A Faster, More Repeatable Way to Set Up USB Height?

[Gilles]

BeSharp,

This is an interesting subject.

I had done my own USB and in order to avoid having a 11.8 mm screw thread in the guide, I have done the USB with only on a small length of thread. I use a pipe, and the screw to set up the right height.
In order to keep the USB parallel to the Tormek, I have done a screw thread on each leg, and I have done a mark on the 2 screws to keep the USB parallel.
I don't think it is as accurate as your system but the setup is probably easier.

As I use only stones, I can use the TT-50 Truing Tool to keep the USB parallel to the USB (and parallel to the Tormek front). This is why, the screw thread is so short. It allows me to use the truing tool while keeping the USB with the 12mm leg part in the guide.

However, this solution does not allow to use this USB in the horizontal position as the screw interfere with the knife jig. 

Regards

Gilles

[BeSharp]

That's awesome! Thanks for sharing!

[Ken S]

These methods of adjusting the support bar height seem clever to me. However, I may not be seeing something. I do not see the need for much height adjustment. The adjustment screw of the Tormek knife jigs allows for enough adjustment range to set a common Projection for most knives at 139mm (or 140mm). A consistent grinding angle (eg. 15°) would also make a consistent Distance. With constant diameter diamond or CBN wheels, these settings will not change. With conventional grinding wheels, the change will be gradual, and the Distance setting should be modified every five or ten millimeters of diameter loss.

If you prefer another angle setting to 15°, only the initial set up Distance will be modified. Unless you are using the marker method, how many angle settings do you need?

This may sound like a commercial for the kenjig. For the record, I have had no financial gain from the kenjig, nor do I plan to.

[BeSharp]

I agree, Ken. For most sharpeners, the Kenjig is the ideal next step up from the Tormek WM-200.

[Ken S]

Good comment, BeSharp. I agree. I originally designed the tool part of the kenjig because I was having difficulty seeing the small bevel of most knives. I never intended it to go toe to toe with something as sophisticated as the Knife Grinders technique. Adapting my desire for simple automation in setting to Dutchman's Grinding Tables was a hyper leap forward. I also agree with your "for most sharpeners". In my opinion, very few of us need to go beyond the "next step up". While I share in the fascination with very mathematically precise sharpening, my home kitchen knives do not require it. Nor do I think that most customers would be willing to pay a comensurate price for that level of sharpening.

That's where the kenjig concept comes in. It allows a Tormek to do a solid job of sharpening with a minimum of set up time. The time and mental energy can be focused on the actual sharpening, rather than the set up.

I enjoy trying to be precise as much as the next guy. I believe the pioneering work done by members of this forum will raise the general level of sharpness. I also realize that our knives do not require the precision of interchangeable parts. It doesn't matter if all four knives in the knife block have slightly different bevel angles, as long as they are all sharp.

Ken

[jvh]

Hello,

angle setter similar to TTS-100 is better solution for me than KenJig because is independent on wheel diameter. 

Note: This one is not mine, I show it for illustration only.

[Gilles]

Hi Ken,

I agree with you, home kitchen knives do not require so sharp edge... My wife cuts her fingers too much after my sharpening and I get yelled at! I hope it is not your case.
For me, better sharpening is more of a game. How sharp can I reach...

About my system, when you do your own USB, with a 12mm metal rod, after the classical screw thread, the rod is only 11.8 mm because I cannot do as well as Tormek. Therefore, a solution is to do the screw thread only on a short distance to keep the 12mm rod in the guide. Another solution can be to do screw tread on both legs and use two nuts. Having both solutions at the same time is probably not necessary as many other things can impact the accuracy of the sharpening.

