SVX-150 or SVD-110

[Swemek]

Hello!

I have a few questions on these accessories.

Both have this platform which i'm interested in, since it seem very versatile. It would let sharpen chisels, planar blades, scissors.

What i don't know is how well or bad planar blades is with a concave bevel? I'm currently using my works sharp belt sander for dito, which gives me a convex edge and that works great.


I could either go for the SVX-150 to get this platform, which of course will make scissor sharpeninig easier, or would you say that the SVD-110 is a better candidate when it comes to alround tasks on Tormek?

I know my question is a bit vauge, but if someone that has experience with both would care to elaborate, i would be thankful.


What i do know is, that i won't do very much scissors shapening, but rather giving my chisels a deasent edge.


Thanks!

[tgbto]

I'm not sure sharpening scissors with the SVD-110 would be easy, especially those with a narrow blade.

The SVX is really fine for scissors, I've never tried to use it instead of the SVD, as I'd worry about damaging the surface with a teflon (or similar) coating. You might get away with clamping a protective plate onto the SVX base jig though, in some cases.

[Ken S]

The two platforms have different primary functions. The SVX is really designed for scissors. The SVD is really designed for larger turning scrapers. For chisels and plane irons, the best choice is the SE-77.

I am confused by "concave edges". If you mean cambering edges on plane irons (grinding back the outer edges to eliminate "plane tracks"), the SE77 is the ideal choice, as the amount of camber can be carefully controlled. Before we had the SE-77, we used the SE76 and leaned on the corners. This produced cambered edges which, if not exact, were usually close enough.

For heavily cambered edges, as used in roughing planes or for initial rough use with a jack plane, the SE-77 does not have enough adjustability range. This is best handled by the SVD. As this is for initial rough work, exact edge shape is not critical.

The SVD is a good "all arounder". The SE is the first choice for chisels and plane irons. The SVX is the logical choice for scissors.

I would start with the SE. (Watch the online class with Stig for a great chisel alignment tip.) Eventually you will probably want all three jigs.

Keep us posted.

Ken

[tgbto]

I am confused by "concave edges". If you mean cambering edges on plane irons (grinding back the outer edges to eliminate "plane tracks"), the SE77 is the ideal choice, as the amount of camber can be carefully controlled. Before we had the SE-77, we used the SE76 and leaned on the corners. This produced cambered edges which, if not exact, were usually close enough.

The OP really is talking about a concave edge as in ground with a wheel instead of a plate (slightly convex edge) or a belt (more pronounced convexity depending on pressure and belt slack) :

What i don't know is how well or bad planar blades is with a concave bevel? I'm currently using my works sharp belt sander for dito, which gives me a convex edge and that works great.

In theory, convex blades have a tendency to skim/pull out, concave blades will dig in. I don't think you'll notice much of a difference in practice because the convexity will not be that pronounced over the thickness of the blade.

[Ken S]

Good point, TGB.

I remember "concave" or "hollow ground" edges from the early 1970s. They were quite the rage with woodworkers. Once the initial edge was ground, final sharpening and several resharpenings required only sharpening the apex and the very back of the bevel. This was quite a saving in sharpening time and labor.This predated the Tormek.

My 1972 vintage six inch Craftsman dry grinder is typical of grinders of that era. The hollow grind is easy to see and easier to see as the wheel wore down.
The larger ten inch (250mm) diameter Tormek wheels technically also produced a hollow grind, although the larger diameter made the very small hollow almost invisible. Also, the cool running water grind of the Tormek made the entire process possible under power.

In my opinion, and some will think differently, the concern about concave or hollow grinding is a leftover from the past.

Ken

[Swemek]

I am confused by "concave edges". If you mean cambering edges on plane irons (grinding back the outer edges to eliminate "plane tracks"), the SE77 is the ideal choice, as the amount of camber can be carefully controlled. Before we had the SE-77, we used the SE76 and leaned on the corners. This produced cambered edges which, if not exact, were usually close enough.

Thanks Tgbto!
Yes I should have used the term hollow grind, or is it "ground" (?), also a confusing term. Is it the same thing?
The OP really is talking about a concave edge as in ground with a wheel instead of a plate (slightly convex edge) or a belt (more pronounced convexity depending on pressure and belt slack) :

What i don't know is how well or bad planar blades is with a concave bevel? I'm currently using my works sharp belt sander for dito, which gives me a convex edge and that works great.

In theory, convex blades have a tendency to skim/pull out, concave blades will dig in. I don't think you'll notice much of a difference in practice because the convexity will not be that pronounced over the thickness of the blade.

Thank you, Ken. Yes that might be the case - me ending up with all the jigs one could get. But anything other than knifes I just sharpen for my self only and the results from the Work Sharp belt sander is absolutely good enough for my use. With Blade Grinding Attachment I get acceptable results on scissors without any jigs, so I thought I could apply the same technique on Tormnek.

But it's so nice to get rid of the noise and the metal dust from WS. Using the Tormek is calming and meditative