Making the KJ-45 and the KS-123 more efficient

[Ken S]

I have heard the KJ-45 criticized because, unlike the earlier SVM-45, the end stop is not adjustable. While this is true, it is possible to minimize this. I have also heard that there may be too much play in the support bar. My suggestion may also minimize this, also.

In one of the online classes, Wolfgang states his preference for using the microadjust to raise the support bar instead of lowering it. Raising the support bar keeps the microadjust under constant, consistent tension. This is more controllable than having to tap the support bar when lowering the support bar.

My plan is to only adjust the height of the support bar in one direction, raising it with constant tension.

Let us take the hypothetical of half a dozen to a dozen knives of different widths to be sharpened. These knives are of various sizes, the key variable being the width of the knives. Lay out the knives from the narrowest width to the widest.


Place the narrowest knife in the KJ-45 and set it up with the KS-123. Sharpen the knife. Then set up to hone, either freehand or with a separate support bar and a FVB. Hone the knife before removing it from the jig.


Place the next widest knife in the jig. raise the support bar carefully until this knife is properly set, using one directional raising only. This procedure will insure minimum setting movement and maximum accuracy. Set up the honing support bar the same way.

Some thoughts:
This method works most efficiently if all the knives are ground to the same bevel angle. However, changing the bevel angles is certainly possible, with only a bit more work.

This procedure is based upon several ideas from both forum members and Tormek staff. I make no claim on originality. I also do not consider it a completed procedure. I welcome comments and suggestions. I realize that with the variety in knives that an ideal technique may vary for different kinds and sizes of knives. Included techniques may probably include different knife jigs and calculators. The volume of sharpening will also effect the choice of techniques.

Ken

[John Hancock Sr]

Let us take the hypothetical of half a dozen to a dozen knives of different widths to be sharpened. These knives are of various sizes, the key variable being the width of the knives. Lay out the knives from the narrowest width to the widest.


Place the narrowest knife in the KJ-45 and set it up with the KS-123. Sharpen the knife. Then set up to hone, either freehand or with a separate support bar and a FVB. Hone the knife before removing it from the jig.

This is in fact what I do. I can say without fear of contradiction that this speeds the process considerably.

[Ken S]

John,

Great minds think alike!

Ken

[RichColvin]

The more I use the KJ-45, the more I like it.  I especially like the bottom stop as it makes sharpening certain tools (such as a Japanese weeding sickle) much easier than it was. 

[Dutchman]

In order to be able to hone in a controlled manner without any problems, the stone must be removed. This makes the proposed method cumbersome and time-consuming.
That's why I use the "old-fashioned" jigs with adjustable stop. Then you also replace the repeated use of the KS-123 with a setting of the protrusion (which is also part of the KS-123 adjustment).
Keep it simple, ask for an adjustable stop.

[cbwx34]

I guess I was lucky in that I never went down the "using the adjustable stop" path to set the angle.  I always made the adjustment using the Micro Adjust.  So adapting to the KJ-45 from that aspect wasn't an issue.

I made a "simplified version" of jvh's "BatchCalc", in Calcapp (I called it "Quick Adjust Calc").  It allows me to use the MicroAdjust to quickly adjust between knives, adjusting for Projection Distance and/or Angle changes, without using a measuring device each time.

While I think it's good to be aware that the USB can "hang" when being lowered, I don't feel the need to base my sharpening on this.  BTW, it's also recommended in the instructions to set the angle with the KS-123 only by raising the USB height.  (I don't know if any of this has anything to do with "play in the support bar" that's been talked about).

You cannot view this attachment.

When I feel the "need for speed" I use the "Quick Adjust" calculator, and then I hone freehand, which is not only faster, but I can angle the knife if needed, and avoid removing the sharpening wheel.  (Or use an alternate method than the leather/composite wheel to debur.)

Not saying any of the above posts are wrong, just giving a perspective from someone who never used the adjustable stop collar.

[Ken S]

Good posts. I certainly never intended to imply that what I posted was the best or the only method. My intention was to initiate a forum discussion. Those of you who have followed the forum long enough may remember when I first posted the kenjig around ten years ago. It was based on Dutchman's tables. Several improved jigs based on it soon appeared and soon after several apps. These went far beyond my simple ideas. I hope this discussion may evolve the same way.