The other things is I have done an excel sheet that compute the USB height while taking into account the thickness and the taper of the blade. And when I try to validate my calculation with practical exercises, I still have some differences.  So I try to remove as much as possible error in the sharpening angle. I do not have time actually to work on it, but I hope I could find my mistake one day...
Best regards

[Ken S]

I will try to reply to several good posts:

JVH, I agree, the TRS-100 is a more accurate tool. In fact, for my pre-kenjig work with chisels and plane blades, I used my TTS-100. In early posts with Jan, we recognized the value of the automatic diameter change compensation with the two metal wheels of the TTS-100. (As a side note, we can go directly from the 200 mm wheel of a T4 to a 250mm wheel of a T8 with ne need to compensate. To my simple mind, that is amazing.) I really hoped that Tormek might decide to make the setting jigs. They already had most of the CAD/CAM work done and a patent.

Jan converted a TTS-100 to a working setting jig, the first of several variations from forum members. One very happy consequence of this was the gift of two very nice jigs made by Mr. Livik of the Czech Republic on a 3D printer. Do you happen to know him, JVH?

I decided not to worry too much about diameter change. Diamond, CBN, and leather honing wheels don't wear down. For most of us, especially those who sharpen flat tools like knives, chisels and plane blades, a conventional grinding wheel will wear very slowly. Dutchman's tables were for every ten millimeters of diameter change. I forget whether it was Jan or Wootz who recommended using every five millimeters of change. That seems reasonable to me. Multiple kenjigs for different diameters are quick and easy to make or a single kenjig and modify it for diameter changes.

The three holes for different bevel angles seems clever; however, how many bevel angles do we really use?

Gilles,

I guesstimate the difference between 11.8mm and 12mm to be between two and three percent. Is that difference critical? As I understand it, Tormek uses its patented Torlock tapered locking surface on the sleeves. With careful technique, that should minimize out of parallel support bar problems.

While I appreciate your desire to keep parallel, I would miss having the horizontal option.

BeSharp,

Your rig is impressive. It seems just the ticket for high volume sharpeners.

Drilon,

Your use of a magnet to stabilize readings from the support bar to the frame certainly seems a step forward in obtaining stable, consistent readings.  I started out using the edge of the grinding wheel as my reference point. It doesn't vary between the 250 mm models and switching to a 200mm model just requires a few more minutes to make a second jig. I don't doubt that using the frame as the reference point also works; I have just never understood the need to switch.

I understand the fascination some of you have with very precise sharpening and innovation. I share that passion, even though my math background is limited.

Incidentally, my wife never complains about getting cut using the knives I sharpen; I do the cutting; she doesthe stove work.

Ken

[BeSharp]

These methods of adjusting the support bar height seem clever to me. However, I may not be seeing something. I do not see the need for much height adjustment. The adjustment screw of the Tormek knife jigs allows for enough adjustment range to set a common Projection for most knives at 139mm (or 140mm). A consistent grinding angle (eg. 15°) would also make a consistent Distance. With constant diameter diamond or CBN wheels, these settings will not change.

If you prefer another angle setting to 15°, only the initial set up Distance will be modified. Unless you are using the marker method, how many angle settings do you need?

Again, this is much more applicable for those who sharpen for a living. For example, here's what I had to deal with ithis week:

1) "normal" sharpening: 15 degrees, 140 mm.
2) A bunch of Shuns: 16 degrees, 140mm
3) machete: 20 degrees, 150mm
4) cleaver #1 (for vegetables): 15 degrees, 180mm
5) cleaver #2 (for bones): 20 degrees, 180mm
6) cleaver #3 - repair; very high blade (20 degrees, 190mm)
7) ESEE folding knife: 25 degrees, 140mm (blade is very thick - if I ground it at a lower angle, the bevels would "ride up" on the knife edges - so I had to sharpen at factory angles)
Globals at 12 degrees, 140mm (Japanese sushi restaurant)
9) Global bird's beak knife (curved blade; have to use pivot collar): 130mm
10) Serrated bread knives: 28 degrees, 140mm

As you can see, that's 6 different angles and 5 different projection distances. Add to that different de-burring angles for a felt wheel (+2 degrees for most, but +.6 for Globals), and calculating for 4 different machines (T7, T8, PowerFist buffer, Rikon buffer), and you can see why I developed this way to quickly change USB settings.

