Ken

[GIPPER]

I finally tested out the "theory" after receiving the second USB.  Turns out that there is a fourth variable that I did not account for.  There was also a big surprise that I'm yet to be able to explain.  That variable is the changing diameter of the Grindstone Wheel each time you grade from course to fine grit and cannot be changed to a constant.  For a given tool, the setting for Honing seems to be fairly constant.  However, if and when you need to regrind the tool, it is far better to start again, using the marker method, and reset the position of the USB relative to the existing tool bevel. Gipper

[Robbo]

Having a second USB can create another problem.

It means that you always have to sharpen the tool on the wheel with it coming towards the tool in the vertical mode.

This is fine for some tools but uncomfortable for others where you need to swing the handle.

[Jeff Farris]

I finally tested out the "theory" after receiving the second USB.  Turns out that there is a fourth variable that I did not account for.  There was also a big surprise that I'm yet to be able to explain.  That variable is the changing diameter of the Grindstone Wheel each time you grade from course to fine grit and cannot be changed to a constant.  For a given tool, the setting for Honing seems to be fairly constant.  However, if and when you need to regrind the tool, it is far better to start again, using the marker method, and reset the position of the USB relative to the existing tool bevel. Gipper

Everything in that statement is accurate except "...each time you grade from coarse to fine grit..."  The grading process removes very little grindstone. The grinding of the tool removes much more.

[GIPPER]

Having a second USB can create another problem.

It means that you always have to sharpen the tool on the wheel with it coming towards the tool in the vertical mode.

This is fine for some tools but uncomfortable for others where you need to swing the handle.

In the experiment, it is assumed that the USB#1 for grinding is removed from its position in the support sleeve, whether horizontal or vertical, after final grinding of the tool.  It is later re-inserted in its original position to repeat the grinding process.  Gipper

[GIPPER]

I finally tested out the "theory" after receiving the second USB.  Turns out that there is a fourth variable that I did not account for.  There was also a big surprise that I'm yet to be able to explain.  That variable is the changing diameter of the Grindstone Wheel each time you grade from course to fine grit and cannot be changed to a constant.  For a given tool, the setting for Honing seems to be fairly constant.  However, if and when you need to regrind the tool, it is far better to start again, using the marker method, and reset the position of the USB relative to the existing tool bevel. Gipper

Everything in that statement is accurate except "...each time you grade from coarse to fine grit..."  The grading process removes very little grindstone. The grinding of the tool removes much more.

Hi Jeff,
In a previous reply on a different thread, you stated that grading the stone from course to fine and back to course, would remove only about one-thousandth of an inch. (0.025mm) stone surface.  I find it may be substantially more. (individual technique will vary).  But the fact is, I think, that when a tool needs to be re-ground, fine grit or course grit, there will be a need to re-adjust the USB to match the existing bevel face based on the "marker method".  This is due in part, I believe, to the "fourth variable", wheel diameter.  In any case, I'm not going to make any conclusions until further "tests" are made.  I might add, this is part of the surprise I mentioned above; not all however.  Gipper