I have always been puzzled by both the online classes and Wootz' videos. In both cases, they address the set up very well for single knives. From an instructional standpoint, I see the value of more intensely focusing on a single knife for simplicity. I also think that the single knife only approach does a disservice to viewers who may have multiple or many knives to sharpen in a limited period of time. Whether the method is using the Anglemaster, the black marker, or an applet, restarting at square zero for each knife seems very time inefficient to me.

I don't know the Tormek technique for sharpening many knives. I did notice that many of the single knives shown in Wootz' videos had a Projection of 140mm. That would indicate him having an organized plan to me. If any of you know about such a plan, please post it.

Regarding the preference for adjusting he microadjust by raising, that is a well known machine shop and woodworking practice. Adjustment screws, whether in machines like metal lathes or woodworking bench planes, have a small amount of slop in the threads. It is good practice to turn the knobs slightly to take up the slack before making precise adjustments. In the case of the support bar threads, this means making adjustments by raising the support bar. This keeps the threads under tension. Tormek is quite correct in stating this preference. Unfortunately, they have not explained why.


Tormek prefers one jig per function geared to handle the majority of tools. This works very well for the majority of tools or knives. Unfortunately, not all knives or tools the sharpener in the field fall into this comfortable majority category. As such, I believe the resourceful sharpener should have several jigs and techniques in his bag of tricks. For thick knives which fall outside the range of the SVM-45, using the KJ-45 seems the logical choice. For knives within the SVM-45 thickness range, especially for multiple knives, the SVM-45 seems the choice, especially those made before 2002 with longer threaded shafts.

Yes, a KJ-45 with adjustable end stop would be the ideal jig. However, we do not presently have that option, so we must devise workarounds.

Ken

[Sir Amwell]

Good posts. I certainly never intended to imply that what I posted was the best or the only method. My intention was to initiate a forum discussion. Those of you who have followed the forum long enough may remember when I first posted the kenjig around ten years ago. It was based on Dutchman's tables. Several improved jigs based on it soon appeared and soon after several apps. These went far beyond my simple ideas. I hope this discussion may evolve the same way.

I have always been puzzled by both the online classes and Wootz' videos. In both cases, they address the set up very well for single knives. From an instructional standpoint, I see the value of more intensely focusing on a single knife for simplicity. I also think that the single knife only approach does a disservice to viewers who may have multiple or many knives to sharpen in a limited period of time. Whether the method is using the Anglemaster, the black marker, or an applet, restarting at square zero for each knife seems very time inefficient to me.

I don't know the Tormek technique for sharpening many knives. I did notice that many of the single knives shown in Wootz' videos had a Projection of 140mm. That would indicate him having an organized plan to me. If any of you know about such a plan, please post it.

Regarding the preference for adjusting he microadjust by raising, that is a well known machine shop and woodworking practice. Adjustment screws, whether in machines like metal lathes or woodworking bench planes, have a small amount of slop in the threads. It is good practice to turn the knobs slightly to take up the slack before making precise adjustments. In the case of the support bar threads, this means making adjustments by raising the support bar. This keeps the threads under tension. Tormek is quite correct in stating this preference. Unfortunately, they have not explained why.


Tormek prefers one jig per function geared to handle the majority of tools. This works very well for the majority of tools or knives. Unfortunately, not all knives or tools the sharpener in the field fall into this comfortable majority category. As such, I believe the resourceful sharpener should have several jigs and techniques in his bag of tricks. For thick knives which fall outside the range of the SVM-45, using the KJ-45 seems the logical choice. For knives within the SVM-45 thickness range, especially for multiple knives, the SVM-45 seems the choice, especially those made before 2002 with longer threaded shafts.

Yes, a KJ-45 with adjustable end stop would be the ideal jig. However, we do not presently have that option, so we must devise workarounds.

Ken

Here's the thing Ken.
First up Dutchman's comment: "keep it simple, add an adjustable stop to the KJ45"
Please do this Tormek.