[Ken S]

BeSharp,

I see your point. Your sharpening world is much more complex than mine. I sharpen only for myself. 15° per side suits me, although as long as my knives are sharp, I'm not too fussy about the exact angle.

One of the things I appreciate about the Tormek is the versatility to handle many needs and expectations. Carry on and please continue to share your evolving methods. Sharing is how we all grow.

Ken

[jvh]

...
As you can see, that's 6 different angles and 5 different projection distances. Add to that different de-burring angles for a felt wheel (+2 degrees for most, but +.6 for Globals), and calculating for 4 different machines (T7, T8, PowerFist buffer, Rikon buffer), and you can see why I developed this way to quickly change USB settings.

Hello,

I like your idea - height setting is quick and precise.

...
3) Speed - moving the caliper to the desired measurement takes time. My iGaging calipers have what they call "Absolute Origin" - they remember where they are even after shutting off. This helps, but I wanted better.
...
I use Australian software. All three (Grinding, Frontal Vertical Base, and Paper Wheel) calculate the USB height to the USB's top.

But if speed is so important for you why you use three applets + a lot of calculation when is possible to calculate all in one go?


jvh

[BeSharp]

Jvh, your TormekCalc is awesome. It's great that Tormek allows innovators like you and others to share their stuff which improves their Tormek experience.

Everyone's needs are different. I picked a path that I felt best suits my business needs. What I chose may well be totally wrong for others. There is no best path for everyone.

[Fluehue]

Jvh, your TormekCalc is awesome. It's great that Tormek allows innovators like you and others to share their stuff which improves their Tormek experience.

Everyone's needs are different. I picked a path that I felt best suits my business needs. What I chose may well be totally wrong for others. There is no best path for everyone.

I really love to see that it's not just me that are completely hung up on 1/100mm. But my question is this. If you use the software from KnifeGrinders. The machine measurements are preloaded into the software. We know that not all Tormeks are manufactured within 1/10mm of each other. So even if you get every measurement 100% it is probably wrong since your machine is not the same as Knife Grinders machines.

But for some odd reason the software works very well, so does Tormek Calc.

So my question is this. How important is 0.1mm?

PS. Not being critical in any way, I really wonder since this is driving me batshit crazy from time to time :p

[BeSharp]

You're correct, there will obviously be variances between individual Tormeks. Only Tormek knows what tolerances their machines are built to (I vaguely recall a Tormek factory video showing it using Mitutoyo measuring equipment). Tormek also claims their T8's zinc body casting is "more accurate" than their T7, although I have a feeling that is more about the old XB-100 possibly being mounted skewed.

So we are forced to assume all machine measurements are the same, and that the machine top is perfectly parallel with the drive shaft. But errors are often cumulative (if you're really lucky, they could cancel each other out). So it's best to be as accurate as possible.

Some of KnifeGrinder's protocols involves decreasing the honing angle by .1 degree. That's why I analyzed whether a 1/64" step variation in drill bit sizes is sufficiently "fine" enough for that. I showed that it isn't. (For the record, I don't bother with the minus .1 degree step either).

It's a compromise between time, sharpness/edge retention, and equipment cost. I'm just trying to show a compromise between the three that fitted MY needs (under 5 minutes per knife / long edge retention (not ultimate sharpness)/ $50 investment).

[cbwx34]

I really love to see that it's not just me that are completely hung up on 1/100mm. But my question is this. If you use the software from KnifeGrinders. The machine measurements are preloaded into the software. We know that not all Tormeks are manufactured within 1/10mm of each other. So even if you get every measurement 100% it is probably wrong since your machine is not the same as Knife Grinders machines.

But for some odd reason the software works very well, so does Tormek Calc.

So my question is this. How important is 0.1mm?

PS. Not being critical in any way, I really wonder since this is driving me batshit crazy from time to time :p

The software "works well"... or to put it another way, you get sharp knives, more because of the consistency, vs. being "0.1mm" (or ".1°") accuracy.

So, don't let it drive you crazy... it's been demonstrated before that the claimed accuracy simply isn't there.  But, paying attention to the finer points will lead to increased sharpness... if that makes sense.