Secondly regarding the single knife approach as opposed to batch sharpening.
The new KS123 combined with the newish KJ45 is great for single knives. No calculator or measuring instruments required. But for batch sharpening it's a time waster.
Most kitchen knives can be jigged up in the old SVM jigs (I have 9 of them) and then with the help of a homemade jig, set to one projection distance (I use 139mm).
Then using a USB with a stop imposed on it ( I use a lockable sleeve) to a set height for whatever angle you like ( mine is set for 15degrees per side for a 139mm projection), you are 'batch ready'.
For those 9 knives there is no adjustment needed only changing stones.
This is repeatable for honing on a FVB with the leather wheel with a similar USB with a stop on it.
This is a great time saver and removes any 'faff'.
As you will appreciate THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH AN ADJUSTABLE STOP, in order to set all those jigged up knives to a constant projection.

I find the KS123/KJ45 just fine for all other knives that fall outside this bracket or want different angles etc.

So I am still clamouring for the KJ 45 to have an adjustable stop.

[Ken S]

Sir Amwell,

You are preaching to the choir; I agree with you. Shortly after Dutchman posted his grinding tables in 2013, I developed and posted my kenjig. It was designed to use one Projection and one Distance. I also standardized on 15° per side bevels. I believe I was the first to recommend 139mm Projection. 139mm was in the middle of the adjustment range. (140mm, as used later by some, was essentially the same thing.) In hindsight, there were some problems with my original posting. For paring knives, I used the SVM-45 with the SVM-00. This always seemed clumsy to me; however, I did not realize the better solution until years later. I used the
SVM-140 for chef knives, which works fine. I also used the out of production
SVM-100 for slicing knives. I was able to preset the end stops of these three jigs to handle all of my kitchen knives. The range of the jigs fine tuned the Projection to 139mm. I scribed a pencil line on the kenjig at 139mm and matched the edge of my knives to that line.

At the time I did not realize that my old SVM-100 jig had a much longer adjustment range than jigs made after 2002. That also meant that pre 2002 SVM jigs also had the longer thread range. This made it possible to eliminate the SVM-00.

I suspect the non adjustable will be adequate for the average user, who will also appreciate the low cost. Before the KJ-45 was introduced, I expected that any new self centering jig would cost twice as much. The more expensive jig would be appreciated by a smaller audience. Will we eventually see an adjustable, self centering knife jig? If so, will it be from Tormek? I don't know. Until then, the KJ-45 suffices for my low volume sharpening. If I had more volume, I could cover the waterfront with a combination of SVM-45s and a KJ-45.

Ken

[tgbto]

I could not agree more with the need for an adjustable stop. The self centering feature is good... for about one knife out of the 20+ I use on a regular basis.

I'd trade the bottom stop any time for the adjustability (the adjustability range can easily be made so that it would allow sharpening weeding sickles, as well as much narrower blades). I use the SVMs much more than the KJ, but more often than not, the bottom stop catches when I switch sides, and I passionately hate that. Sure, it would probably go away if I used it more, but it's a PITA to me still.

The way I do things now with the KS-123 : I set my knives up in the jigs the way I did  before, so they all have the same protrusion distance, then I set up my VUSB and FUSB with the KS-123, and off I go.

[Ken S]

Tgbto,

Over the years, I cut up several platform jigs converting them into small platform jigs. It was a valiant, but not very successful effort. The platform of the scissors jig works better. The jig from the T2 if modified would work even better. CB posted his design for one several years ago. Please note, the original large platform works better for its intended purpose, tools like woodturning scrapers and cabinet scrapers. My point is that jigs can sometimes be modified if needed. Common sense safety restraint is needed.Also, not every modification will be successful and I do not expect Tormek to honor the warranty on jigs I modify.

If the bottom stop seems to be a PITA to you, why not remove it? I have thought of doing that with mine. While the bottom stop can be used for sharpening cleavers, in my opinion, the longer and taller US-430 is the preferred tool for this. It is also preferred for longer knives. I have intentions to try convexing someday, although none of my knives seem to demand it. If I needed to convex an edge, a second unmodified KJ is not that expensive.

I suspect Tormek determined that the $50 USD KJ-45 would satisfy the majority of users. I should note that the adjustable stop, single Projection technique works most efficiently with a minimum of three jigs in order to circumvent individual knife adjustments, an added expense. This would further shrink a smaller buying pool. Some users, like me, would prefer a longer thread range, and a shaft with finer threads (preferably still Acme threads secured with a locking screw). The jig gets more expensive.

I have not given up hope. To its credit, Tormek brought back the US-400 and even modified it to the taller and more useful US-430. This jig is useful only to knife sharpeners who sharpeners who work with longer knives, a small part of the Tormek users. The price is twice the cost of the standard support bar. Perhaps we eventually see an adjustable self centering knife jig.

Ken

[tgbto]

Ken,

Two additional jigs might be an additional expense, but at least people would get to choose. And out of curiosity, can you find receipts or emails so we can compare how much cheaper the SVM-45 were compared to the SVM-100 when the shaft was shortened ?

As for modifying a KJ, I don't feel like machining plastic, and I fear the risks (like not ending up with a smooth shaft) make it not worth the trouble.

Wrt the US-430 I respectfully disagree with the statement that

This jig is useful only to knife sharpeners who sharpeners who work with longer knives, a small part of the Tormek users

as it allows for much more leeway in terms of clamping position. So it is also very useful for knives with a pronounced curvature, or when wanting to adjust for the sweetest lifting/pivoting movement.
I'd be curious to know how many readers of the "knife sharpening" forum don't own the US-430. Keeping in mind that the Knife forum represents about 70% of all posts among the specialty forums, and more than six times the number of posts of the wood turning forum, I think this is a significant part of the Tormek user base.

[Ken S]

Tgbto,

I agree with you. I purchased my SVM-100 and both of my early SVM-45s used on ebay several years ago. As I recall, they were priced close to the cost of a new SVM-45. At the time, I was getting ready to take my jig to the local machine shop for shaft modification when our Ohio Governor ordered the Covid lockdown. At that point, I discovered that the SVM was longer than my other jigs. I sent a comparative photo to support and learned that until 2002, both jigs were longer. I would sent messages to the ebay sellers if their jigs were six or eight inches. The eight inch length jigs are the pre 2002 models. They are occasionally available on ebay. I found two in fairly short order.

Tormek made the design change because some users were leaning on the longer jigs. Don't lean on your longer jigs! one each of SVM-45 and 100 will suffice.

Incidentally, the SVM-140 was originally only available in Europe. Then, Jeff Farris, the US agent was talking with Steve Bottorff. Steve expressed an interest in the SVM-140. The rest is history.

I should have written that the longer jig is "primarily of interest to those who sharpen longer knives" and that Tormek is realizing the importance of knife sharpeners to the Tormek community. Evidence of this is the emergence of the T2,T1, KJ jigs and the KS123.

I am curious to see the resultsof your poll.

Ken

[tgbto]

During this weekend's sharpening session, I noticed something that either wasn't happening before, or that I had failed to notice : when moving the USB up, the KS-123 wouldn't move in a continuous fashion, but rather by small increments. Which led me to suspect that the static friction coefficient at the middle reference leg was too high.

I did some testing, and noticed that if I moved the needle by hand, with the KS-123 still snapped to the USB and the three contact points on the wheel, I could get it to give readings that could vary by almost 1.5dps.

So I ended up taking the KS-123 apart, and lubricating the contact area between the black plastic cylinder and its metal housing. It improved the situation.

[3D Anvil]

During this weekend's sharpening session, I noticed something that either wasn't happening before, or that I had failed to notice : when moving the USB up, the KS-123 wouldn't move in a continuous fashion, but rather by small increments. Which led me to suspect that the static friction coefficient at the middle reference leg was too high.

I did some testing, and noticed that if I moved the needle by hand, with the KS-123 still snapped to the USB and the three contact points on the wheel, I could get it to give readings that could vary by almost 1.5dps.

So I ended up taking the KS-123 apart, and lubricating the contact area between the black plastic cylinder and its metal housing. It improved the situation.

I have a less elegant solution.  I just pick up the three guide bars and plop them back down on the stone every time I turn the micro adjuster.